Committee on Finance. - Industrial Development Bill, 1969: Committee Stage. – Dáil Éireann (19th Dáil) – Thursday, 11 Dec 1969

Committee on Finance. - Industrial Development Bill, 1969: Committee Stage.

Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill".

Dr. FitzGerald

I want to ask the Minister if he would say whether in section 6 (1) (c) the power to declare various designated areas by order is, in fact, the power referred to in subsection (b), that is under section 3 of the Act of 1952 or is it some other power?

This Act applies to each of the following areas:

(a) the congested areas,

(b) any other area to which, by order of the Minister, the Act is for the time being declared to apply.

I find it difficult to understand the need for any extension of that power. Is seems to me to cover every possible contingency.

Mr. Colley

I was advised there was some legal doubt, not much but some little legal doubt, about that in the past and I think this section, as drafted, would remove any possible doubt.

Mr. Corish

(a) the congested areas as defined in section 3 of the Act of 1952,

If it is not defective in that respect, can the Minister say in what respect it is defective so that is is necessary to retain section 3 (1) of the Undeveloped Areas Act? He has offered no explanation of that. Can the Minister say in plain English why he wants section 3 (1) retained? What does the retention of section 3 (1) do that is not done by section 6 (1) (a) and (b) of the Bill before us? That is a straight question. Perhaps a straight answer would help us to get on with things.

Mr. E. Collins

The Minister will agree that it will be very difficult to specify an area as a designated area for a certain period. I should like to know from the Minister what yardstick he intends to use to specify an area as a designated area or a designated area as an area not designated. How will he specify the period for which an area is to be a designated area?

Mr. Colley

Gaeltarra Éireann's powers are largely similar to those of the IDA; they are not exactly the same. To some extent they are broader but in substance they are the same powers. However, Gaeltarra Éireann's powers can be exercised only within the Gaeltacht areas. There is co-ordination between Gaeltarra Éireann and the IDA. In fact, what happens is that the IDA advise Gaeltarra Éireann on projects which are assessed and have to be of course in relation to the possibility that there might be similar projects in the pipeline of the IDA. This would mean they would have to make up their minds which one they would go for. Administratively, there is very full co-ordination and co-operation between the two bodies but it is possible, and indeed it happens on occasions, that somebody might wish to obtain a grant in the Gaeltacht areas but would not be willing to comply with all the conditions imposed by Gaeltarra Éireann some of which include requirements in relation to the use of the Irish language. Somebody might wish to obtain a grant but not to comply with these conditions in which case he would be entitled to deal with the IDA but could not deal with Gaeltarra Éireann.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I should like to ask——

I should like the Minister to state his attitude to the Irish National Productivity Committee. Under section 11 (1) the IDA is the body with national responsibility for the furtherance of industrial development and in that context it could be meant to include the INPC, which is a move I would not agree with. Section 11 (3) deals with industrial estates. At the moment, at least, in Waterford they are catering for a small specialised type of firm. I should like the Minister to state if he would be favourably disposed to the establishment of heavier types of industry in these industrial estates. Section 11 (4) comes into conflict with the objectives of the National Building Agency. The National Building Agency is properly financed and well equipped to provide houses for employees on industrial estates.

Mr. Colley

On the first point, it is clear that the IDA is the body which must have national responsibility for the furtherance of industrial development. It may be true in one sense to say that the INPC is a body concerned with industrial development, but in the same sense this could be said of numerous bodies in this country such as work study associations. I do not think there is any problem here as far as the INPC is concerned. I do not think anybody could quarrel with the statement that the IDA is the body having national responsibility for the furtherance of industrial development.

With regard to the second point raised by Deputy Collins I would not say that heavy industry is excluded from industrial estates. In practice it has been found that the kind of industries which tend to be attracted to industrial estates are the somewhat lighter industries. Of course, if a heavy industry wishes to locate, for instance, in Waterford, it is not essential that it should locate on the industrial estate. In general I think we can assume that lighter industries tend to locate on industrial estates.

What is happening to the National Building Agency, as I think I mentioned on Second Reading of the Bill, is that the building of houses by the IDA, except in most exceptional circumstances, will be carried out by the National Building Agency as agents for the IDA. This is being done in Galway on behalf of An Foras Tionscal which is being merged with the IDA under this Bill.

Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill".

Dr. FitzGerald

I am puzzled by this section. I do not understand how it is intended to operate or what it is intended to do. I had thought that the purpose of it was, or would be, to enable the IDA to be regionalised in its activities and to provide authority for this but, in fact, it is not what it says. What it says seems to be almost meaningless in its generality:

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.

Now, I would gather from the fact that the clear distinction between designated areas and others is maintained in this Bill that this does not mean the authority can give out grants other than the different grants that are given in designated areas so that, whatever this means, it does not mean more money for some areas other than those covered by designated areas; and the Minister could hardly use this clause to get behind that particular power and to provide, say, the 40 per cent grants in a non-designated area.

What I should like to ask the Minister is: What does it mean? Is it simply general waffle or is it intended to enable someone to do something he could not otherwise do legally? It seems to me in its present form an odd kind of section to have in the Bill; there may be some good reason for it which I do not understand. I would hope the Bill would contain specific provision to regionalise the IDA so that it would, in fact, be developed in its internal functions into a series of regional offices with considerable autonomy. I have raised this point before in regard to the obvious success of SFADCO and the extent to which its success is attributable to the fact that it is an autonomous body and could undertake its own activities in promotion as well as in the development of a particular area.

I recognise, of course, it would be unsound to have a number of different bodies carrying on industrial promotion abroad without being co-ordinated nationally, but that, of course, is not a great problem because SFADCO's promotional efforts are at present co-ordinated with the IDA and that does not, therefore, seem to me to be a reason against autonomous bodies similar to SFADCO carrying out these functions in order to encourage regional development. These autonomous bodies would not, of course, supplant the IDA with its essential core of expertise—indeed, they have considerable expertise which it would be too expensive and impossible to duplicate at a regional level. I quite see that, but it seems to me that this clause in this connection may be intended in some vague way to encourage the IDA to regionalise.

Now, first of all, I am not sure that it does that. I cannot see that it has any practical effect whatever. Secondly, even if it does have some such effect, I would regard it as inadequate because it still would not give to other regions in the country, other than the mid-west, the same kinds of advantages the mid-west region has through the activities of this remarkably successful organisation, the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, whose function the Minister very properly centred in the mid-west some time ago with, I think, considerable success. The Minister is, I am sure, even more familar then I am with the plans that SFADCO prepared for this region and I must say that when I read them— I read them carefully because I have a particular interest in that area and in Shannon Airport in particular—I was struck by the care and thoroughness with which the plans were prepared and the manner in which SFADCO and the authority had sought to balance, on the one had, the requirement of the clear desirability of having industrial development throughout that region with, on the other hand, the importance of developing a particular centre on quite a large scale.

It seems to me that a remarkably fine balance was maintained between these two requirements and, indeed, many of the arguments that might develop, but did not seem to have got going, on the Buchanan Report are potentially answered by the SFADCO plan because I am afraid—I may be partly responsible for this—the Buchanan Report is being discussed in much too black and white terms. I have myself been discussing it in too black and white terms, but that is because I am responding to a very black and white discussion. The discussion seems to be all black at the moment as far as the Buchanan Report is concerned, and blacking it out.

I think that the whole problem has been oversimplified. It has been put into too simple terms of black and white and a polarisation of attitudes is taking place, which is unfortunate. I believe that, in fact, the way in which to develop the hinterlands of the main centres of this country is to develop a growth centre and satellite towns around it. I believe that the SFADCO plans—I hope they are developing favourably—show this in operation and therefore their plans for the mid-west region will secure not just Shannon and Limerick but that each part of the region will secure industrial development of a magnitude appropriate to the employment of each part of the region and without prejudice to the development of major facilities in the key centres of the region, Limerick and Shannon itself. I think this is an excellent example of how this whole problem of regional development should be tackled in a manner which will not undermine in any way rural Ireland but will, on the contrary, build it up, and build it up not just in the major centres but build it up in the hinterland of these centres.

Mr. Carter

The Deputy left out Ennis.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am not leaving out Ennis at all, but the designated major centres are Limerick and Shannon. Now, a great many other places are, as I said, being built up. What is so satisfactory in the SFADCO plan is the manner in which it provides for industrial development, not just in Limerick and Shannon, but in, as Deputy Carter properly said, Ennis and in other centres ranging right down as far as Newcastle West in Limerick, with an appropriate magnitude of satisfactory development in each area.

While some people may be sceptical as to whether these plans will work out and as to whether all these factories will be built and all be filled with industry, my own belief is that this body has shown itself so efficient in the promotion of industry and the development of industrial estates, and has shown itself, so far, well able to secure the industrial development required to build whatever factory space it is given money to build, that I am reasonably confident that its efforts to secure industrial development throughout the region will, in fact, succeed. This seems to be the proper approach.

I am not happy with the fact that the Government have set their face against any extension of this experiment and that, throughout the last couple of years when these issues come under discussion, they have insisted that everyone else must be organised centrally by the IDA. It is not that I feel it is not a function for a centralised IDA. On the contrary, there are many specialised functions which it would be impossible, and impossibly expensive, to duplicate in each region; but what it is not impossible to do, and what it is not impossibly expensive to do, is to duplicate the activities of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company in each region. I simply refuse to believe that what has been successfully done in one region cannot be done anywhere else. There is no reason why that effort should not succeed elsewhere.

That region has, of course, the advantage of the Shannon Airport. This has meant that in one particular centre a particular pattern of development is possible, a pattern which will not be possible in other areas which have not got an airport. But the fact remains that that body has shown by its method of operating the enormous advantages of autonomous bodies staffed by people with a commitment to development in that area and which are, at the same time, remarkably co-ordinated nationally to ensure they do not duplicate each other's efforts and that they do not in any way compete with each other abroad in a manner that would, perhaps, be selfdefeating. I do not understand why the Minister and his Department have set their face against further developments of this kind. I am not satisfied with the proposal that the IDA should be simply regionalised and I am particularly dissatisfied with the fact that if this is the long-awaited and, might I say, trumpeted regionalisation of the IDA, if that is what this section is meant to convey, it seems singularly ineffective for that purpose.

It does not speak in those terms at all. It says that 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. I do not know if that means anything in practice but it does not mean that the IDA will be regionalised with regional offices. If the IDA are to have regional offices this is something they will do under their general powers which do not confine them to an office in Dublin and do not lay down any restrictions as to the manner in which the authority is to be organised. It is in the exercise of that general function that they will, perhaps, set about developing on a regional basis. I do not think this section helps in that direction. If it does, if it has some hidden meaning that I have missed, I shall be glad if the Minister will tell me what particular actions by anybody will be made legal by this section that would not otherwise be legal. Perhaps there is some reason for this clause and it is not the window dressing that it appears to be at first sight. I should like to be told what particular functions are involved.

I should like to press the Minister again to reconsider his restrictive centralised attitude to industrial development and indeed to the general problem of national development. There is a real conflict in the Government's stated attitude—by that I do not wish to suggest that the Government do not genuinely feel their stated anxiety, which I believe to be real—to secure development throughout the country and not just in Dublin on the one hand, and the practical effect of the way in which the Government organises its administration. I am certainly not getting involved here with decentralisation of Government Departments, which is quite irrelevant; but the whole of the Government's attitude on this seems to be rather one of promising to do a couple of spectacular things of that kind but not in fact devolving authority at any level and not encouraging autonomous development in the regions but keeping everything centrally controlled.

There is, it seems to me, a fairly basic difference in philosophy between this side of the House and the Government, a difference that has not emerged very clearly because it has been rather fudged by arguments on the Government side. Yet, I believe it is there. We must judge not by what people say but by what they do; and what the Government have done and are doing in this Bill is to maintain a position in which, but for this one exception which somehow escaped through the net the Government set up to prevent regional development, I would almost say, everything else is to be organised centrally. SFADCO was the one that got away. It is there; it cannot be suppressed; let it continue to do its job but let us not have any more successes of this kind.

I do not understand this attitude. I know SFADCO arose from a particular situation. It would not have happened but for the airport. Much of the development there, however, has been independent of that and I think the development that has occurred is of such a character as to show pretty clearly that it is possible for a body of this kind, even if it had not got an airport, to do a particularly useful job locally which will not be done in the same way, with the same energy, skill and devotion and in particular the local patriotism, which is important in these matters. It will not be done in the same way by the IDA as by a regional body.

I address myself more particularly than usually, perhaps, to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in making these particular references and I suggest to the Minister that, first, he should explain to us what this section does and, secondly, that he should show himself prepared to reconsider this attitude of over-centralisation and not only to have regional offices of the IDA but to create them on such a basis of local autonomy that they would generate the same kind of local enthusiasm and patriotism which SFADCO has done. SFADCO is peculiar because of its amalgamation of regional identity on the one hand and professionalism on the other. In this country there are thousands of amateurs in industrial development. Every town and village is full of enthusiasts for industrial development and many of them are doing a very good job within the limits of amateur effort, preparing brochures and sending them out. Some of them do, as a result of their efforts, amateur though they are, attract industry but they cannot do it on the same scale or in the same way, and cannot make the same impact as a highly professional body like SFADCO.

What is peculiar to SFADCO is that it has this regional identity and is yet professional. It is unique in this. I think that if we are to have a genuine regional development, if the different parts of the country are to secure the rate of development required not only to keep up with Dublin but to catch up with Dublin, pass out Dublin and leave it in the shade, it will need something more than regional offices for the IDA, something more on the lines of SFADCO.

Mr. Cunningham

I hope that section 12 will mean that the Industrial Development Authority will have offices in provincial areas and in some of the larger towns, especially in the west of Ireland. I think this is necessary because it inhibits an industrialist in the west if he has to come to Dublin quite often, with the waste of time and expense involved, to discuss matters which could be settled initially locally or at least in the general area of the provincial or county towns. I should like the Minister to say if this is his intention.

I should like clarification of regionalisation because I think you cannot have very many large areas like Shannon scattered along the west coast. This would not be advisable. In some of the county development plans the planning authorities have opted for dispersed growth rather than centralised growth and in the nature of things I believe that the type of industry that will most benefit the west of Ireland generally is the smaller type in which transport costs would not be high. I suggest that rather than have large regionalisation we should have dispersed regionalisation with an IDA centre suitably located to cater for an area such as this. Many towns in the west have the services necessary for industry; they have surplus housing, water and sewerage services. There are fairly decent roads into these towns. In Dublin industrial development has outstripped the progress in housing and other services. At the moment the Minister and the Government might well consider a moratorium whereby the services in Dublin would be allowed to catch up on industrial development there because this development is adding to the other problems existing there. The regionalisation mentioned in section 12 would help to relieve the situation in Dublin and help to develop the west. Another Minister has indicated new policies in connection with land and the type of farming he would envisage which would be part farming and part industrial work. I think this section will give an opportunity for this sort of development. I should like the Minister to clarify these points.

Mr. Carter

I think Deputy FitzGerald would agree that when he cites SFADCO it would be very hard to find a position now or in the near or even the distant future which would equal the position of Shannon. We know that the Maud, Buchanan and the Lichfield Reports have been issued and I think the Minister is wise in taking the best out of those reports and in trying to apply some of their recommendations blended with his own knowledge and the knowledge of the agencies under him in trying to promote industry.

We know very well that Shannon Airport was there earlier and that the encouragements offered towards exports, especially towards air freight exports, and so on, succeeded in building up Shannon. In this respect, the Shannon Free Airport Development Company did very good work. Over and above the reports issued by experts who were invited here to give their opinions, those of us who live in the areas know a certain amount about the difficulty of promoting industry in the various areas. One might suggest that field officers for county development teams starting in a small, progressive way might be as good an idea at any stage as talking about opening regional offices to disperse the IDA. That would be all very well providing, as the Yanks say, that industry began to escalate here.

We know that some continental industrialists show a preference for an area that is not designated as an industrial estate area. There are reasons for this which I shall not go into now. If one has any conversation with some of those men, some of them family industries or family-promoted industries, I think they will give good and sufficient reason why they select areas where there might be a good pool of fresh labour that would not be initiated in industry at all; why they would undertake to take part in a scheme for the training of this labour. There are many reasons for this. In so far as this goes, I would think the Minister is wise in culling what he can from those reports, blending it with his own knowledge and the knowledge of the various agencies under him which advise him and trying to apply it to the industrial arm here. It does not mean to say for one moment that if we had even another area designated like Shannon—if we had an area comparable, say, to Shannon—we would be any more successful in other parts of the country in siting industry.

Our aim should be—I think it is the aim all along—to try to provide industries as evenly as possible throughout the country and thus avoid larger concentrations. We know very well that oftentimes—this may be said to be a slogan—revolution starts around the chimney stacks. If we could succeed in aiming at, for example, what the Germans are aiming at, what the countries of the Common Market are aiming at—diversifying industry— it would be better for us to go in this direction rather than to be thinking in higher terms, in terms which might be out of our reach.

As I said at the outset, there are many reasons why Shannon is so successful. Indeed, it is not solely on the grounds that it was designated an industrial area. There were other factors as well. There are a number of satellite towns of Shannon. I assume that each of those towns would be as anxious to secure an industry as SFADCO might be. If those smaller areas can provide sites and labour, and if they have the initiative to go forward to try to develop, even in a small way, I think they should receive every encouragement.

It is all very fine for plans to be put on paper. It is much easier to build a castle in the air than to build a castle on the ground. Therefore, I would not see anything at all wrong with the fact that the Minister would strengthen the communications between the present county development teams and the IDA and provide good leadership from the IDA, on the ground. When we speak in terms of regionalisation, Parkinson's Law could catch up on us here, too. We must not lose sight of the fact that it is industry and exports that we are after, not office jobs. Therefore, good field men, backed up by good county development teams, backed up by the necessary leadership, could, I think, help us in this regard.

Mr. Colley

The object of this section is to ensure that the IDA, as regional policy develops, carries on its functions within the framework of regional planning. There will be regular consultation between IDA, the Department of Local Government and the Department of Industry and Commerce to ensure that the necessary co-ordination between these functions is obtained as regional planning develops. It is, of course, a developing function.

On the general issue raised on this section, I am somewhat at a loss to understand on what Deputy FitzGerald bases his statement that the Government have set their face against regional development. All the arguments he used in its favour have been used by me in the past—in particular, when entrusting to SFADCO the responsibility within the region of Limerick, Clare and North Tipperary. May I remind Deputy FitzGerald that I was the Minister for Industry and Commerce who did that and a member of the Government of which he was talking?

Dr. FitzGerald

I accept that.

Mr. Colley

On the Second Reading, this point was raised. I explained that it was possible to deal with the Limerick, Clare, North Tipperary region as we did because of the existence both of SFADCO and of the Lichfield Report. I agree entirely with the laudatory remarks with regard to SFADCO which Deputy FitzGerald made. On the Second Reading, I went on to explain the point Deputy Carter was making, that is, that we cannot reasonably expect to produce the equivalent of eight other SFADCOs overnight.

What we can do and what has been announced as the intention to be done is to set up a regional office of IDA in each of the other eight regions which were announced in the comments by the Government on the Buchanan Report. We intend to get these offices working in conjunction with the local authorities and the local development associations. I stated on Second Reading that I hope to see evolving in each of the regions a somewhat similar structure and organisation to the one at present in SFADCO in the Limerick/Clare/North Tipperary region. It is not possible or realistic to expect that you could do this overnight.

In the light of that, I am at a loss to understand what Deputy FitzGerald had in mind, or on what he based his statement to the effect that the Government had set their face against regional development. The exact opposite, in fact, is the position. What I have said about the offices in each of the regions is, I hope, a reply to the point Deputy Cunningham raised. I might tell him in passing that one of the eight other regions is County Donegal.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was not giving the Minister and the Government credit for what they have done in regard to SFADCO. I give every credit to them both as regards founding it in the first instance, and giving it its head at the beginning when it might have been felt to be a rather chancy experiment, and in regard to extending its activities. I also perfectly accept that you will not get eight other SFADCO's overnight. Of course you will not. It will take time for that to emerge.

What I am concerned about is that there is no sign of anything appearing, never mind overnight, even over years. Again, as in so many other cases, the pace of progress on the part of the Government in carrying through policies which they claim to be committed to is disturbingly slow. I would have hoped that with SFADCO established for ten years now and off the ground as a regional development authority for several years——

Mr. Colley

No. That is not so, not in relation to the region. That happened, roughly speaking, and speaking from memory, about 15 or perhaps 18 months ago at the most.

Dr. FitzGerald

I though it was two years. It may be less than two years. I used the word "several" in its very strict sense of two, I should explain. This is a cause of constant confusion between me and people I am talking to who seem to think that "several" means a larger number.

Mr. Colley

It frequently does.

Dr. FitzGerald

In any event, it has had this wider function for 15 to 18 months, if the Minister is correct. I would have thought that at this stage we would have seen several others getting under way on a small scale, perhaps. The first thing you do is to appoint a chief executive and he starts to get some people together. Nothing has happened and all we hear at this stage is that the Minister contemplates the possibility of this emerging out of the regional development offices of the IDA. The whole thing is unsatisfactory because of its slowness.

It is hard to think that the Government are serious about this whole regional operation when, in fact, they are so slow about doing anything about it. I do not wish in any way to reflect on the Minister in regard to SFADCO itself. I accept what he says now, that he envisages an ultimate development of other organisations like SFADCO. There is nothing in this Bill to provide for that. This clause here has apparently, as I thought, nothing to do with it. It does not empower the IDA to establish autonomous bodies. It does not empower the Government to do so.

If the Government are contemplating further SFADCOs a year and a half or so after the first regional authority of this kind established by extending the powers of SFADCO to the whole area, they must be contemplating them so far in the future that they see no point whatever in making provision for them in this legislation. If the Government had any immediate intention of doing anything about this, other than talking about it, they would have introduced into this Bill clauses to cover this. At least this would seem to me to be the appropriate thing to do.

The absence of any such provision from this legislation suggests to me that the Government are thinking in terms of further SFADCO-type companies a long time hence and that, in fact, what they intend to do is to get the IDA to develop the regional offices. If I know anything about the pace at which the Government work, and the whole pace at which our public administration works, to get those offices off the ground will take some years, and that it is only when these offices are established and have been going once again for some years, so that there are some years experience on which to judge their success, that the Minister will decide to do anything practical about getting other bodies like SFADCO established.

The whole experience we have had of the pace of policy implementation in this country from the time when the first idea is put forward, from the time when the first Government commitment is entered into, to the time when anything is done about it, is that the pace is deplorably slow. I do not think this can be said often enough. The quality of public administration in Ireland is in many respects high. It is efficient, particularly in negative activities, in controlling, and it is sometimes also efficient in development work in getting things done. The pace at which changes are effected is incredibly slow.

We are persistently facing the position that we in this country are quite alert enough, and even the Government are alert enough, when ideas are put forward, whether from the Opposition, or commissions, or bodies, or councils of one kind or another, to pick them up, latch on to them and say: "Yes, we think this is a good idea." That side of it is all right. On the whole I think we have been quicker to change policies in theory, and to announce changes of policy in many areas, than the British for example. We have had several years lead on them in respect of a number of policy changes, but then we find that the British have their scheme in operation years before ours.

It seems to me from observing the pace at which certain things have been done here, and things done that are connected with industrial development, such as development of training and the whole growth centre policy, that the gestation period for policies in Ireland, from the time they are thought of and approved to the time they are implemented, is about double what it is in Britain and other countries. My experience of other countries is limited but what I know of countries like France suggests a much more rapid process in getting things under way.

It is only when one sees business men and civil servants facing each other across the table and discussing common problems that one realises the gulf between them as regards the pace of getting things done. Much of the frustration that exists between business and, indeed, I would say also at times the trade unions on the one hand and the Government on the other, lies in this fact that business men and trade unionists used to dealing with business men are used to decisions being taken fairly promptly and implemented fairly promptly. If they were not many of our business would be bankrupt at this stage. Then they find themselves dealing with a public administration whose idea of getting anything done is to operate at a tempo which is, if one had to put a figure on it, something like one-quarter to one-fifth of the tempo at which the rest of the country works. The whole of our development in Ireland is held up by this.

We have here a very clear case of it. After all, it is now seven years since the whole idea of regional development around growth centres was first put forward and put forward, be it said, with the greatest difficulty in getting over the opposition of the Minister's own Department. It required considerable effort to persuade them to adopt this suggestion which was first put forward in the CIO report of that year. Lest anything good should come out of that quickly it was referred to another committee. I need not go right through the routine. I have had to go through it before. Year after year passes. Other committees sit. Other reports are made. Things are held up. Reports are received and kept for nine months and finally they are published and no decision is announced on them.

We are now here seven years after this policy was first put forward unanimously by trade unionists, business men and, with some reluctance in the case of the Minister's own Department, by civil servants, but with much greater enthusiasm in the more progressive Department of Finance at that particular point in time. Now, seven years later, we are at the stage when nobody can tell us what the Government's policy is on this matter and when in respect of the actual implementation of this facet of the policy, the industrial development facet, the most the Minister can say is that he is contemplating at some stage that the regional development offices of the IDA which do not yet exist will, when established, evolve at some time in the future into bodies like SFADCO.

I do not think that pace is adequate and if the Minister thinks I am wrong let him put a figure on it. Let him tell me that I am wrong and that it will happen quicker and what year it will happen in. I would think from my experience of the way these things have been done and the pace of the development of policy that you will not see any of your SFADCOs established and operating for three years, and you will not have more than two or three operating in five years time. That means it will have taken 15 years from the time SFADCO was established until you will have had any significant development of this concept elsewhere.

It will have taken ten years from the first CIO report to the point where we have any further regional development authority of this kind actually moving here apart from SFADCO, accidentally established. It will be about 13 years before we have any significant number of them. If the Minister thinks I am wrong let him say so; let him say he expects to see regional development authorities with the autonomy which SFADCO has in operation here, that he hopes to see the first next year, two more the year after and so on. If the Minister made such a commitment I would accept the reality of it. I would not say the same of other Ministers. We all have had the experience of other Ministers and some of their promises. We are busy on the Health Bill at the moment. I forget how many years ago Mr. O'Malley told us it was coming in six months time. We have had the same experience with education. In March last year the Minister for Education said quite firmly we were going to have training colleges offering university degree courses this October and therefore, because the interval was so short, there was no point whatever in extending these new university grants to them. He knew, or should have known, and his successor knows that nothing of the kind will happen in regard to all of these training colleges for years to come; it may start with one or two in the next couple of years.

We have this whole process of promises not being fulfilled, but the Minister is not that kind of person and if he says here the development will be much quicker than I am suggesting I shall take his word for it, but I should like him to say whether he will make such a commitment. If he does not I shall know what to think. My assessment from a long and close experience of public administration is that it will take years before we get anywhere.

I would urge the Minister to do something about the slowness of policy-making which is a particular defect of this Government. I do not know that it is primarily the fault of the Government in the sense that decisions are held up at Government level, but it is, however, the fault of the Government if they fail to force the pace of administrative policy-making, and if in some crucial instances they deliberately hold up policies which they know are necessary in the national interest, because they fear they may be politically unpopular. I press on the Minister to set his face against this holding up of national development for political reasons and to set his mind on getting his Department and other Departments operating at the same pace, or even at half the pace of the private sector. We would then be really getting places.

On the section itself, the Minister's explanation of it does not get us anywhere. He says it is intended—I cannot remember his exact words—to enable the authority to operate within the regional development plan, or something to that effect. What this clause says is:

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.

Supposing that clause were not there, is there anything the authority could not do? It only says they may do something. It does not require them to do it. If the Minister could tell me that its deletion would inhibit the IDA in any way I would be quite happy to leave it there. What the Minister has said so far is quite unconvincing. The section has nothing to do with what we were talking about before, having regional branches or offices of the IDA or having a development on SFADCO lines. Could the Minister tell us why he wants the section in?

Mr. Colley

I had better say a few words, although Deputy FitzGerald will forgive me if I say that for a man who wants to get things done very fast he takes a long time to make a point.

Dr. FitzGerald

Touché.

Mr. Colley

If the section were to be deleted it could have an inhibiting effect on the IDA in so far as there are certain criteria laid down which the IDA must follow in the allocation of grants. In the absence of this, it could be argued that regional development policy is a criterion which should not be taken into account by the IDA. For that reason I would not like to see the section out of the Bill.

On the question of the evolving of other organisations similar to SFADCO in the other regions, Deputy FitzGerald has approached this on a rather theoretical basis. He has overlooked certain fundamental facts, one of which I mentioned earlier and have mentioned on many occasions as being one of the reasons that we were enabled to do what we did in the Limerick-Clare-North Tipperary region, the existence of the Lichfield Report. No similar report exists in regard to any other region, and the idea of trying to set up something similar to SFADCO without this simply would not make sense at all. In actual fact, the IDA, some months earlier this year, did commission consultants to carry out an exploratory study aimed at preparing a guide to the preparation of regional industrial plans. The consultants were asked to advise on such matters as the assessment of the magnitude of the problems involved in the particular region and the best way within the region of going about them. This was not the preparation of regional plans but rather the guideline for the preparation of regional plans, and for the purpose of their investigation the consultants considered in relative depth the Sligo-Leitrim region and the south-east region, that is, Wicklow, Wexford, Waterford, Kildare and South Tipperary, as being likely to offer a cross-section of the regional development problems which would be encountered in the remainder of the country.

That report has recently come to hand. It is under examination by the IDA and will be used on the setting up of the regional offices to lay down the guidelines for preparing within each region the programme for industrial development for that region. This is an essential operation if we are to do the job that we want to do. It would be very nice if it could be done in an easier or quicker way, but I am afraid life is not like that. This is the way it has to be done, and this is the way we are doing it.

Dr. FitzGerald

This is most revealing. I am glad the Minister has confirmed what I said about the way in which the Government act and the time table and pace involved. Let us recap where we stand. Was it in 1962 or 1963 that the physical planning areas were established and, at that time, six or seven years ago, two regional studies were commissioned, the Lichfield Report for the Limerick area and the Wright Report for the Dublin area? The Government then did not commission any other studies, and then they announced, three years ago, that they were commissioning a Buchanan study which was to fill these gaps in the other regions and which, incidentally, because one firm was going to do all this planning, would provide a co-ordinated picture into which the Limerick and Dublin plans would be built.

Mr. Colley

It did not fill the gap.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Buchanan Report was then produced. It does not seem to me that it has filled the gap in the sense of providing regional plans of the kind that exist in the Dublin and Limerick areas; the Limerick one is particularly detailed and valuable. That is what was announced but it has not done that. The Buchanan Report has great merit as an overall plan for regional development of the nation. It does not seem to me to provide the kind of basis we have in the two other regional plans. I agree with that. I should like to ask why it has not done that when the Government said that was what it would do. I do not accept that the fact that these detailed regional plans do not exist prevents the establishment of a body like SFADCO and such a body doing a useful job. If the Minister suggests it prevents that, he is making charges against his own Government of failing in the first instance to commission studies like those of Lichfield and Wright seven years ago and then of following that failure by commissioning the Buchanan Report to fill the gap—which, in fact, has not filled the gap because the Government have not ensured that the report did the job it was meant to do—and at this stage of having reached the point only of commissioning somebody to prepare guidelines for reports which will provide a basis for taking decisions in the future for regional industrial development. That whole process of neglect, of failure to act, of letting things drift, of postponing things, of setting up committees to decide whether to set up other committees to do something, shows a deplorable lack of any concept of urgency. I have complained about this throughout. The Minister has aggravated the position and confirmed the charges I was making in that respect.

I should like to ask what is the relationship between these new regional industrial development plans and the regional physical planning plans. I am interested in this development. Hitherto the responsibility for physical planning has rested with the Department of Local Government. The Lichfield Report has much to say about industrial development. I do not want the Minister to tell me that physical planning is one thing and industrial development planning another. The Lichfield Report deals in great detail with industrial development. It provides a blueprint for such development. Is it now proposed that the responsibility for preparing regional physical plans which the Government had neglected to provide for some of the areas has been shifted to the Minister's Department? Is his Department now initiating studies with a view to initiating other studies of industrial development which are themselves studies which will have to be paralleled by yet other studies carried out by the Department of Local Government into which the industrial development plans may or may not fit? To what state of confusion have we now got? The Minister should tell us how he sees regional industrial plans fitting into regional physical planning plans. Are there to be other reports like those of Lichfield and Wright? Are the Department of Local Government going to organise similar studies? Is the position that what we will have for the other regions is the Buchanan Report which is very useful from the point of overall strategy of regional planning, plus industrial development reports for certain regions prepared by the Minister's Department? Is it possible that physical planning has come to a stop? Are industrial plans to be prepared by the Minister's Department and parallel plans for general development prepared by the Department of Local Government? We seem to have got into a state of general confusion or, perhaps, I may have worked myself into such a state of confusion.

Mr. Colley

I think so. I am not quite sure as this matter has not been under my Department and I am not terribly familiar with it. These reports are concerned with industrial development and also with many other matters. Contrary to the picture that the Deputy was painting, I was quite impatient at having to wait for these reports. I wanted to get on with the job of regional development in industry. Consequently, I instructed the IDA to have these studies which I mentioned carried out but they were carried out in consultation with other people—it may have been the Buchanan people— who were doing the other reports so that they could be co-ordinated. Since other matters were involved which might hold up the reports it seemed possible, by doing this and by getting guidelines in consultation with the physical planners, to get going on regional development for industry at any rate. This was the reason that this study was carried out. The report has recently become available and is being studied by the IDA. I can assure the Deputy and the House that it will be implemented just as fast as it is possible to do it.

Dr. FitzGerald

Would the Minister look into that? This is a study with a view to seeing how we go about this job and there is a question of case studies for this purpose. Nevertheless, for the purpose of arousing public interest in this I would ask the Minister to consider publication of these reports. From the point of view of general public interest the Minister's policy should be to publish unless there is good reason for not publishing. I am not happy with an answer that "it is not customary to publish such reports". I am quite prepared for the Minister to say it would not be in the public interest to publish a certain report. I might argue about it. I recognise his right to say that. I recognise there are cases where there might be confidential information about individual firms. On the whole, we have suffered from a dearth of publication of material which could be useful and particularly anything to do with developments at local level. I would urge the Minister to look into this and unless he finds good reason to the contrary to publish the reports.

May I go back to the section? I am still not happy that I understand just how the section helps. The Minister suggests that if it were not there he could not operate the criteria on a regional system, that he would be inhibited by having to advert to other criteria. Are these the general functions of the IDA as set out in the 1950 Act or are they the criteria for the giving of grants under sections 33 and 34?

Mr. Colley

Sections 33 and 34 of the Bill are what I had in mind.

Dr. FitzGerald

If I may refer to sections 33 and 34 for a moment——

Section 14 agreed to.

SECTION 15.

Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. M. O'Leary

In this section we provide that the local authority may, in advance, provide for the factories with the power of compulsory purchase. Another part of the Bill provides that the authority concerns itself with the provision of houses for persons employed in the industry to be set up and I should like to inquire whether there are powers of compulsory purchase in relation to land for the housing of employees who may be working in any of these advance factories and I inquire as to the kind of compulsory purchase intended under this section.

Deputy Boland is worried about our Constitution barring us from control of land prices in the environment of the city for the provision of houses. I am making the point that we provide under the section compulsory powers for the purchase of factory sites. The Bill refers to the necessity of local authorities concerning themselves with housing for prospective employees because the experience had been that in setting up such new industries in different parts of the country the lack of housing had been a severe impediment to the recruitment of key workers in many parts of the country. The art of house building had been forgotten and it was important that the State should recapture the art in certain remote parts of the country where the population had fallen consistently during many years. I am asking what kind of compulsory purchase powers are held here. Will the power of purchase be utilised for the factory portion of the land or can it be applied in the provision of land necessary for the provision of housing?

I would also inquire, in relation to advance factories in different parts of the country, whether the authority will work in co-ordination with existing voluntary groups and whether there is real investigation work behind many such bodies. One reads a great deal about such bodies. The chairman of the local group will announce that three German factories are to start in the area. One wonders whether the IDA will maintain contact with such groups and provide facilities for them. Deputy FitzGerald was worried a while ago about the regional aspect of the IDA's work. Here at least, whatever about delays in the production of specialised reports, we see regional development groups having done real work in promotion, attracting industry into an area. The IDA should help such groups along by specialised advice and so on. In the case of such a group acquiring the promise of an industry what kind of co-operation will there be between the IDA and such a group in the matter of providing a site for an advance factory?

Mr. Colley

I am advised that the answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is "No". The power does not extend to the acquisition of land for houses. I might point out, in passing, that the Deputy referred to a statement made by the Minister for Local Government. I think he will find the Minister was not referring to the legal difficulties of acquisition but rather to the level of compensation which would have to be paid, which is a different matter.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I know this is slightly irrelevant—both of us straying off the point—but the Minister for Local Government was quite explicit in answer to many questions in the House that the Constitution debars him from controlling urban land prices. He has repeatedly made this point.

Mr. Colley

That is in relation to the level of compensation to be paid.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I see.

SECTION 16.

Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Regarding the Minister's reply, in so far as my problem in Cavan is concerned, if the Minister either by persuasion or otherwise uses his good offices to see that commonsense prevails there and that this huge building is used for the purpose of giving employment, I shall be satisfied.

Mr. Cott

I should like to ask the Minister if the authority will subsidise rents to the same extent as the local authorities, or will the employees be expected to pay higher rents?

Mr. Colley

It is intended to provide houses which, as nearly as possible, will be the same as those provided by the local authority and to subsidise them at the same rate.

Mr. Bruton

Dr. FitzGerald

Yes.

Yes, Indeed, on the current side you get these problems too, but as far as this is voted expenditure, and I am right in saying it is voted expenditure, it comes within the framework of the Votes of this House and requires a supplementary estimate. The fact that the money has to be borrowed rather than be found from taxation does not necessarily make the whole thing any easier. Indeed, the fluctuations in the Government's demand for credit from year to year, and even from period to period within a year, are already causing considerable problems.

I am wondering whether the Minister has given any thought to the problem and whether he has any ideas as to what ought to be done about this open-ended commitment which has reached the sum of £25 million owed and payable on demand, with no control over when it is going to be due. The Minister is probably in a position to forecast it to some degree as he knows the sums only recently approved for projects which are going to take a year or two to mature. Nevertheless it is a very large sum and there is a large unpredictable element in it. Has the Minister given any thought to this problem and its implications on the system of budgeting?

Mr. Colley

I should perhaps point out that ministerial responsibility in regard to budgeting is that of the Minister for Finance. I cannot, therefore, answer for the Minister for Finance on this point in this debate. Nevertheless, I think I should say I am aware of the problem which, as Deputy Dr. FitzGerald has said, is becoming more acute with the progress we are making and with the advent of large scale operations which I think is what Deputy Dr. FitzGerald was calling for. We already have budgets under consideration in respect of which grants for one project might well be in the region of £25 million or more.

Mr. P. Barry

For one project?

Mr. Colley

Mr. Colley

That was the point I was making.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 18.

Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Bruton

With regard to the powers it is proposed the IDA may be able to transfer to An Chomhairle Oiliúna, I should like to know if An Chomhairle Oiliúna already has these powers and, if so, is this again not running the risk of duplication?

Mr. Colley

In the Industrial Training Act of 1967 provision was made for the transfer of the powers mentioned here from An Foras Tionscal to An Chomhairle Oiliúna. That was the Act which established An Chomhairle Oiliúna and it could be said, to that extent, that An Chomhairle Oiliúna has got the power. Provision was made to give these powers to that body. Because of the merging of An Foras Tionscal and the IDA in one body we are making similar provision here. The transfer will be made when it is considered An Chomhairle Oiliúna can handle this. The ultimate intention is that all this training should be a matter for An Chomhairle Oiliúna.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 21.

Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Desmond

Would the Minister elaborate on this section? I am concerned with the brevity of the section itself and the brevity of the comment in the explanatory memorandum. I have no objection of any kind to the employment of consultants or advisers but I am concerned with the fact that, in an operation of this kind, there may be a tendency on the part of the consultants or the advisers virtually to fix their own terms of contract payment. If consultants or advisers are employed, nationally or internationally, they will know they are putting their reputation at stake and I am rather worried that the authority may find itself hamstrung to some extent. I think the Minister should clarify this. Secondly, the IDA does not seek either to consult with or get advice from the Institute of Industrial Research and Standards and CTT. These bodies are quite competent to give advice. The Minister might consider a closer liaison between these bodies and the IDA. The idea seems to be that one cannot set up a project and simultaneously get advice from two State bodies so intimately involved in industrial development. The Minister might give us some indication of his general thinking on this. I can assure the Minister I am very much in favour of this and I welcome the provision. If the advice of consultants rather than the advice of politicians—I exempt the Minister from any responsibility in past developments—had been sought in the past we would not have had a ten per cent failure rate. It would have been down to five per cent.

Dr. Gibbons

I take it this section does not exclude consultants or advisers from outside the country?

Mr. Colley

No.

Dr. Gibbons

Would the Minister comment on allegations made from time to time that we tend to take our advisers and consultants from the larger countries with populations several million times larger than our own and there seems to be no attempt to seek advice from or consult with countries the size of our own?

Mr. Colley

I presume Deputy Dr. Gibbons has in mind allegations in regard to general planning rather than in regard to individual projects. In the latter, where the consultant comes from is largely related to the experience of the consultant in a particular field. It has no great significance whether that experience was in a large or a small country provided it is adequate and first class.

In regard to co-operation with Córas Tráchtála and the Institute of Industrial Research and Standards there is something in the point raised by Deputy Desmond about the difficulties that have arisen due to the necessity for confidentiality. To some extent this has been overcome recently but there is room for further progress in that regard and it will take place very soon. No matter how desirable this may be there can be a big problem of confidentiality. I should not like to dismiss this as though it were not a real problem; it is a real problem but methods are now being devised which will tend to reduce its size to considerably lesser proportions than was the case in the past. I agree that we should make use of the expertise available in CTT and in the Institute for Industrial Research. I should make clear that this has been done by the IDA in relation to a number of projects. As I think I mentioned when the Bill was last before us, the IDA have also used some of our university people as consultants in relation to certain projects where particular expertise was available. I am afraid I did not quite get the first point made by Deputy Desmond.

Then we have here something replacing something that has been deleted and I take it that in changing "technical advisers" to "consultants and advisers", the Minister is widening the scope in case "technical advisers" should be too limited?

Mr. Colley

Yes, that is correct.

Dr. FitzGerald

And that, plus the elimination of the requirement of the consent of the Minister for Finance and the requirement that the Minister must appoint the consultant, represent the changes that are being made?

Mr. Colley

That is correct.

Dr. FitzGerald

Subject to that, I would favour it but I would be particularly concerned that the authority should be able directly to employ people on contract for a term of years and if they need to supplement their own expertise should not be afraid to go outside the country for that purpose because in this area so much money can be lost by making a mistake that we should not be inhibited about paying to get the best people to help us.

Mr. Colley

This section gives the authority power to do what the Deputy is recommending.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 22 and 23 agreed to.

SECTION 24.

Question proposed: "That section 24 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Desmond

I should like the Minister to give us more detailed information about the precise intentions in this section. Admittedly, it says in the second schedule that the authority shall consist of not more than nine members of whom one shall be chairman and of whom two others may be deputy chairmen. The Minister might elaborate on the calibre of the individuals he may have in mind on a part-time basis for this authority. The tone and general expertise and the calibre of this, I would say the most important State-sponsored body in the country, is of major and fundamental importance and there is a tremendous change from what we had in the last authority in terms of size, personnal and of general function. I should like the Minister to comment on how much he intends to pay them and what kind of people we might expect on it, bearing in mind that it would be rather difficult to have any deeply-involved public entrepreneurs on the authority on a broad basis. I should also like to ask the Minister if he accepts the proposition I put to him on Committee Stage of adding persons either on an ex officio basis or on an assured basis. I would suggest the director-generals of particularly the three bodies involved in major site arranging bases with IDA—the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, CTT and AnCo. I suggest this for the reasons I have already given, namely, effective liaison, effective co-ordination of functions, and because I think the Minister is as familiar with the internal power politics of these organisations as indeed I was from a trade union point of view. Therefore, with the new general manager of CTT, with the new chairman of IDA, with the growing dynamism of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and the change now in AnCo, there is a golden opportunity to fuse them effectively in the IDA and ensure that there is a cross-fertilisation of functions and, above all, that the old power politics —if I may classify it as such—are not in fact brought forward into this transitional arrangement. I would ask the Minister for his views on that. I would welcome the broadening of the general service of members of the authority.

I would ask the Minister, finally, if he could spell out what is envisaged in the terms of the contracts of service for members of the authority. It is not entirely familiar to me in that sense, as contracts of service for the part-time members seem to be envisaged. I am quite au fait with the contracts of service for the full-time executive officers of the authority but does that extend to the part-time members as well?

Mr. Colley

Dr. FitzGerald

I see. So what we have here is a situation where the practice has been to have full-time members. The Minister has in mind changing this but he does not want to prejudge the issue. Some time in the future some other Minister or the Minister himself might revert to the full-time board. That had not been at all clear to me. It is important that we should know the Minister's intentions because the IDA, as distinct from An Foras Tionscal, has hitherto operated on the basis of full-time board members and they carried great authority in negotiating. It seems to me that the fact that they are members of the board, as distinct from executives of a company, who have to refer to the board for decisions, has given them a particular authority in negotiation and this is, perhaps, appropriate to the function they have to carry out.

I do not want to be dogmatic about this and, indeed, the Minister has not been dogmatic. I have not had time to think out what is the best policy. The job of these people is in large measure to negotiate new projects to come here. They must run the office as well and other functions of that kind, but their function is not that of running a large organisation, so much as being negotiators with all kinds of industrial interests to persuade them to come here. In those circumstances a part-time supervisory board supervising the carrying on of the affairs of an organisation does not seem to me to be necessarily the most appropriate scheme for this body.

The Minister, of course, is obviously much closer to this than I am and, from his experience and knowledge of the working of the IDA and An Foras Tionscal, which is the grant-giving authority at the moment and has part-time directors, may have reason to feel this change would be beneficial but I would have thought what might be a solution might be a mixture of the two. In fact, when the Minister started to speak I thought that he was going to say that what he envisaged was a number of full-time members who would be responsible for negotiations, and a number of part-time members who would join with them in discussing general policy and in bringing an outside view to bear.

While I would not be dogmatic that that is the solution, I would ask the Minister to consider it. If he has not given deep thought to all this already, and he does not seem to have made up his mind definitely about it, he ought to consider whether he may not weaken the authority in its negotiating function by leaving it in a position where no member of the executive staff other than the—what is he to be called? the general manager?— is, in fact, a member of the board and, therefore, there will be the problem of constant reference back to the authority.

In the experience I have had of the IDA, and it tended to be some years ago rather than recently. I was always impressed by the authority with which the members of the board could speak and act. I would fear that there might be diminution in their ability to do their job effectively if they no longer had that authority and, at the same time, I appreciate the Minister's desire to bring in outside people to bring an outside view to bear on these problems. Every State body and every private company is in constant danger that the management will become so close to the tasks to be done that they will fail to see the wood for the trees. I had this experience myself in working in a State company, as a member of the staff of Aer Lingus. I think we did a good job and I think they still do a magnificent job, but there were times when we became so involved in dealing with the immediate issues that we failed to see the broader national context in which we were working. The function of the board of the company was to bring a bit of outside light to bear on our work and to show us where we were being too narrow-minded.

It is quite possible that the Minister may feel that the IDA has lacked this and that, while it has done a wonderful job, it would have helped if it had some part-time directors who would help to give it this outside view. At the same time, if these are part-time directors who are also particularly involved in different aspects of the Irish economy they could bring particular expertise to bear. Deputy Desmond's suggestion is one I would heartily endorse. I would endorse it in this instance, not particularly as some kind of token contribution towards worker participation—I could scarcely think of a less relevant case for this; I am not saying that those concerned should not have some voice in running it—but in view of the nature of the IDA and even the small size of the staff this is not really the major issue, for the reasons which Deputy Desmond mentioned. Deputy Desmond concentrated on one particular aspect, that is, the value of having somebody with experience in industrial relations from that side on the IDA. I can see this is a valid point.

Indeed, some of my experience recently have suggested that a little more of that kind of experience on the trade union side might have helped or might help in the future. There is more to it than that. Deputy Desmond also referred to the kind of people who have represented the trade union movement on the NIEC. From my own experience of working with the NIEC I found that the trade union contribution was uniformly constructive. Indeed, the same was true of the Committee on Industrial Organisation. There was no tendency on the part of the trade union representatives any more than the management representatives to try to fight their corner. They were concerned with achieving national objectives and they worked harmoniously with their opposite numbers on the other side of the table and with the civil servants to achieve objectives.

Their great experience brought to bear on the problems has always been valuable and I would think that from that point of view their general knowledge of and interest in the economy and the angle from which they view the economy would be helpful on a board of this kind. Therefore, I would favour part-time representatives because they could bring this kind of angle, this kind of view, to bear. The same is true on the industrial side. If we had several leading Irish industrialists, perhaps a leading banker, who would also bring a knowledge of private industry to bear, this would be valuable. Many outside interests who are dealing with us, particularly if they are American, have a strong preference for dealing with private businessmen rather than public servants. This has been one problem of the IDA to some degree. Europeans are used to dealing with public servants but many Americans have a strong prejudice for dealing with people who are businessmen or lawyers like themselves who can understand their point of view. From experience I have had over a number of years with the IDA, it would be of benefit if we were able to send to the United States, for example, from time to time representatives preferably with the status of board members who could speak as private ambassadors, as representatives of the private sector, in terms their opposite numbers could understand and be sympathetic to. Their special respect for people who are entrepreneurs like themselves may seem curious and not particularly a serious attitude, but they do have this attitude.

The case that seems to me to emerge is one for a board with an admixture of full-time and part-time members: full-time members who would be bearing the main burden of negotiation, and part-time members who could occasionally get involved, who could be effective representatives of the board, especially in cases where there is this preoccupation with private enterprise, and who would bring not only an outside view but a special point of view from their own experience to bear on the problems involved. I am not asking the Minister to commit himself now, because I know he has yet to make up his mind on this, but I should like him to bear in mind these points and the points raised by Deputy Desmond when considering the appointment of the board.

Another point I want to press, it is one the Minister will have in mind anyway, is that there are some cases where the appointment of people for political reasons is more damaging or less valuable, whatever way you like to put it, than in other cases. There are some State boards which have more than their share of political appointments, because it is felt perhaps that their function is not of such vital importance and that they can carry them. There are others where the Government are careful not to overload them with people who are put there for reasons of patronage. I am opposed to the patronage system, as the Minister will know. All I am saying at the moment is that it is still there, and it will not disappear so long as the party on the other side of the House is there. I hope the Minister would be slow to involve himself in the exercise of patronage of this kind where so much is at stake, and I would expect from him, and be reasonably sure we shall get from him, a board of people who will be appointed for reasons that will be non-political.

Mr. Colley

Briefly I want to comment on the last point raised by Deputy FitzGerald. I would suggest that he really ought not to make the kind of remark he did about this side of the House in regard to political patronage, because the record of his own party and of his party's erstwhile colleagues in other Governments does not exactly indicate the situation that seemed to be indicated in what he said.

Dr. FitzGerald

I was speaking of the future, not the past.

Mr. Desmond

That does not make a wrong situation right from the Minister's point of view.

Mr. Colley

I am simply talking about the reference that was made to my party as though it did not happen anywhere else.

Dr. FitzGerald

That was not what I said or intended.

Mr. Tully

Is the Minister suggesting we led him into his evil ways?

Mr. Colley

If the Deputy thinks there is anything wrong with the people who are appointed to the board he can say so when they are appointed, but I should not like any suggestion to be made, before I have even thought of who the people will be, that this is going to happen.

Dr. O'Connell

That is the time to say it.

Dr. FitzGerald

On the contrary, the Minister should note my suggestion was that it was unlikely to happen.

Mr. Colley

In addition to that, the various points to which Deputy FitzGerald referred, including the question of the status of members when they are negotiating, are matters to which I have given a great deal of thought. Lest I misled the House, I should like to make it clear I have my mind made up in regard to all of the members being part-time other than one I have mentioned. I have not got my mind made up either as to who the people are to be or exactly the composition, the representation and so on. I do not want to involve the House in any detailed discussion of how this thing will work, because, while I have the broad outline quite clear in my mind, the operation of it may be somewhat different from that broad outline. However, Deputies will have noted that there is provision in one of the schedules for the delegation of functions by the board. Consequently, I am hoping to get the best of both worlds by having full-time people who will have delegated to them certain functions of the board which would enable them to negotiate and take important decisions on individual cases, and thereby to get the benefit of what we have had up to now, together with the benefit I hope to get, some of the benefits to which Deputy FitzGerald referred, by having part-time members.

Dr. FitzGerald

Would the Minister accept that while that provides a solution, such a person, though he may have the authority to take decisions, might not carry as much weight in negotiations, particularly in dealing with directors of other private companies, if he were not himself a member of the board. When he says to the directors of some large American or German corporation: "I am an executive of the company, but I have had some power delegated to me and I am in a position to make a deal with you," I could see many private businessmen who often have a sense of status quite as acute as one finds in other areas, including the Civil Service, feeling they were not perhaps dealing at the right level, that there was another level to which they ought to go to get a final or a better decision.

It has been the strength of the IDA that this has not been necessary up to now. Would the Minister tell us why he is committed to this idea of all of them being part-time? There may be good reasons for it, but the Minister has not given us any reason. I have put forward quite strong reasons to the contrary, based on the experience of the IDA as I have observed it, at a much greater remove than the Minister of course. It seems to me the Minister's proposal will weaken the authority of those people to engotiate. Could the Minister say what he has got against full-time members and, in particular, what he has against having some full-time members on the board?

Mr. Desmond

It is a valid point.

Mr. Colley

I should repeat that I have given a great deal of thought to this problem and to all the angles of this problem, and I have come to the conclusion I have indicated to the House. I cannot give all the reasons I came to this conclusion, but I can give some, why not to have a part-time and full-time board combined, that is, some part-time and some full-time. I believe that almost inevitably in such circumstances the full-time members would be much more familiar with the various items coming up. They would tend inevitably to exercise real power and part-time members would simply find it almost impossible to impose their views where their views should be imposed. I have been asked why not have all full-time members as we have at the moment. I have indicated my reason for that earlier. No matter how good and capable people may be when they are engaged full-time with various projects there is a great deal of pressure on them and it is virtually impossible for them to stand back and take a look at policy. It is very necessary that policy should be looked at fairly regularly in the IDA. It is also impossible in those circumstances to have any proper assessment of performance by the IDA in relation to the targets which it should have set and in relation to its officers and servants. While these are not the only reasons, they are some of the reasons and are good enough for me to have decided to do this the way I have indicated to the House.

Mr. Tully

I cannot understand the Minister's thinking on this. It appears that he is referring to a board which will be mainly responsible for the future industry of the country. What he suggests here tonight is a continuation of a system which will allow the glamour boys of industry—we could all name them—to appear on practically every board in the country and particularly on the more recent boards with big powers. If what the Minister suggests is carried out, is there not a very grave danger that, instead of a group of people whose only job is to see that the job they have will be properly done, there could be a group of people who have their irons in so many fires that they can only do a particular job part-time? Is there not a grave danger in doing this that we would get people who would be excellent in their own way but who are already so busy that they just could not afford to give the board the necessary time and attention? The establishment of an inefficient board must be prevented. That could easily happen. If the Minister adds to the managing director a group of part-time people, either the managing director is the absolute ruler, and does what he thinks he must do, or the advice which he will get from the part-time people will simply be advice from "part-timers" and he will say "I have spent all my time at this and I know what I am talking about. I have gone into this very fully." Most of those on boards will be people who are already very busy in other jobs in other industries. Does the Minister not consider this is a very dangerous approach and would it not be better to have people who would be so interested in making a success of a particular job that they would be prepared to devote their full time to it?

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 11 Dec 1969