We on this side of the House have no intention of impeding the progress of this Bill. We are prepared to facilitate the Minister in making the necessary change, which is another consequence of inflation. The explanation given by the Minister was very logical. The costs of the things which qualify for grant purposes have increased dramatically over the past two years. The amount which was originally brought before the Government for decision could hardly be held to be relevant now. It is logical to make this increase particularly if it facilitates the more expeditious handling of negotiations and the final decision-making in getting projects off the ground.
The last paragraph of the Minister's statement seems to suggest that a full dress debate might be postponed until another date when other legislation might be introduced. But it is relevant and appropriate that one say something at this stage about the whole question of incentives to industrial development here without going into any detail or unduly holding up the House or the passage of the Bill before us. At the outset, let me say that the Industrial Development Authority have the blessing of everybody in public life here and indeed also in commercial business life for their handling of the various proposals put before them time and again in relation to industrial development. I take this opportunity of paying tribute to the personnel who have processed so many applications, out of which a small percentage only survives. The volume of work involved is very large indeed and requires a great deal of expert handling.
Without anticipating what the Minister may have in mind in forthcoming legislation in connection with a major overhaul of industrial development regulations and legislation, I should like to know if the principle of the free gift type of grant is being considered at this juncture of our development as being still the most suitable incentive to industrial development. As have most Members of this House, I had occasion to deal with people who, in the initial stages, came here with ideas, leading ultimately to suggestions and, sometimes, culminating in projects resulting in decent employment. I have found many people amazed that the type of incentive given is an all-out, free gift with practically no strings attached. Indeed, I was impressed by some Americans who suggested to me, on one occasion, that State participation by way of equity, putting in a director, might be a better incentive to industrial development, in that, it would ensure that the State stayed with the project, thereby giving to some extent a guarantee or reasonable assurance of its continued success. The likelihood of projects being set up without the creation of any really important fixed asset, exploring the market for a time, then folding their tent and disappearing in the night, is more likely to occur under the present system of grant incentive being offered. That is why I posed the question as to whether the Minister had given serious consideration to changing the whole principle; whether it should be some form of participation by the State; whether all or some of the grant should be subscribed by way of State equity in particular projects.
On the whole, the record has been one of success; one might say, tremendous success. But we have had our share of failures which, perhaps, have been highlighted out of all proportion. But it was the means by which development was got going here in any reasonable way and without which perhaps we would have made little progress in that important field of industrial development.
We set out to develop the industrial arm of the country without any tradition of industrial development, which meant we had little "know-how" in relation to many industries and we had not a lot of spare capital for investment in them. While there was capital for industrial development and projects here, confidence had to be built up. Without going back on that ground covered so frequently here, the tariff wall to preserve the home market was the first means of establishing confidence in local investment. As the Minister and the House know, at the time it was necessary to have more than 50 per cent native capital in any industrial concern. That was to ensure that we kept a grip on our own development, industry and investment. After a time a broader view of this was taken and legislation permitted the investment of outside capital to any extent necessary so long as it created the type of development suitable to our economy and created employment.
There are four essential components of the broad principle of development, whether by foreigners or local entrepreneurs. that is, we must have a product with marketing availability; there must exist the capital with which to set it going and there must be the "know-how" to produce it. Those four essential ingredients are usually carefully screened by the IDA in any proposals. I often wonder whether we have done enough in the provision of those four essential ingredients for industry, in all the different ancillary groups that exist within the country in relation to development generally; whether there is proper co-ordination between all the bodies concerned in order to bring about, first of all "knowhow" and, secondly, market research in ascertaining what project would best be suited to development here, not yet established and that might attract investment also. We have the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, Coras Trachtála, the export board, AnCO the training authority, the National Economic and Social Council and quite a few other bodies.
I was not always satisfied that they properly co-ordinated different efforts to ensure that the best possible drive was put into the establishment and expansion of our industrial development. There is some liaison between most of them working in water-tight compartments, co-operating only when they are called upon, at particular levels of development, to take part in what they are supposed to be doing. I should like to see a co-ordinating body, comprised of representatives of all those different organisations, sitting down, at regular intervals, and discussing the progress we are making in our whole programme of industrial development. Indeed, such a body could do a lot in examining the whole scene with regard to the rather familiar phenomenon of "stop, go" economy. With careful anticipation, very often we could ward off some of the disasters that occur when the economy goes into a spin or recession.
I visualise the IDA having an even more important role to play in industrial development than they have at the present time. If we decide to have State participation and industrial democracy of one kind or another, giving worker participation, what are we doing to train personnel suitable to go in and sit on the board or take part in the working of industrial concerns generally? Are the Irish Management Institute aware of the role they might usefully play in this respect? AnCO and the National Manpower Service, which are responsible for the placement of people in jobs, should have accumulated information which would pinpoint the areas in which industry might be developed.
It is not the role of the IDA to identify the areas to which particular industry might be sent, although they might have to take on this role in the future. Sometimes contacts are made with the IDA by some organisation who wish to establish industry here and they have an open mind as to where they might go. Some advice must be given in that case as to where such an industry might go, taking into account all the relevant factors such as those problems thrown up by our growing concern with the environment and I hope the areas where industry is most required. I have always had a bee in my bonnet about the original idea of the Undeveloped Areas Act.
