Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Oct 1985

Vol. 361 No. 1

National Development Corporation Bill, 1985: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

The purpose of this Bill is to establish the National Development Corporation, which is an integral part of the Government's industrial and job creation strategy. It is a body with the task of investing in enterprises which might not otherwise develop or even get off the ground.

Businesses, new and old, in Ireland are starved of investment funds in the form of share capital. They have to rely to an unhealthy extent on money borrowed from banks. The resultant disproportionate requirement to pay interest and repay capital on bank loans, makes the business unduly vulnerable to temporary setbacks and fluctuations in market conditions.

Likewise there are investment opportunities in which the corporation itself alone can take a lead or set up an enterprise, given that its financial and developmental perspective is longer term than that of private sector venture capital agencies acting on their own.

The National Development Corporation is an integral part of the Government's strategy for innovation. New products and new processes are essential to our national economic growth, because markets are changing all the time and a country or a firm which fails to adapt will go into decline. New products need the investment of "patient" money which can wait for a profit while the product is being developed and tested. On its own, and in conjunction with others, the National Development Corporation will provide such crucial support to the process of innovation in Ireland.

It will work alongside other initiatives taken by the Government to provide investment funds for industrial and economic development. I will briefly describe these measures and the background to them.

Critics and observers of the economic scene in this country are unanimous in their view that in order for industry to flourish, and particularly for small indigenous owned industry to flourish, there must be a shift away from the traditional reliance on bank borrowings to finance start-ups and expansions. A much greater emphasis must be placed on the need for equity style investment. The development of this environment will be a gradual process requiring a significant change of attitudes, not only on the part of investors, to encourage them to be less risk-adverse, but also on the part of entrepreneurs and businessmen, to encourage them to be more receptive and understanding of the advantages of relinquishing part ownership of their business in return for equity finance.

The existence of a thriving venture capital market has often been cited as being a major, if not the major, contributing factor to the industrial strength of the United States in the past decade or so. Our capital markets are not as well developed in this direction, but the momentum is there and, with Government encouragement will, hopefully, build up a substantial flow of funds for venture capital in the years ahead. To achieve this we have introduced the business expansion scheme which provides income tax relief to eligible individual investors. In response to suggestions this scheme has been further improved this year. The BES is conservatively estimated to have resulted in excess of £3.5 million of new investment in industry during the 1984-85 tax year. The scheme has recently been strengthened by the passage of the Designated Investment's Funds Act in the last Dáil session.

Following the publication of the White Paper on Industrial Policy, I asked consultants employed in my Department to undertake a study into potential measures for the development of a more active market in the stocks and shares of Irish industry. Among the recommendations contained in the consultant's report was one dealing with the establishment of an over-the-counter, or OTC, market to facilitate trading in the shares of smaller, less developed, enterprises. In response to this recommendation, the Stock Exchange have now submitted proposals to me for the setting up of a third tier market to complement the facilities already provided by their full and unlisted markets. I will be examining these proposals closely and, indeed, hope to meet representatives of the exchange in the next week to discuss their ideas further.

I am also aware that certain private interests have expressed a willingness to become involved in the operation of OTC markets. I am, of course, anxious to provide for proper regulation of such markets as may operate outside of the Stock Exchange framework, to ensure that we can protect adequately the interest of investors.

Following the success of this initiative, I propose to ask the same consultants to undertake a new study. This will be to examine the potential for generating a greater level of institutional investment in industry. The pension funds and life assurance companies have annual funds available for investment which are estimated at about £400 million. I am anxious to see a greater amount of these funds directed towards the productive sectors of the economy. The consultants are at the early stage of preparing the framework for this study but if the fruits of their labour are as significant as previously we will all have cause to be well pleased.

I am also hoping to shortly renew my dialogue with the principal banking concerns in the country to discuss their potential contribution to our future industrial prosperity.

For some time past, I have been promoting the cause of profit sharing and worker shareholding in industry. This Government have introduced significant tax incentives which exist for profit sharing and worker shareholding. This is a means not only of encouraging harmony and accelerating the process of innovation in industry, but it will provide a source of funds for development.

I am concerned also that we should keep abreast of measures being taken to develop the capital markets in other countries, particularly Europe and the US. Officials of my Department recently held extremely useful discussions with Government authorities and financial representatives in the city of London which is reckoned by many to be the nerve centre of the most developed venture capital market in Europe. I am concerned to ensure that we fully participate in and draw on developments in foreign financial markets to the benefit of our economy.

The development of a venture capital market which is capable of making a significant contribution to industrial expansion is as much an educational process as anything else. I am convinced that the measures and initiatives outlined above will accelerate this process and lead us to a greater understanding and appreciation of the intricacies of industrial financing.

The National Development Corporation, the structure of which is defined in this legislation, is to be a further vehicle for State involvement in, and promotion of, industrial development. The principal objective of the NDC will be to assist, by means of investment in industry, in the creation of the maximum amount of viable employment in the State. It represents a new approach in many respects but in particular, I would highlight that it is not designed to be a grant-giving body such as the IDA. It will be an investment vehicle which will be seeking to earn a reasonable return on any investment made by it.

I want to allay any fears that there may be about an overlap or duplication of functions between the NDC and the IDA. It is my intention that there should be an operating agreement drawn up between the two bodies which will be subject to my approval. This will allow the NDC and the IDA to co-ordinate their respective functions and to act in complete harmony thus ensuring the creation of the maximum number of viable jobs.

It also represents a new approach because, unlike existing State agencies such as the IDA, CTT, the Irish Goods Council and so on, all of whom provide excellent assistance to industry, the NDC, where it identifies a particular niche or gap in the market place which the private sector is not yet exploiting, will be empowered to establish a business on its own initiative to meet that demand. One of the key elements of the role of the NDC is that it will be required to establish a revolving investment fund thereby enabling it to roll over its resources and continually reinvest in new enterprises offering new employment opportunities. The corporation will not be restricted in terms of the type of enterprise it might invest in and the definition of enterprise in the Bill is quite broad. Opportunities exist in all sectors of industry, manufacturing, services, tourism, agriculture, natural resources and so on. The NDC will be in a unique position of being able to exploit all such opportunities. Obviously, its remit will be to invest in enterprises which are, or are capable of becoming, profitable and efficient and offer reasonable prospects for development and the provision of viable employment.

The enterprises established or supported by the corporation will of course often compete with other companies both Irish and foreign. It will do so on a strictly commercial basis. It is my intention however that it will concentrate wholly on the traded sector of the economy where the main competition will be companies operating from other countries. Its aim will be to develop new markets, and to strengthen existing Irish industries by prudent equity investment as is provided in the Bill.

It is intended that the NDC should operate as a commercial entity which will invest in enterprises, establish them on their own initiative, unlike the IDA, and then dispose of them in accordance with normal commercial prudence. The NDC's ability to do this profitably will be a major factor in determining its success. The framing of this legislation is designed to take account of the fact that the State has limited resources and must aim to get maximum return in terms of employment from every pound it spends. As part of its normal investment criteria, the NDC will set at the outset of each investment time limits for its involvement in that investment. They will further be required to notify me of the time limits so set and of any subsequent decision to extend them.

The Government's employment objectives can best be achieved not by artificially increasing employment figures at the expense of unsustainable Government borrowing and deficits, as was done in the past, but by selective investment of available resources in modern viable industries. It is important to remember that the new technology of the mid-eighties will be outdated in the mid-nineties. We cannot afford to tie up our resources permanently in the technology of the mid-eighties. We need to have a constant stream of funds available to invest in new technologies as they arise over the next 20 years. The NDC, by operating a revolving investment fund, will be in a position to stay on the frontiers of technology and provide the jobs required by our young and increasing population without the need for a continuous source of new funds from the taxpayer.

As a further measure to ensure that the maximum number of investments is encouraged, the NDC will be empowered to enter into joint ventures with the private sector. This involvement of private enterprise partners in NDC investments is an important means of increasing the level of funds available for investment. It is also a means of encouraging a greater level of risk investment on the part of the private sector. Indeed, syndication of investments, as such joint arrangements are called, is an important and growing feature of the risk business and it is unlikely that the NDC could operate to its full potential if it were to be restricted in this regard. As a consequence, it will be possible for the NDC to be jointly involved with private venture capitalists in projects with a substantial financial dimension and where a spread of risk is essential or in overseas projects with definite potential for technology transfer or project development in Ireland. In this latter role the NDC will also be able to influence firms to locate or maintain their headquarters and decision-making functions here in Ireland rather than elsewhere. It is, of course, important to point out that the corporation will also be empowered to carry out its investment role in consultation and co-operation with existing State enterprise.

The National Development Corporation will have an innovative and commercial outlook. I must stress that it is not designed to undertake the functions of a rescue agency. I will not allow it to function as a means of resolving the difficulties of ailing State or private sector industry. At the end of the day, the success of the National Development Corporation will depend on the success of its individual investments. As such, each investment will be judged on its merits and assessed by the corporation in the context of its potential to contribute to the overall aim of creating the maximum amount of viable and sustainable employment in the State.

The NDC will play a critical role in the Government's overall strategy for the development of the indigenous resource sector of the economy, particularly in relation to agriculture, fishery and forestry resources. The Government are committed to the preparation, in conjunction with sectoral and agricultural interests, of a co-ordinated development programme for the indigenous resource sector.

The most pervasive problem in this sector — affecting agriculture, forestry and fishing — has been that of insufficient integration resulting in a lack of synchronisation between production patterns and market needs. Substantial investment is needed if production patterns are to be tailored to market needs. Seasonality of production and unevenness of quality can only be eliminated if primary producers are prepared to invest substantial sums and take substantial risks.

Partnership equity is needed to enable the entire natural resource sector to achieve its full potential. This will be especially necessary if long-term production contracts are to be developed. A buffer fund may be necessary to overcome difficulties that will arise if market prices diverge substantially from contract prices. I hope that the NDC will, on its own or in partnership with other investors, be able to step in to assist in underpinning the development of long-term contracts or analogous arrangements.

I also hope that it will be able to invest in identified niches in the natural resource sector where the full added value potential of Irish produce is not being achieved. Our timber resources also need to be exploited in a more commercial manner than heretofore and the NDC is being given a special role as an investment vehicle in commercial projects in this area.

The NDC will also be empowered to become involved in projects designed to assist the development of our tourist industry. The significant capital investment often required in respect of tourist facilities such as hotels and related activities as well as the seasonality of return would make this a key area for NDC involvement in joint ventures with the private sector. Their involvement will also fill an important gap in terms of State financial and available to the tourist industry, as pointed out in the recently published White Paper on Tourism.

Another area in which the NDC will play an important role will be to assist and, if necessary, participate in the establishment of development companies to provide services to small enterprises on a commercial basis. The Telesis report took the view that smaller Irish manufacturing firms could not achieve their full potential because they lacked adequate resources for marketing, R & D, warehousing and so on. It argued that, in some cases, these could be supplied by development companies providing common services to a number of firms. It is my hope that the NDC will be able to invest in, and share in the profits, of such schemes. The availability of investment funds from the NDC should act as a catalyst in establishing the initial viability of joint schemes of this kind throughout industry.

Because of the structure of the Irish capital markets there is a serious shortage of both private and public seed capital for projects, particularly technology-based projects, which take a number of years of development work before they reach the stage of commercialisation. The NDC is, therefore, being empowered to assist in the development of, and invest in, commercial enterprises based on the results of research and development activity in higher education or related fields.

I have been very impressed by the development of university-based industries in the United States. Many of the most successful high technology zones are located close to universities. Their success derives both from the direct application in industry of ideas emanating in universities, and from the indirect effects of the creation of an innovative atmosphere influenced by the institutes of higher education. The Industrial Development Authority have recognised this and an industrial park is being located in proximity to University College Dublin. A successful industrial park has already been set up at Plessey in proximity to the NIHE in Limerick.

The National Development Corporation can complement these efforts, and those of individual entrepreneurs, by providing a new source of investment funds for enterprises established in this way. The NDC will be aiming, as in all its investments, at making a profit. But its investment perspective will be longer than that of many traditional investors. Thus it will be well suited to the commercialisation of research-based products and processes. The Bill also empowers the NDC to act as a holding company for new projects initiated by public sector companies where such a facility would be helpful.

The corporation will not initially be empowered to act as a holding company for existing State industries. This will, however, be considered by the Government in the light of the progress of the NDC in its basic innovation and developmental tasks. In many of the existing commercial State enterprises, there is a need for policy and performance prospects to be more clearly delineated as corporate plans are submitted and evaluated. There would be little point in handing over to the NDC unsettled policy problems of certain State enterprises. Objectives and strategies must be settled first, and social — strategic roles, if any, clarified. Moreover, it will be important — particularly during its crucial formative period — for the NDC's resource and staff not to be diverted from its primary project, development — job creation role.

Although the corporation's main activity will be that of taking an equity stake in projects, it is also being empowered to give loans. The giving of loans by the corporation will, however, be subject to the following conditions:—

(i) where financial assistance is being provided by the corporation for a project, a maximum of 30 per cent of the initial assistance provided by the corporation may be by way of loan capital;

(ii) where loan capital has been provided for a project any further financial assistance provided by the corporation to that project may be by way of equity investment only;

(iii) in cases where loan capital has been provided by the corporation to a project the corporation shall specify that the interest rate attaching to the loan shall be as determined by me in consultation with the Minister for Finance.

The giving of loans together with equity investment is a feature of the venture capital market. The inclusion in the legislation of the conditions outlined above will ensure that the giving of loans will be part only of the initial investment and thus there is no danger of the corporation losing sight of its job-creation function and becoming a State rescue service.

In order to enable the corporation to fulfill its investment role, it is being provided with an authorised share capital of £300 million which will be held by, or on behalf of, the Minister for Finance.

In advancing the corporation funds out of its authorised share capital, the Government will have regard to the financial commitments of the board in terms of the projects and investment programmes with which it is, or is likely, to become involved. In later years, the Government will also have regard to the amount of funds available to the corporation from its own resources, that is the revolving investment fund for employment.

It is the Government's objective to ensure that the corporation exercises due commercial prudence in the selection, administration and disposal of its investment portfolio. If it does not make profits, it will not be able to create jobs.

The corporation will be judged at the end of the day in accordance with its success in achieving these twin objectives. Therefore, the rate at which the authorised share capital of the corporation is issued must remain at the discretion of the Government. If the corporation is performing profitably and is succeeding in creating employment, a greater amount of funds can be released. The opposite, by definition, also applies.

In order for the corporation to build up a base of profitable investments capable of providing sustainable employment, it is necessary to ensure that investments are judiciously spread over a range of sectors. For this reason the NDC will not be allowed to make investments in excess of £1 million without my consent, or in excess of £2.5 million without the consent of the Government. As a further element of protection for the taxpayer, section 33 of the Bill imposes restrictions on the corporation entering into financial commitments in respect of items such as leasing or purchasing office premises or office equipment.

One of the crucial factors which will determine the success of the corporation will be the level of expertise and commitment of those appointed both to the board and the staff of the corporation. It is not mine or the Government's intention that the members of the board be appointed simply because of their political or ideological views.

The board should be made up of men and women who have proven business, economic and enterpreneurial skills and who have a commitment to, and belief in, what they are doing. The board should also be a closely knit group capable of working in harmony. There is a maximum limit imposed by this Bill of nine board members and I believe that this will allow the proper balance to be struck. Likewise, if the corporation is to become a vibrant, job creating organisation, staff of the highest calibre must be attracted to its ranks.

The Bill provides that the corporation may not take a majority shareholding in any enterprise other than one which it establishes on its own initiative. The financial risks attaching to a majority shareholding are far greater and so, too, are the administrative and management responsibilities of a holding company. Such factors would impose an enormous strain on the resources of the corporation and would result in staff being deflected from their primary function of job initiators. With a large number of majority holdings, the staff of the corporation would become more involved in the management of existing investments instead of finding new ones.

The Bill before the House makes the usual administrative provisions in respect of State bodies. It is not necessary for me to comment on each of them in turn. I will of course be happy later in this debate to clarify any particular provision where Deputies require me to do so. However, I would like to mention a number of points at this stage.

First, the Government, in addition to the share capital of the corporation, are empowered to make grants of up to £2 million available in any one year to meet the administrative, day to day, running costs of the organisation. Secondly, I draw attention to the facility to give policy directives to the corporation. This is extremely important and allows the Government to steer the policy of the corporation in line with their own general industrial and employment objectives. Such directives must relate to general areas of policy and may not attempt to influence the corporation in regard to any specific investment proposal with which they are involved. Furthermore, such directives must be given in an open manner and must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

Finally, I would like to refer to the provision which dissolves the National Enterprise Agency and vests all their property, assets, debts, liabilities and so on in the corporation. This is an extremely beneficial way of eliminating any difficulties in the transfer of responsibility and it ensures that the corporation may step directly into the shoes of the agency.

I have no doubt that speakers on the opposite side of the House will ask why we are setting up a National Development Corporation at all. What can they do that the National Enterprise Agency cannot? A fair question and one which I propose to answer before it is posed.

In the first instance, the National Development Corporation are being established by law by the Oireachtas, whereas the NEA were just a company set up by administrative means. Secondly, this legislation provides the NDC with a proper capital base, the lack of which was a serious inhibiting factor in the operation of the NEA. The NEA were formed with only a nominal share capital and were required to draw down their capital funds under a grant-in-aid arrangement. This produced a degree of uncertainty and mitigated against the agency entering into long-term financial and investment commitments.

Thirdly, the NDC will have specific statutory power to operate and invest in areas as defined in the Bill. This new statutory framework is a significant improvement in that it clearly outlines the NDC's remit and greatly enhances their potential to operate successfully as against the provisions affecting the NEA. It crystallises the NDC's function and leaves no room for doubt as to its primary job creation role. Furthermore, it greatly improves the administration procedures involved and removes the uncertainty which has surrounded the operation of the agency in recent years. Also the existence of legislation gives the Oireachtas a major say in the operation of the corporation.

At this point, I would like to pay a compliment to the chairman, directors and staff of the NEA. They have operated under a cloud of uncertainty as regards their future for some time but notwithstanding this their commitment and endeavour have never waned. Let me say also, that although the NEA had been established by a previous administration I actively encouraged them to continue their work until something better was available. They have already made some good investments. During 1984 and 1985 some 20 projects have been approved committing over £2 million of capital funds. It would be wrong to assume that the 150 or so jobs provided by these investments is the total employment potential of the projects concerned. There is a saying in the venture capital business that venture capitalists do not invest in small business, they just invest in businesses which happen to be small at present. Let me say that the work of the agency to date has been ample testimony to the role which this Government perceive for State involvement in equity investment in industry. They have provided a foundation on which the NDC may now commence to build a much larger structure.

I commend this Bill to the House.

The Bill before us proposes to set up a National Development Corporation. Initially I pose a question and answer it at the same time. What is it? My view is that this is but a piece of ideological nonsense set up to appease the Labour element in Government simply because it was part of a deal cobbled together after — I stress that word — the last general election by Fine Gael and Labour, and now, in the dying days of this Coalition Government, after three years in office this Bill is being presented to the House and the nation as a panacea for all our ills and particularly as saviour for industrial development and the creation of jobs. Nobody is in any doubt that the Government have failed totally to create an environment in which enterprise, investment and job creation could grow and develop. Since this Government came into office they have pursued policies which have had the effect of running down the economy, and instead of growth and development, what have we got? Retrenchment, cutbacks, closures, receiverships and liquidations are the order of every day, not just of the day.

The solution lies in the creation of an environment which is conducive to investment and such a solution is not to be found in the proposed Bill or within the capacity of the Minister and the present Government, nor is it indicated, outlined or contained anywhere in the Bill or in the speech which the Minister has just read to the House. Is it not only reasonably to expect, in an environment which has been created by this Government since assuming office, an environment which is hostile to enterprise, that talented Irish people are unwilling to take the risks involved in bringing their ideas for new products and services to the market place? The return on industrial investment is much too low to attract funds. These are the facts and they are not being dealt with by the Minister or the Government in this Bill or in the Minister's contribution which we have just heard.

Is it not true that there is no shortage of available funds? The Irish financial sector is currently awash with funds. Against this background it is difficult to see the appropriateness of the justification for the establishment of this new agency. The ideological bickering and the public recriminations between the partners in the Coalition Government which preceded the publication of this Bill do not augur well for the establishment of a successful National Development Corporation. I remind the House and the Minister by extracts from some of the national dailies of the ideological bickering I have mentioned. We read in the Irish Independent of 10 July 1984 with reference to the White Paper the heading “Coalition rift on Bruton job plan.” This is written in all honesty as a learned opinion by a journalist for the consumption of people who read this paper. I quote:

Industry Minister John Bruton faces a head-on clash with his Labour counterparts at today's Cabinet meeting.

The row is over the shape of Mr. Bruton's long awaited Government White Paper on industrial policy.

As well as establishing the National Development Corporation, the White Paper, due to be published this Thursday, also proposes a total revamp of grant and tax incentives to industry and strict controls on the operation of State-sponsored companies.

We have learned what some of those strict controls meant in regard to Irish Shipping, for instance. The extract continues:

The Government plan proposes to double industrial output over the next ten years.

Labour sources were adamant last night that significant policy decisions still remain to be agreed.

But the Department of Industry sources were equally insistent that the final text has already been agreed by the Cabinet.

They said also that the White Paper was already with the printers, making ready for the following Thursday's official publication. Then there are references to the Labour reservations about the final shape of the document focusing on the NDC and again I quote:

While there has been much agonising over the industrial policy White Paper stretching back over the previous year, during which it has been exhaustively before Cabinet, it is clear that it is the chapter in the White Paper dealing with the National Development Corporation which is the major source of friction between Mr. Bruton in particular, and Mr. Spring, Tánaiste and leader of the Labour Party.

I shall quote further from the media because, apart from anything that may be said here, they tend to form public opinion. I quote from The Irish Press of 24 January 1985. The heading is ‘Spring-Bruton feud hots up over NDC’.

The first signs that the running battle between Dick Spring and John Bruton over the National Development Corporation was entering the public arena came on Friday, April 13, last, when Mr. Bruton chose to include a section on the NDC's operation in a script for delivery at a technology awards ceremony.

These references were bland but Dick Spring was infuriated. Mr. Bruton was speaking on the opening day of the Labour Party conference...

The Deputy seems to be moving from the contents of the Bill.

He is paying a great compliment to the Irish Independent.

I have a few more of these quotations which I hope will help to indicate the atmosphere in which this yoke of a Bill is before the House. I am anxious to indicate what is the public perception of the Bill. I have read the various statements and reports of the consultations in regard to this issue in the past three years. If the Minister and the Government and laterally the Ceann Comhairle have some reason for not wishing me to quote these various references, I can only say that I am doing so by way of indicating some of what I shall be saying later. It is relevant that we put on record what the public perception is of this proposal.

We hope the public perception is that the corporation will result in the creation of a fair number of jobs.

A further paragraph under the same Irish Press heading reads:

Mr. Bruton had serious misgivings about any references to the funds available to the NDC but Mr. Spring eventually secured clearance for an assertion that the Corporation would have initial equity capital of £200 million to be taken up over a period of years...

That was never a problem.

Did we not achieve a good improvement in that regard?

It is incorrect for the Minister or for spokespersons on behalf of the Government to be indicating, as they have indicated in recent days and undoubtedly will indicate also in the days ahead, that the Government have found £200 million to inject into the creation and development of jobs when we all know that nothing could be further from the truth. They will not succeed in fooling the people with that illusion.

Under the heading:

Cabinet are now split over Bruton ‘sell-out'

in the Irish Independent of 24 January 1985, there is the following comment:

The Coalition split last night over the proposed National Development Corporation... setting the scene for a highly divisive internal Cabinet row.

Further under the same heading there is the following paragraph:

Mr. Bruton has long been something of a hate figure among left-wing members of the Labour Party and some clearly now feel that he is attempting to undermine party policy.

This may be all very interesting but I do not think it has any relevance to the Bill.

By compiling all this material from the various papers, the Deputy is only assisting me in the preparation of my memoirs.

I am only quoting in part from these various comments by way of indicating what has been happening in the Government in the past three years in relation to this National Development Corporation.

One of my illustrious predecessors ruled that a series of quotations is not a contribution to a debate. That ruling appeals to me.

I regard these references as being very relevant to the proposal before us but in deference to your wish that I should refrain from quoting further from the papers, I shall resist except to refer briefly to an article in The Irish Press of 25 January last under the following heading:

Labour warn of "consequences" if NDC plan fails.

In that article it is reported that:

Last night, the Fine Gael T.D. for Dublin South, Mr. John Kelly, warned that just as the State had been damned for 60 years by civil war divisions, it was now "in danger of being damned for the next 60 years by ideology, unless we get a bit of sense. This can be seen from the present fuss about the National Development Corporation.

Perhaps now, a Cheann Comhairle, you will regard these little quotations as being relevant in the context of this Bill.

As my predecessor seemed to think, one could string together a whole necklace of such statements and still not have what would amount to a debate.

And when we have strung them together, we might hang them around the necks of the Minister and the Government. This Bill is only a repeat of the Government's good intentions on the unemployment problem, but good intentions of themselves will not solve that serious problem. Action is needed but this Bill offers no specific practical solutions. It does not even contain a proposal that would produce one viable job. The whole Bill lacks substance. The Government would have saved much valuable time had they adopted the National Enterprise Agency and applied themselves to practical means of creating the employment that is needed so much.

The Minister has indicated the reasons for scrapping the National Enterprise Agency. He has told us why the agency must be scuttled to make way for the NDC. One of the most damaging effects that the Government have had on the NEA resulted from the uncertainty surrounding that body for the past three years while all the time the Government continued with their ideological dithering about the setting up of the corporation. During that time they left the NEA in a vacuum and that was not conducive to the creation of employment. Instead of strengthening the agency all we have are empty gestures from a Government who insist on sitting in their ivory towers of unreality while everything around them crumbles.

In a nutshell, this Bill sets out mainly the objectives of the NDC and the administrative methods and controls that should be adopted. Building on Reality— dare I mention that document? — contains plenty of flowery rhetoric but does not contain one practical suggestion of how jobs are to be created. I am sure that an opportunity will be afforded to everyone who wants to contribute to this debate, in support or otherwise, or to say other than what I have said. I had hoped to see some solid proposals emanating at this stage of the Government's term in office, for instance, identifying projects where investment could be channelled as a result of feasibility studies, or suggestions on how to exploit to their full potential Ireland's forestry, fishing and food industries. Instead, the Government are once again kicking for touch with regard to the main problem facing the country. There is nothing in this latest legislation to encourage real entrepreneurs to build up and increase our productive capacity, thereby decreasing unemployment. There are many problems inherent in the manner in which this legislation has been drawn up involving the creating and maintaining of entrepreneurship in an institution such as the NDC, where the environment may be basically hostile to such an initiative. The main task of the Government, if they are serious, about and capable of decreasing unemployment would be to ensure that the business environment does not actively discourage investment and risk taking, as is happening at present.

The Minister was very careful not to make any commitments on the scale of funds to be given to the NDC. We all know that the share capital of the company will be IR£300 million. It is being portrayed that this money is to be issued immediately. Will the Minister tell us how much of this is available immediately, or will it be available over a number of years and, if so, for how long? The Minister appears to be encouraging joint ventures with State-sponsored commercial enterprises which in a number of cases are unable to manage their own affairs profitably. He has set down no criteria on the return required from these investments, nor has he set down any terms of reference as to how and when these investments will be disposed of. No conditions are laid down as to the quality and experience of the directors to be appointed. Sufficient to say that, as is the practice and custom of this Government, no doubt these will be appointed substantially on a political basis.

In common with my party, since I was given responsibility as spokesman on industry and employment, I have encouraged in every way possible in this House the need to seek any and every measure possible to deal with the single most important item facing this country at this time — unemployment.

I hope that the Deputy has more to offer than his party's spokesman on Finance.

The downturn in manufacturing industry averages a loss of 7,000 jobs per year over a four year period and there is spiralling unemployment. Despite the Taoiseach's commitment to halting and reversing the trend in unemployment figures, we have a live register figure at the end of September totalling 229,518. We are all aware that if the true figure were obtained the number looking for jobs would surely top 300,000.

It is now abundantly clear that neither the Government nor the Minister are in a position to reverse these trends. It may seem all right for the Minister to bulldoze his way down to Ennis and, through the IDA, to put pressure on a firm on Monday night last to accommodate him in another of his publicity gimmicks. The media mentioned his flying visit to the Limerick region. Even his own Deputies in that constituency were not aware of this visit and when a phone call alerted them, only one could turn up. Further, at the reception during which he was making this announcement he added insult to injury and sneaked out of the reception to hold a press conference, which was partially reported in the national media. I do not mind that the Minister introduced into the NDC debate a matter of envelopes and stamps. His success as Minister for Industry could easily be contained on the back of a stamp. To list his failures and those of his Government would need a great number of envelopes. His efforts to conceal his own inability on the industrial front are evident. Did he say anything to the assembled gatherings at the reception or press conference about the Hyster plant? Did he explain how he had supported that plant but the Cabinet had not?

Wrong again.

Did he explain that when we challenged him on the figures here in the House he did not answer? We had the figures——

The Deputy is wrong again.

——but the Minister would not debate these figures. He became very personal in Ennis and I am now taking off the kid gloves that I have had on up to this. The Minister asked for it and he is going to get it from now on.

He sought to distract attention from the real issue of the National Development Corporation to talk about envelopes and stamps, but there is his answer. There was a similar exercise recently by the same Minister with regard to the deal on beef for Russia. I now give the Minister the opportunity to correct me if I am wrong on this and to come clean with the nation. Is it not a fact that this deal will not benefit the Irish farmer to any extent? Is it not true that the beef being sent to Russia is coming out of intervention and has been lying there since as far back as 1980?

The Deputy should relate that to the Bill before the House.

I am relating it to the Bill, just as the Minister did.

The Deputy is relating it to the Minister.

The Minister was not speaking to the House, I gather from what the Deputy has been saying.

He was speaking elsewhere. Ministers have a habit of doing that nowadays, making announcements outside the House when they should be making them in here in the first instance. They might talk in the House before they go to the press.

What was said outside the House is not in order in this debate.

Is it not true that the only difference with this deal is that it is going direct to Russia instead of through the intermediary in France? What benefit will accrue to the producer arising from this deal? These are two examples of the modus operandi of the Minister acting in his own right and on behalf of the Government. I indicated earlier the daily occurrence during the lifetime of this Government of closures and liquidations. I presume, a Cheann Comhairle, that I am right in referring to these matters in terms of the Bill, because the underlying object of this Bill is to create jobs and develop industrial employment, to take on firms, invest money and so forth. I am only too well aware of the hardships created and the signs of despair and hopelessness evidenced all over this country, but particularly in my native Cork over the last three years. I welcome any proposal to reverse that trend. I am saying with sincerity and conviction that the proposed National Development Corporation will not change the trend which has been continuing under this Government.

The Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism and the Minister for Foreign Affairs as well as the entire Government have set a record in the staggering unemployment figures I have already quoted. There are many others who are not included in those figures. We have been indicating the trend of emigration which has been caused without a shadow of doubt by the inefficiencies of this Government. Because no emigration figures were available from the Central Statistics Office the Government would not acknowledge the seriousness of the situation.

The Chair has no wish to intervene in a way that might appear obstructive but I must insist that the Deputy keep within some distance of the Bill.

I am doing my best.

You have not referred to the Bill or any part of it.

The panacea being presented to us is concerned with the creation of jobs and I am referring to the numbers of young people who are emigrating. The Government will not acknowledge the seriousness of the situation. Whenever the matter is raised in the House the Government endeavour to talk it down and charge the Opposition with lack of knowledge and the production of hypothetical figures.

That would be in order in a debate on unemployment. The Deputy should try to relate his comments to the Bill.

This is all about employment.

The Chair's difficulty is that the Deputy is not talking about the Bill.

There was an announcement this week that the Government have realised that a serious situation exists and mentioned the possible payment of moneys to young people to stay at home. Is that the Government's answer to providing jobs for young people? A significant feature of the launching of the NDC was the limited support from Government and elsewhere, shown most conspicuously by the absence of any contribution from the national handlers. Obviously they have no stomach for it.

In spite of all the volumes of propaganda in favour of the NDC, it simply will not work. That conclusion was reached some time ago by most people of good sense. Now an economist has confirmed this. Writing in the September issue of the Irish Banking Review R. S. Thompson of University College Cork argues that neither basic economic reasoning nor comparable experience elsewhere leads to an optimistic expectation about the NDC's future prospects. Now we see the sponsoring Minister. Was there ever a more reluctant sponsor at a baptism? The Minister may assemble a worthy collection of bankers, accountants and others who will eliminate from the outset totally incompetent, technically impossible or financially impracticable projects. Neither they nor anybody else can predict commercial success.

If, as the Minister and some members of the Government would have us believe, sustainable and badly needed jobs will be created by this measure, why has the introduction of this wonder of wonders taken so long from the day of its conception at least three years ago? We all know that it is an ideological sop to the Labour Party to ensure that they will not pull the plug and send the Government gurgling down the drain as an overwhelming majority of the electorate would like before wreaking any further damage to the fibre of our people, socially, morally, culturally and nationally.

Whom is the Deputy quoting?

If I were to enumerate the failures of this Government it would take the remainder of the time alotted today and well into the next day. Despite the fact that the propaganda machine is working at full production——

The Deputy must relate to the Bill before the House.

The electorate will leave this Government in no doubt when the opportunity is given to them. Let us look at some alternatives. During the debate last June on the Designated Trust Funds Bill then before the House the reality of the extent of the problem of lack of investment in industrial development, which relied heavily on State aid and debt finance, was recognised and acknowledged by Members. I supported the Bill, even though I expressed some reservation that it would not achieve what it set out to achieve, that is, the encouragement of the greatest possible number to invest in venture capital, as designated by the Finance Bill of 1984 and the Designated Capital Investment Fund. I had hoped that the Bill would change the attitude of the Government who, by their policies, had stifled investment in industry and undermined confidence. It is high time to create an environment more conducive to investment and expansion in industry. Only two funds were established in the previous year, a measure of the Government's failure in this regard. I suggested dismantling the intimidating barbed wire fence which surrounds the scheme.

What will the NDC achieve which could not be achieved by existing State agencies such as the National Enterprise Agency? The Minister gave reasons for taking it out of existence and replacing it with this corporation. Why not take the existing agency and if necessary strengthen it? This could not be done because an ideological requirement in setting up the Government was the establishment of a national development corporation at the insistence of the smaller grouping in the Government. The IDA and others must be able to get rid of their inhibitions. They must be strengthened in their efforts to develop the activities necessary to create badly needed employment.

Therefore, there is no need for this ideological charade we now have before us, and the Minister can be assured that his proposal is being rejected because of its quality, not because it is the Government who put it forward. The Minister is being less than honest when he says that £300 million is being provided for job creation. The Minister and I know that is not so. Would he indicate whether £2 million or £3 million will be provided next year, the year after——

It is in the Bill if the Deputy would read it.

Why not give those bodies the capital they require to cause a growth in employment, the sort of viable jobs we are looking for? Section 16 provides that the NDC will be under the control of three different Ministers, the Ministers for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, Finance and the Public Service. Approval must be got from the Ministers for the investment of even £1 million. In other words, the Bill requires that layers of approvals must be had in order to provide capital for the relief of unemployment.

I have touched on section 22, which provides for the dissolution of the National Enterprise Agency. That was unnecessary for the realisation of the alleged objects of the NDC. It is an outrageous proposal. The National Enterprise Agency were inhibited not so much by lack of funds as lack of enterprise, and I doubt very much that that lack of enterprise will not be transferred to the NDC. Enterprise is needed if we are to achieve an atmosphere conducive to job creation, but such enterprise has not been shown by the Minister or the Government. Now they expect the people to believe that this charade, this nonsense, this ideological commitment given three years ago, will provide all the answers to our industrial problems. All the efforts of the Government so far have ended in massive failures.

The commitment to establish the NDC was given after the general election, but let us look at the promises given before the election. There was the commitment to eliminate deficit budgeting. That failed and consequently unemployment rose. There was a commitment before the election to reduce foreign borrowing but that is now higher than ever, much of it being used for day to day spending and little to create employment.

This is not in order on the Bill. It might be during an Adjournment debate.

Their targets have not been reached. All of them have been failures. Their Programme for Government has become a programme for the uneasy survival of the Government. This Bill has been introduced to assuage the Labour Party——

I must insist that you are ignoring the Chair and you are not making even an effort to talk about the Bill. You are getting into an Adjournment debate, and that is not relevant.

You would never know how close we are to that. When we are contributing to Bills I agree that we should apply our remarks 100 per cent to the Bills but I submit that this Bill is more than a Bill: it is not before us because of a commitment prior to the election but as a promise given after the election. That is why I consider it necessary for me to re-state the evidence already given by me in regard to the setting up of the Government after the election. It has taken the Government three years to bring this Bill to the House. That is another indication of the Government's incompetence which should be the subject of adjudication by the electorate. The Bill is nothing more than an effort to appease the Labour Party. Earlier today we had the Taoiseach's effort——

I have been endeavouring to get the Deputy to speak to the Bill.

I have a job to do and so has the Ceann Comhairle, and it is my contention that the Bill has been brought here in the dying days of the Government to appease the Labour Party, and I will express my opinion on that continually during this debate. The Bill has nothing to do with pre-election gimmicks and promises. We note that it was upstaged today by the Taoiseach's statement on employment and tax reform. The proposal to set up the NDC is only a last gasp effort to save the Government. They know of their unpopularity after the local and European elections. The Bill has been brought in after three years of failure. If it is passed not a single person with money to invest would have any confidence in the Minister or the Government. Therefore, the Bill does not stand a chance among the investing public or the community. The Minister and the Government are moving progressively into cloud-cockooland.

I find it slightly patronising on the part of the Fianna Fáil spokesman to refer to this Bill as he did, as constituting an appeasement of Labour Party policy. We in the Labour Party do not seek appeasement so far as our policy is concerned. We seek its implementation to the maximum extent achievable.

The question of a national development corporation is something which has been a major Labour Party policy plank for many years past. We have had to fight very hard to achieve this day when a National Development Corporation Bill would be introduced into this House. We had to fight very hard to have it, as far as is possible, in the image of a national development corporation as seen by the Labour Party. I do not say that its format is 100 per cent what it would be if a Labour Party Government were introducing it. To a major extent it is in satisfaction of Labour Party policy. As Deputy Lyons pointed out, the party and its members in Cabinet, at parliamentary party level, administrative council level and rank and file have had to fight long and hard to achieve the Bill in its present form. In the Labour Party view it represents a substantial improvement on the scenario depicted in the White Paper on Industrial Policy. We believe that is all for the good, that it gives the corporation a much better chance of succeeding in the objectives we wish it to achieve and which we believe, given the right parameters and conditions, it will achieve.

Let me say, first of all, what we do not put the Bill forward as. We do not put it forward as a panacea that will, of itself, cure and dispose of the entire unemployment and endemic employment problems we have and have experienced for decades. We do not put it forward on that basis. But we do put it forward as a probability of constituting a major factor in contributing to the creation of employment that would not exist otherwise.

Hear, hear.

We have an endemic unemployment problem. That is not new. It is true that the figures may have been on the increase in world recessionary circumstances and in other situations. But we have had here very serious unemployment in the good times, when the booms were on, when Fianna Fáil were in power, when other Coalition Governments were in power. Times of boom and recession apparently made very little difference to us; we have always had one of the highest unemployment rates ever. Is it not time that we stopped short for a minute and began to analyse why that is so? Or are we to carry on merrily and gaily as we have done all those years since the foundation of the State? There is talk here of ideological considerations — Deputy Kelly and so on being referred to. I do not know what this criticism of ideology is about. Is there something wrong about having an ideology? The State would not have been founded in the first place had there not been very many people who had ideologies. There is nothing wrong with having ideologies provided they are thought out, reasoned and considered.

We have a very serious unemployment situation and have always had it. What are we going to do about it? What are the proposals to resolve that? There is the cliché we have often heard bandied about over the years. It takes different forms but the usual one goes: Governments do not create jobs; they only create the right climate for the private sector. We have all heard that cliché in different forms many times. Indeed I think the Opposition spokesman used it today in one form or another.

I do not know what kind of climate one has to create in order to induce the private sector to resolve our unemployment problem. Have not they been molly-coddled and nursed over the decades? Have not State institutions bent over backwards? Is there anything that was not done for them between tax concessions, export relief, IDA grants and so on? You name it, they have received it. The whole thrust of fiscal policy going back decades was directed towards creating the right climate to resolve our unemployment problem and did it ever do that? It never did so. There were times when it was marginally worse or better but they never got to grips with the problem. They never seemed to have any realistic prospects or adopt an approach in order to bring our unemployment rates down to the levels of the remainder of Europe or to those of other countries of a comparable level of natural resources and population. They never did that. Relatively speaking, we have concentrated what meagre resources we have had over the years on helping them — for the most part foreign firms — to do that. For the most part did we not bend the knee, cajole and beg them to come here from all over the world? One must remember the hundreds of millions of pounds given them, never mind invested, but given them by way of grants. It would not do one good to total the amount that must have been paid out over all those years. All right, it must be admitted that they created some employment, some viable, some continuous, but a very large proportion has gone. We had Mostek last week, which was the latest in a long line. It is not the climate here that caused that. Rather was it that we placed our reliance on that format of national development. The theory was — do anything, bring them in from Japan, Germany, Italy, wherever one liked. Let them do it; we will give them enough money. Let them solve our employment problem for us. When it suited them they solved their profit problems all right. But certainly they never solved our unemployment problem. They gave no indication of it then and have given no indication of doing so now.

When I am critical of the private sector in general terms in failing to meet the needs of our people over the years that should not be taken as a blanket criticism of the private sector. I do not intend it that way. There are, of course, very many first class firms in the private sector, both indigenous and foreign firms, who play a very valuable and important role in providing the viable employment that, God knows, we need. They have their role to play and more power to them. The criticism I am making is that the private sector, as such, has not nearly met our needs. Are we to continue as before, paying lip service to the idea that we will make grants available, continue the same old previous, tired policy and, like Mr. Micawber, hope that something will turn up?

Nothing will turn up, nothing will happen unless we come to a determined conclusion that we will make it happen. The days are finished for placing our entire reliance on enterpreneurs, at home or abroad, to do the job for us. We do not have to do that because I firmly believe that, with our resources and available expertise and money which we can raise or borrow, we can set about doing the job ourselves. That is true, modern nationalism. People, including international economists, recognise that the old system has failed. We must recognise that fact and I regret that the Fianna Fáil Party seem very reluctant to face up to this and to recognise it. Indeed, the whole thrust of the speech by Deputy Lyons reminded me of the old saying among law students when I was studying law that in the practice of law if you had a very bad case you attacked the witnesses for the opposition. Deputy Lyons was attacking the witnesses for the opposition instead of giving a constructive analysis of how he would resolve the situation.

Economists world wide, in the OECD in particular, recognise the failure of our policies up to now in relying on the grant system through the IDA and hoping that it would resolve our problems through foreign firms setting up here. An OECD observer, referring to our industrialisation situation, said that our industrialisation policy which has concentrated on encouraging foreign companies to establish plants in Ireland proved less efficient than had been hoped in generating employment and developing a broad infrastructure of supply industries. It is an understatement to say that it has proved less efficient than had been hoped. That is putting it at its very best. It has done considerably worse than that.

What did the foreign companies who worked well do? Were they out to help us? I am not referring to Mostek and firms like them who closed down and left their workers stranded but to firms who did well from grants provided by the Irish taxpayer. Did they plough the money back into their businesses? Did they set up new ventures here with their profits which would create additional employment? They did not. They just pumped their profits back to their head offices. As the OECD observer pointed out, foreign companies have regularly remitted over half their earnings to their parent organisations. The outflow of repatriated profits rose from £258 million in 1980 to £940 million in 1984, amounting to 6½ per cent of our GNP. That was the thanks we got from the international firms for all the assistance they were given.

One of the problems in our economic set up is that we have not seen to the establishment of manufacturing firms of a sufficient size and with sufficient funding to enable those firms to compete on the international markets. We have had small firms aplenty. That has not been the problem but we lack major, substantial manufacturing capacities——

And marketing.

Yes. If our private sector had been able to organise itself over the years when these things were provided we would not be in such dire straits now in regard to employment. However, with minor exceptions, they never did this and this is where the role of the National Development Corporation will be crucial. That is the reason the Labour Party welcome the fact that a substantial capital sum of £300 million will be made available by the Government to enable us to set up manufacturing capacities in a number of major industries. We can do that and let nobody think otherwise. If we have the confidence to do that we can do it, and we do not have to wait for anybody else to set it up.

We are now setting up the means of doing this and the money will also be provided. Engineers are graduating from our third level institutions who can be of great assistance in this regard. The National Development Corporation can also do it and are given power in the Bill to do so. That is a major achievement in the Bill by the Labour Party and that kind of power was not provided for in the White Paper which concentrated on a secondary level of investment.

We have achieved a major improvement in that the NDC are empowered to set up manufacturing institutions. People asked what sort of things they could realistically set up. There are a wealth of things which they can set up. I am not talking about major items such as cars and aeroplanes because even with £300 million these would be well beyond our capacity——

What about Cork Development Corporation?

We set that as a target to be included and it is covered.

My recollection is that there was some doubt in regard to it.

If I could get the Minister's commitment on that I would be delighted.

There are innumerable opportunities that the NDC can take up on their own behalf or jointly with the private sector. In appropriate cases I see nothing ideologically wrong — neither do the Labour Party — in having joint ventures with the private sector where the expertise, resources and opportunities may be there.

I wish to mention a few possibilities — the list is endless. I refer to items such as surgical and medical instruments, chemicals, food processing, food processing machinery and pumping equipment. These are just a few items. In his opening speech the Minister said there were opportunities for new things. I am not quite sure what he meant by "new". Let me put it this way: they do not have to be new but they could be new for us and if that is so then they are new enough. One has only to look at all the manufactured goods we buy. Only a very small proportion is manufactured here and it is ever-decreasing to our eternal shame. I hope we will be able to reverse the situation to some extent at least and to an extent that will increase as time goes on.

We have heard the response of Fianna Fáil to the introduction of this measure. Deputy Lyons has been quoting from newspaper cuttings but the reports I saw stated that Fianna Fáil were opposed to this Bill and that if they come back to Government they would repeal it and abolish the National Development Corporation. That was a most remarkable comment and one can hardly understand its sense. Were they to say that when they got back to Government they would consider if the National Development Corporation were good or bad and if they found it was bad they would abolish the corporation, at least one could see some sense in that kind of comment. However, to say before the Bill is brought in or debated and before a factory is set up that they do not want to know and that when they get back to Government they will abolish the National Development Corporation is a reflection on a party who put themselves forward as an alternative Government. What a sad reflection and what a poor level of Opposition is shown by such a reaction, without even seeing what employment could be created in Cork and elsewhere.

It is important that the corporation when operational should have the flexibility to run themselves as a major commercial complex, which is what we hope will happen when they develop and build themselves up over time. In the Labour Party we were very unhappy about earlier suggestions that time limits for selling off would have to be set. We did not think that made good commercial sense. Any major conglomerate must be in control of their affairs, must decide what they will retain and for how long, how they will invest and so on. That aspect has been improved in the Bill to a major extent, although not to a complete extent. Nonetheless, there has been a substantial improvement and a fair measure of flexibility is provided for the board of the National Development Corporation as to how they will run their affairs.

My own view is that there could be occasions when it might be right or appropriate for a project to be sold off. We do not say that every investment made, every project and factory set up must be retained indefinitely. However, we take the view that if the corporation set up a factory that is going well, where viable employment is created and where it is making a profit, it would be, in the words of the Bill, "commercially prudent" to retain that investment. By all means take the profit thereby generated and put that profit into the revolving fund to use as a base for creating additional outlets and additional sources of employment. Perhaps it could be subsidiaries that would be related to a particular manufacturing capacity. That would be good and prudent sense if things were going well but we do not want a situation where the State would take a risk in the form of the National Development Corporation and then find that the project is sold off so that the private sector reaps the benefit. That is not our intention and we do not anticipate that matters should operate in that way.

Of course the decision regarding what will be retained and what will be commercially viable to retain will be made by the board. I was pleased to see that the Minister specifically excluded himself from directives on that aspect of the matter. It highlights the importance of membership of the board of the National Development Corporation. The personnel who will occupy the seats on that board will be crucial to the success of the corporation. Tremendous care will have to be taken in making those appointments to ensure, first and foremost, that they are people who are dedicated and committed to the public sector, that they are people who are convinced that the future creation of employment through the corporation will be achieved in ever-increasing numbers by using the resources of the corporation. These people will have to work aggressively and with determination to create the employment we need so desperately, using the opportunity that will be given to them by way of this Bill. People of commitment and dedication to the public service will be required and I trust tremendous care will be taken in making those appointments.

It has been said that the National Enterprise Agency could do what it is intended that the National Development Corporation will do and that what is being proposed is a duplicate of the IDA. The Minister has dealt with some of those matters in his speech. Perhaps the National Enterprise Agency could do that or perhaps they could not. The NEA were set up by a Fianna Fáil Government who were never very enthusiastic about the agency. The latter were never given the proper resources or given the directive to intervene in the market and to set up major industrial projects in an aggressive manner to deal with our serious problems in the way that is being done here with the National Development Corporation. The IDA have had, and still have, a very important role to play. Nobody is suggesting that the advent of the National Development Corporation means that the IDA are redundant. Far from it. So serious are our unemployment and employment positions that we need to avail of and exploit every opportunity open to us — in the private sector, joint ventures, the semi-State sector and now through the National Development Corporation, the State sector — if we are to have any hope of tackling the present situation.

Deputy Lyons said there was nothing in Building on Reality that would contribute to our economic progress. I cannot say I would regard that document as my bible, very far from it, but it does contain the parameters for the National Development Corporation and that will, I hope, turn out to be a very significant and important factor for us. That is the position. We are on the threshold of a new development. It is true to say that many people do not as yet fully appreciate what the National Development Corporation is all about. To many people it is just a series of three more initials. The National Development Corporation is about the creation of jobs, taking an interventionist role in the economy, seeing that we will no longer be passive on this subject and that we will no longer sit back hoping somebody will come along and do something for us — an Irish or foreign entrepreneur. We must make a decision that we will not just sit back and hope something will happen, that somehow these jobs will appear.

This is a new exciting prospect. Without relying on anybody else, but by using our own work force — whom we have educated over the years in our technical colleges and universities — and all the money we can gather, we are setting up a national development corporation to build, develop and expand different ventures. I hope the State will not make the mistake of dissipating precious funds on a number of small ventures. The emphasis must be on setting up a number of large manufacturing projects which will be able to compete with the other manufacturing countries of the western world. If we get one, two or three of these projects off the ground, the boost they would provide would be immeasurable and would be a source of encouragement not only to expansion in the public sector but also in the private sector as well, and could be a green light for us.

It is up to us as a people to unite on this, and to determine that we will make it work and that we will plough into that corporation all it needs and all it takes to make it work. I believe we have the capabilities to do that. We can look forward with some degree of hope to something positive being done, seeing people working in factories which we have set up, goods being sold abroad and goods which up to now have been imported, being sold at home.

We are at a very interesting stage. This is a new development, a new challenge and I believe we can meet that challenge which will be of tremendous benefit for our economy and for employment.

I only wish I could share the enthusiasm expressed by Deputy Taylor about the National Development Corporation. Fianna Fáil would welcome any meaningful measure by this Government to confront what I can only describe as a crisis of frightening proportions — approximately 230,000 unemployed. These figures have been kept down by very high emigration over the past 18 months and, if recent trends continue, we are in for a very tough winter.

I can understand Deputy Taylor and the Members of the Labour Party blowing their trumpet after three years waiting in the wings for a type of national development corporation. The concept and idea of the National Development Corporation first appeared on the Irish political scene in the mid seventies when it was an objective of the Coalition Government from 1973 to 1977. I suspect the same problems that beset the setting up of this National Development Corporation over the past three years were also evident around the Cabinet table in 1973-77 because by the end of that period in Government, the National Development Corporation still had not surfaced. There was nothing done about it in 1977-81.

It was a concept we never shared. I would love to be convinced about this by the debate but, reading the Minister's speech, I am as unconvinced as I was before he made his contribution. Let us be honest for a moment in a political sense. I share the same political concepts as Deputy Bruton because he no more believes in the National Development Corporation than I do. He never did and he never will. I am making that statement deliberately because I have listened to him speak about this so often. He has taken out some of the provisions he found objectionable but, in my honest opinion, this corporation has only seen the light of day because of pressure. I know the rebellion which existed in the Labour and Fine Gael Parties in recent times when they lost their nerves——

Do not smile. That is true.

So we are not to believe any Government backbenchers when they make public statements. Are they all telling lies?

There was no vote of no confidence.

The Deputy must not have been at the same meeting as Deputy Skelly and others when the Minister for Education was called arrogant and another Minister was called everything else and when other backbenchers, even with relations in the Cabinet, said they were the worst bunch who ever appeared on the political scene. Contradict that if you wish. Those comments were made in public by Government backbenchers. The Deputy's party managed to keep that dampened down for a long time but it finally broke through.

It was under such circumstances that the NDC was born. It has been stillborn since the mid-seventies. Indeed, in 1981 we heard about it in a programme for Government. That Government collapsed very quickly on a budget and I am aware of the hurry and scurry that went on in the Department of Industry and Energy to try to get a few leaflets together for the Minister, Deputy Michael O'Leary, to bring to a hurried press conference to try to resurrect once again a national development corporation. Deputy O'Leary was not fooling the pressmen on that occasion because within a few minutes they knew that such a corporation was a non-starter. They were aware that work had not been done on it.

I defy any Member to contradict what I have said. On being made Minister in 1982 I asked for the file on the national development corporation. I will not say what the boys in the Department said to me, but I knew by the smiles on their faces that they did not want to bring me an empty file. Finally, they brought a file and I will not attempt to describe to the House what the corporation was supposed to mean. Following the general election in 1981 I took over as Minister for Industry and Energy and I was not convinced that a national development corporation would work. I am not being shallow in making that statement and I have looked at similar organisations that have been tried in Belgium, the UK and other European countries. The only exception to the rule was Sweden but that country has managed to run State industries very well. One must admire the way they run their State industries but the concept is different from what is proposed here. Our track record has been very poor in the management of State industries with some exceptions. Different politicians may have different views as to why that is the position. It is my view that the Devlin report damaged and killed the enthusiasm and innovation which were part and parcel of our thriving semi-State organisations for a long time.

I live in the real world and I am aware that in the State and private sectors one must operate in the market place but, when it is decided that the chief executive post must be held down by the Department of the Public Service one cannot expect success. I would prefer not to have mentioned that Department because I do not want to know that they exist. I never believed that they should exist — another layer of bureaucracy. That Department, aided and abetted by the Devlin report, have held down the enthusiasm, innovation and drive that were part and parcel of our semi-State sector.

I do not have any hang-ups about having semi-State industries but I want the criteria of success applied. When I look across the board I cannot see, with certain exceptions, why that cannot be done. I believe in paying the person who has to carry the responsibility. I do not believe that person should be in the job for life and that he should be sitting on a soft chair irrespective of the results he produces. That is why it is my view that the quicker the Devlin report forms part of a bonfire the better. Our semi-State sector needs a new lease of life and we do not need talk of NDCs and so on. Successive Governments have honoured the Devlin report, but how can any person with common sense expect a chief executive of a semi-State organisation, who has a huge responsibility to the number of staff employed, to do a good job and get the feeling that something is being achieved when at the same time a small industry in the private sector pays a chief executive much more? We should stop codding ourselves and take one step in the right direction by getting rid of the Devlin report.

Semi-State companies do not need the NDC to go into joint ventures. They should be given the ways and means of running at the opportunities themselves. We have plenty of examples of such successes. For example, how many ventures have Aer Lingus embarked upon with the NDC to prod them? Aer Lingus went into the development of hotel chains around the world and I wonder what would be the position of our national airline today had they not done so? The company got involved in a very successful venture on the Naas road in Dublin Airmotive. Their venture into the area of computers was very successful. When a food company in Cork, Swissco Limited, got into trouble Aer Lingus, and others, stepped in and put that company back on the road. It has been very successful since. I have no doubt that there are many more examples of such successes. There was no need for the NDC to prod them.

Having followed all the rows that went on in regard to this, I cannot be convinced that the NDC is an agreed thing that will be made to work. In the early days of the Government when there was talk of the NDC, I put it to the Minister that, if he believed that this could contribute to the creation of jobs, he had an opportunity to go to the companies registration office where, by using the names of two civil servants and paying £35, he could form a company. I listened to the lame excuses that were tossed across the floor of the House such as that the Government wanted to give the corporation statutory backing. That was three years ago and if the Government believed the corporation would contribute anything they could have formed a company with a statutory basis. There are many precedents for such a procedure. The Irish National Petroleum Corporation does not have a statutory base and I am sure there are many others. There was no commitment by the Minister to bring in such a corporation, good bad or indifferent.

I heard Deputy Taylor refer to the fact that the National Enterprise Agency were established by Fianna Fáil. That was correct but they were disbanded by the Coalition in 1981. In 1982 I had to resurrect that agency. I heard Deputy Taylor say that there was no commitment to that agency, that they were not funded and did not get a chance. I should like to remind Deputy Taylor that they were fully funded and were unable to spend the money allocated to them in the first year. Those are the facts and we should deal in facts, not in fairy tales.

The Labour Party should not try to convince the public that this is the great panacea for the unemployment problem. They are misleading the public by saying that they have a £300 million package for jobs. The £300 million they are talking about is the authorised share capital of the corporation. There was not one word from the Minister as to what share capital will be taken up. The Minister, or anybody else, could go to the Companies Registration Office and, for £35, form a company with £300 million authorised share capital, but it does not mean anything. That amounts to a paper exercise and that is what the Bill is all about. It is a paper response to a national emergency. It is being used to keep the two sides in Government together.

If the Government are serious about this they should tell the House how much issued share capital they will take up. Only then can we judge whether they have any commitment to this. I heard the Minister, Deputy Quinn, say that this will speed the day when jobs will appear. The jobs will not appear. They have to be created, and that will not happen if the Government continue to try to fool the people by producing a document to get them over a problem. You know the problem exists but you do not have the cohesive policy to deal with it. I am delighted to adjourn the debate and take up this matter again tomorrow morning.

The Deputy should not deal in the first person. The Deputy has more than one minute left but I am anxious that he makes his contribution in the third person.

I have one minute to go and I will have plenty of time tomorrow as well. If the Minister has any commitment to this he will in the course of the debate tell me just one thing: that the NDC will do what existing agencies cannot do.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share