Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Oct 1985

Vol. 361 No. 3

National Development Corporation Bill, 1985: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

I was here for the end of Question Time which stimulated further thoughts appropriate to the Bill. The Minister now leaving the House indicated that he feels he has a comprehensive programme of schemes designed to meet the needs of the unemployed. He certainly has. If ever there was a programme of schemes for the unemployed to stay unemployed this Government are certainly pursuing it. For that reason, I referred to them on previous occasions as a scheming Government. I do not believe that there has ever been a precedent for such a variety of schemes for the unemployed and such little hope for permanent employment. We do not need more schemes, agencies or administrative bureaucracy interfering with the major task of encouraging the private sector to get up off its knees.

I was recently told in blunt terms by a very successful industralist in my area who started as a blacksmith and who now employs 80 people in Nenagh that he does not have time for these schemes. He put it very well to me when he said, "I do not have time for these schemes. I do not have as much time to be helped as they have to help. I have no time for the book- work". It is not surprising to hear from the Minister for Labour who announced a new initiative today that he is going to advertise widely the range of schemes available. The officials in the Department of Labour may be the only people aware of the plethora of schemes available, all leading to cul-de-sacs but now the public will be made aware of what is available with the intention of trying to convey the impression that people are gainfully occupied, although certainly not gainfully employed. Recently there has been a spate of very expensive advertising on radio and television by the only people who can afford such advertising, namely, the State agencies under the aegis of the Minister for Labour who has just left the House. At great expense which must be met by the taxpayers they told us of the range of services provided. I challenge anyone to say who in the private sector could afford such advertising even though such people are the real key to development.

Recently there has been a new development in the co-ordination of industrial policy and support schemes. Because of the plethora of schemes available and because people are confused about where to go and whom they should consult, the Government introduced something new. Now they have what they call the "one-stop shop". A person can go to such a place to find out about all the aids available. We are developing a major industry in one-stop shops to explain how a person can get through the maze of the other support services that are bedevilling the country by imposing such a high burden of taxation on the workers and the entrepreneurs.

The Minister for Labour has promised us that we will have an even more comprehensive programme of schemes designed to meet the needs of the unemployed. In his words, the social insurance scheme "is now enabling the unemployed to play an active role in the social development of their community". Thus, these people can live with the illusion that they are playing this role. I agree it may be that they are carrying out useful works, whether it be on the roads or in community development programmes, but what they really require is the dignity of knowing that they are providing for themselves and their families and that they have a place of dignity in their community that is not dependent on schemes or community development programmes. The Government are content to maintain a level of schemes and programmes of community involvement when what is required are viable jobs. The reality is that we are further away than ever from providing those jobs. I had hoped that at this stage we would have seen evidence of some sign of awareness by the Government that the road they have been travelling is the wrong one ——

The Deputy has not once referred to the Bill.

This morning I referred to what the Government are proposing here as but another scheme. There may be some elements that are worthwhile but basically this is the worst of all schemes. What we will get is another supervisory State support scheme which will not solve the problem.

What the Government are proposing in this case deliberatly excludes financial services. It extends to industrial enterprises other than those whose functions relate wholly or mainly to the provision of banking, insurance, legal, management consultancy, advertising, public relations or financial services. No other Government have ever lavished as much on public relations in their own interests as have this Government and if that is good for the Government in their own right why do they exclude public relations in this instance? The Government know that everything else is running away from them, the deficit, employment, taxation, investment and incentive. They are doing nothing about these matters but the one area on which they focus now is that which they can control to a greater or lesser extent, namely, public relations. We have certainly got a surplus of public relations from them.

Will the Deputy please relate that to the Bill?

I will. The Government have excluded public relations in this instance. At least they should be consistent. If they take this view about public relations in the private sector, at least they should start to reduce, adjust or roll back — to use some of the jargon — the public relations exercise in regard to their own role.

Financial services should be included in the provisions of this Bill. Despite our arguments on Finance Bills during the years we failed to persuade the Minister to include the services sector generally in the equity participation scheme. This is something we regretted because, as I mentioned this morning, it is in that area that there is the greatest growth potential for employment. In saying this I am not denigrating the role of manufacturing industry. Because of technological development the scope for increased employment, even in a healthy manufacturing sector which we do not have, is limited. On the other hand, the scope for increased employment in the services sector — in this instance I refer to financial services — is very considerable but it is excluded in this case. Does the Minister not realise that given the right climate for investment here there could be an active interest in investment participation on the part of banking interests? However, there is no such interest now. I have spoken to people who have indicated that, given the right climate, they would like to invest and participate in banking, insurance, building societies and in other areas. However, they will not do that now, first, because of the tax regime and, secondly, because they do not know what this Government may do or say in terms of national programmes, particularly in such a sensitive area as banking.

If someone introduces what he regards as ideological restrictions for the sake of proving to all and sundry that he still has a voice in Government, then the people who are interested in investing here will not run the risk of having their well researched programmes put at naught and, for as long as this Government last, that will be the case. There will be a different approach to investment at every level in the service sector when Fianna Fáil are in Government because there is great potential in this area to generate employment and to attract investment.

Are we prepared to acknowledge that in the last five years in particular the downturn on investment here has been so dramatic as to have had a debilitating effect in terms of the economy? The level of investment in the private sector is falling at an alarming rate both in absolute terms and as a proportion of GNP. The Minister has acknowledged this and thrown up his hands and said we must correct this but the truth is that investment level is the key to success or failure, and no development corporation will change that pattern. We must give clear signals that investment is welcome. I am not talking solely of investment from abroad; I am also talking about investment by Irish people who are at present investing elsewhere — for instance in the Isle of Man and anywhere else they can find a safe haven for their funds.

This whole area needs to be tackled because we want to encourage investment by our own people particularly in indigenous industry but we are doing the opposite. The black hole is getting blacker, bigger and deeper and now we are bringing in an illusion like this saying this is the answer — £300 million equity investment by the Government. That is but a fraction of what we have lost in the last three or four years and that money must be recovered.

There was a time when Ireland prided herself on attracting investment, skills and personnel. There was a time when Ireland was considered as the place to go, because of the exciting prospects there and people were encouraged to get involved, but that time has long since gone. Anyone who looks at the prospects held out in the Bill will see that, first, we are not interested in financial services and, second, those who wish to invest here and get involved with the NDC will find that two or three Ministers will decide how much we are prepared to risk. I am not saying we should not be prudent or that existing agencies, such as the IDA, should not apply very strict norms but this way is probably the most efficient.

Let us look at what happened recently where taxpayers' money was invested particularly in attracting foreign investment — I am talking particularly of some major multinationals involved in the high technology areas. It is clear that major corporations, particularly in the software area, are involved in a range of investment activities around the world. They are notoriously mobile in their activities. When international trends are not very favourable one of the first enterprises to go is that located here. Why? Because we are engaged in assembly line production for the commodity market and this production line could be shifted tomorrow to Puerto Rico, Spain, Portugal, Zambia, or Nigeria.

These enterprises are located here because of our proximity to the European market, but is not Belgium as close to the EC as we are, and cheaper? Spain and Portugal are coming into the Community and other countries have preferential trade agreements with the Community established through Lomé, Maghreb and so on. These countries have guaranteed access for their industrial products, their labour costs are lower and they can guarantee the multinationals that there will not be changes of policy of the kind we have seen here. What have we witnessed? Many major corporations introduced here at great expense to the taxpayer have left our shores. Our industrial development programme must ensure that the nature of the enterprise being launched here is of such significance that its survival is essential to the international enterprise. To achieve that we have to ensure that our tax levels cannot be seen as a barrier.

Let us look at an executive from Massachusetts, Bonn, Cologne or Frankfurt based in Ireland and paying Irish tax rates at 60 per cent as well as the levies. At a certain stage he will realise that if he were living in Belgium he would be paying tax at 40 per cent, and in some other country it might even be as low as 30 per cent. Then he asks himself what plus is there in it for him and his team to remain here. What are we doing to encourage our people to leave Saudi Arabia, America or Canada, and work at home.

Recently a great deal of Irish money has gone abroad. Our major building corporations in the ratio of eight to one, are engaged in programmes outside Ireland. How long will this go on before we finally ask ourselves why this is happening? The reason is that the people who decide these affairs have said it is not worth a candle to invest in Ireland. The Minister for Tourism has left the House, but recent indications have shown, that some Bord Fáilte personnel are not too enthusiastic about working abroad, being paid Irish salaries and being charged Irish tax rates.

On the other hand, they are very happy about our inflation rates.

Deputy O'Kennedy, please deal with the Bill.

Our inflation rates are coming down in line with the inflation rates of other countries and that is to be welcomed, but is the Minister aware that one sure way to guarantee zero inflation is to depress the economy and consumer demand, and we are now at that point when we will be able to boast that there is no inflation. Expectations have gone so low that people will give anything for a job. That is one of the most basic laws of economics. We should not boast about our inflation rate coming down when the international trend is favourable anyway, and when it is as a consequence of the most depressed economic condition we have ever witnessed. If the inflation rate next year is down a further 1 or 2 per cent, I hope it will not be at the expense of another 20,000 unemployed.

Can we get back to the Second Stage of the National Development Corporation Bill?

To create employment we must create an industrial development climate and concentrate on knowledge based industries. We should not react to what is done elsewhere. We should take our courage in our hands and invest in knowledge. We should award excellence and attract the top people and give them an opportunity and a challenge. We are doing the opposite at the moment. I will give the Minister the names of miniature Irish corporations which I do not wish to name in the House who cannot get their own personnel to stay here, much less attract others to come back. Will the NDC tackle that? They will not. I do not know if these corporations ever get a chance to talk to the Government but if they are so frustrated as to continue to make the Opposition spokesman aware of their plight, I presume the Government know of it. However, I do not see the Government responding to them.

In dealing with this Bill I pointed out the problems and the reasons for failure. However, I remain more than a convinced optimist. The climate for developing the potential of this nation has never been so ripe. We could develop tourism, the food industry and business with Arab States, Hong Kong and throughout the world if we had the courage to go after it instead of engaging in arid ideological debates here and coming up with a nonsense like this. Someone said that we have a Government of lame ducks but they are worse than that because they do not even have a drake to lead the way. Until we see guts, direction and leadership from the drake we will get nowhere. I do not want to damn this company before it starts but it does not offer any hope to those awaiting a sign from this House or this Government. The sooner we get an opportunity to introduce that hope and the enterprise programmes that we have planned the better, not only for us but for this country to bring about a spirit of renewal and incentive.

As Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies I welcome this Bill. I do so because this Bill is the brainchild of the labour movement. It is the expression of the ideas of the Labour Party based on discussions with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions who are the elected parliament of the workforce north and south, representing over 600,000 members. It must be remembered that the Labour Party were founded by the trade union movement to give political expression to their industrial policies. In introducing this Bill the Government are reflecting the policy of the Labour Party and reflecting at a deeper level the policy of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. While many people would question the tenuous reasons for the Labour Party's participation in Government ——

They are tenuous.

I will deal with the Deputy in a minute if I have time. This is a major factor in justifying our participation in Government. In every Coalition Government here the Labour Party left a significant hallmark on the doings of that Government. I need not go into them unless someone wants me to.

I would like to know them.

The first Coalition Government introduced pension schemes for what were deemed pejoratively as the servants in the local government and public services scheme. In every successive Coalition Government we improved the lot of those workers, some of whom had to stand under hedges to get out of the rain, or go into cottages to get some one to boil water for them. In spite of the long term of office of Fianna Fáil from 1932, they made no improvement in the pension entitlements of those workers. Under the Coalition Government in 1973 to 1977 we built more houses then were ever built in the State. I am replying to a question. I am not straying from the Bill. When Fianna Fáil denied that, Deputy Jim Tully was able to say: "check with the ESB. They made the connections". At that time we introduced more legislation in favour of the workers than had been introduced since the foundation of the State in spite of the fact that Fianna Fáil were in power for 46 years.

On the Bill, please.

Both Fianna Fáil and the workforce can bear in mind that the National Development Corporation is the child of the labour movement. I will quote from the ICTU document of autumn 1984 confronting the jobs crisis:

Both the Telesis and the NESC reports recognised that a necessary condition which must be met by Irish companies breaking into export markets is the achievement of a minimum scale of operation. We should therefore concentrate greater efforts on developing a number of large Irish firms with the scale, technological and marketing capabilities necessary to compete internationally in high-productivity industries. This can be done by the State through the National Development Corporation. While the Programme for Government (December, 1982) envisaged such an innovative development role for a National Development Corporation in the development of the indigenous resource sector of the economy and advanced technology projects, the White Paper on Industrial Policy effectively nullified this proposal.

There are certain important differences between the White Paper and the Bill but the Bill envisages a strong innovative development role for the NDC.

This is the miracle of a one parent child.

(Interruptions.)

The ICTU document also says:

Public enterprises should be used to secure the co-ordinated development of resource-based industries. The National Development Corporation should be given the role of established new public undertakings where suitable projects are identified in this area and of working with existing enterprises to expand and diversify their operations. The National Development Corporation must be adequately funded from the outset if it is to perform this developmental function effectively.

The NDC will have the role of establishing new public undertakings as indicated in section 10 (1) (c) of the Bill. The funding, up to £300 million as projects are developed, will be adequate to meet the objectives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The ICTU document also says:

The National Development Corporation should be empowered to undertake appropriate investments, in association with BIM, for the co-ordinated development of marine resources, including mariculture and associated land-based industries.

That is exactly what we are doing in section 10(1) (f) of that Bill.

Again I quote from the document:

The potential for growth in traded services, including education and training and health care services where Ireland has both expertise and a reputation, should be systematically examined. The National Development Corporation could, in conjunction with the relevant State agencies, play a major role in developing this area of activity.

This is generally covered by the objectives in section 10. Therefore, it is all the more sad that when we have a project put before this House by the Government at the instigation of the Labour Party in response to the policy of the ICTU this is totally opposed by Fianna Fáil. The Leader of that party has been condemned by the president of my union for his categorical dismissal of the Bill before it was even published as a concept. This is the man who gave assurances both to the national executive council of my union and the ICTU that in anything they wanted when Fianna Fáil came back into power they would be met by Fianna Fáil.

I am not sure whether Deputy O'Kennedy was for or against the Bill because he is a lawyer trained in the art of presentation of public argument. He devoted 60 per cent of a very long speech to knocking the Bill and then gratuituously telling us how we might improve on what we had already suggested. I make full allowance for the obligation of any parliamentary Opposition to oppose, but it is very sad to hear the meretricious guff and cant coming from the opposite side of this House and to remember what he said about his colleague, the blacksmith of Nenagh who, I am sure, is well known to you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and a very worthy individual. Deputy O'Kennedy said, quoting presumably a higher authority than himself, the blacksmith of Nenagh, that we do not need more schemes.

For the benefit of the House let me quote from the magazine Success of 5 August 1985, four months ago. The chief executive of the senior job promotion agency in the country, the IDA, Mr. Padraic White, said:

Well, at the present time, the private sector equity funding is only going into about 25-30 projects a year and you can take it that these will be the cream of the crop. These 30 projects with equity funding against the needs of this country is really only a drop in the ocean. I would love to see us getting from 30 equity investments a year up to 200. They do not always have to be £½ million apiece but they could range from £10,000 — £20,000 which would be critical to the start up money instead of the executive or professional person having to mortgage their home and everything belonging to them and their wives.

That is a direct refutation by the senior job promotion executive in the country of what the Fianna Fáil spokesman has mentioned.

I do not want to be gratuitously offensive to anybody or to be sarcastic, but I would like to know whether Deputy O'Kennedy or Deputy Haughey really reflect the policy of Fianna Fáil. Recently the Leader of the Opposition had to reprimand publicly his two Front-Bench spokesmen, namely Deputy Noonan of Limerick speaking on agriculture and the land tax and Deputy O'Kennedy speaking on the whole question of taxation. Therefore, it is difficult for us at this side to establish what exactly is their coherent policy. It is particularly upsetting for those of us whose whole lives have been devoted to job creation. I have a distinct recollection after the completion of the negotiations for the appropriate wage round in January 1981 that Deputy Haughey said that it was now his hope that the FUE would come out with the agreement in their tow and create the necessary jobs. The following morning the spokesman for the FUE gave a political Harvey Smith to Deputy Haughey and said that it was not the function of the FUE to create jobs. There is nothing wrong with that because they are being honest and consistent. The FUE have not and never had any policy for the creation of jobs except as a means to generating more profit. That is what they are about, and is it not sad that Deputy Haughey, the leader of the party which produced Deputy Seán Lemass and Tod Andrews, two of the greatest practical socialists this country has ever produced——

(Interruptions.)

——said that they were not in favour of this development where Irish enterprise, skill, money and workers' tax are going into formation of a concept which, it is hoped, will thrive and succeed to create more employment for Irish workers? This is the hope we are offering to the unemployed.

This concept is a major cornerstone in Irish industrial history. It is hoped that this positive initiative will incorporate positive proposals to expand the State equity investment in new or existing ventures and that new employment opportunities will be created not only for the many unemployed young people but also for what could be regarded as the forgotten people. I refer to those managers and supervisors who are 40 years of age or older trying to raise families and finding themselves unemployed because of redundancy or company closures. We tend at times to forget that this is a labour pool with experience and a talent which in many ways is more valuable than money because it has an immediate start up capacity to be productive. Anyone familiar with the Telesis report and the White Paper on Industrial Policy will recall that they highlighted the need to give new impetus to industrial development. It is recognised that the policies which clearly served us well in the sixties and seventies are now outdated and have less success than they had. This is reflected in the last three years in that in that time the number of jobs lost in manufacturing industry has exceeded the number of new jobs created. It is, therefore, commonsense to realise that new initiatives are required. Old solutions do not necessarily solve new problems and the state of Government finances does not allow for any real expansion of expenditure on job creation. Let me quote from paragraph 1.3, page 4 of the White Paper on Industrial Policy dated 12 July, 1984:

The concept of value for money for the State resources devoted on industrial support measures is of critical importance. As indicated in chapter 13.2 £430 million was spent by the Department or agencies directly or indirectly concerned with industrial development in 1983. In the same year a further £315 million in tax revenue was foregone to various tax reliefs designed to foster industrial development.

If we the people, as Ireland incorporated, decide to do something for ourselves in sharp contradistinction to what Deputy O'Kennedy said has been the situation — where the volatile hi-tech companies can come and go as they please — what is wrong if we spill some of that money accidentally in this country? What is wrong if, by way of honest attempts to create something, the money does not become as productive as we might wish? It would be far better for the economy and for the people if that the money were spilled somewhere here in a way that would have some spin-off benefit rather than for it to be lost in a black hole by way of going to American multi-national corporations.

I do not understand the Opposition continually adopting a negative attitude to the establishment of the NDC. Allowing that the Opposition must oppose, can they not accept the challenge of change? For the many unemployed this development may present the opportunity of a lifetime but that opportunity must be taken now. The opportunity is expressed in clear terms in the Bill, that is, to push ahead with industrial development. There are listed in the Bill 15 State-sponsored bodies and 24 State-sponsored commercial enterprises. In my role as chairman of the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies, I am aware of the importance of these commercial enterprises. The present committee and their predecessors were critical of some of the operational aspects of these bodies. Regrettably, although the committee and their predecessors made a total of 20 reports to the Houses, not one of them has been debated in this House.

While I have admired the initiatives taken by many of the commercial State-sponsored bodies in expanding their activities, I must admit that there has been a lack of a co-ordinated approach. For example, the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies in their report on OIE referred to the fact that four commercial State-sponsored bodies have an equity investment in hotels in the State. They are Aer Lingus, Údarás na Gaeltachta, Aer Rianta and OIE. I trust that the NDC will provide a more co-ordinated approach to such developments. It may very well be that some commercial State-sponsored bodies have not developed projects because of the lack of funds or of technical knowhow. For example, arising from their research and development work in salmon farming, Údarás na Gaeltachta were interested in establishing a salmon marketing company but, as they did not have sufficient resources of their own, the project was developed subsequently by the NEA.

The committee of which I am chairman visited Údarás na Gaeltachta two or three weeks ago and I am glad to be able to record publicly that I found that visit a revelation. Despite the much maligned activities of the Údarás in other directions, there is no doubt that the work they are engaged in is first class and, in my considered and objective view, is the ideal prototype for what the NDC should do. Údarás differ from the IDA and SFADCo to the extent that, while the latter two bodies provide funds for investment and grant-aiding for people coming into the country and setting up their businesses, Údarás go a step further. It may be argued that this is necessary from the point of view of managerial expertise in the more remote parts of the country, but they take equity shareholdings in these companies. They move in and gather supremely valuable and important "coal-face" experience. Their people are working in the businesses. This is the type of enterprise that I would foresee as the prototype for the NDC. It is the prototype that warrants serious study by those people who will be responsible for the successful development of the corporation.

The NDC should not be perceived as a threat to State-sponsored bodies and particularly to some of their ancillary activities. On the other hand, such activities should not be guarded jealously as a birthright by these commercial State-sponsored bodies because that would prohibit the NDC's involvement in the provision of funding or personnel to expand their growth to the maximum commercial potential.

I welcome the proposals contained in section 30 of the Bill for the NDC to submit, not later than six months after the end of their financial year, a report to the Minister of their proceedings and for the Minister to cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. I have complained already to the Taoiseach in this House about the situation whereby, although there has been an improvement in the furnishing of annual reports and so on, by and large when we receive these documents they represent historical data because they are so far out of date as to be of no help in a current evaluation of the companies concerned. No annual report should be more than six months old by the time it is before this House. In that way we can have up-to-date information in relation to any decision we might reach.

In our report on Irish Shipping Ltd. we recommended that every commercial State-sponsored body should be obliged to carry out a review of their objectives every three years and that a statement of these objectives should be incorporated in their annual report and accounts. We regard that as being supremely important if we are to have effective public sector bodies which are funded by taxpayers' money and answerable to the taxpayer through this House.

I hope the NDC will adopt this recommendation and also that a similar approach will be adopted by their subsidiary companies while having due regard to their commercial sensitivities. We made the following recommendation also:

In analysing group financial accounts it is difficult to ascertain the strengths and weaknesses within the company and subsequently it becomes difficult to evaluate the result of such ancillary activities against their objectives and also the degree of cost subsidisation of a loss making activity by a profit of operation which may not be readily apparent from the consolidation of the accounts.

It has been our painful experience that when faced with the activities of a number of consolidated companies by way of a rolled up annual report, it is difficult to ascertain the quality of the individual performances. I trust that this aspect will be considered closely by the NDC.

While acknowledging that there will always be a degree of commercial confidentiality associated with subsidiary or ancillary activities, when the results of these subsidiary companies are consolidated for accounting purposes, it becomes extremely difficult to evaluate their effectiveness.

I trust that the corporation will provide for a greater disclosure of information. It is explained in the Explanatory Memorandum that in all of their investments the corporation will be required to act in a commercial manner and that investments may be made only in enterprises which are profitable and efficient or which are capable of becoming profitable and efficient and which have reasonable prospects for profitability, development, expansion, growth or providing viable employment.

I endorse these as the primary objectives of the corporation and I am convinced that sustainable employment can be achieved only through sustainable commercial enterprises. The basic thrust of the NDC is to promote State equity investment in new or existing ventures. The reason the State should do so is highlighted by the fact that the private sector is only equity funded up to 30 enterprises.

The principal objectives of the Bill are outlined in section 10 which provides for the development of a strategy as to how these objectives are likely to be achieved. Obviously, this is of the utmost importance. We must decide first what we want to do and then decide on how we do it. It is only when such a strategy has been outlined that a meaningful structure can be developed.

This process is time consuming and in the initial period should demand of the board, the managing director and the key staff a number of think-tank sessions from which policy issues will emerge. The appointment of the chief executive and the board should be based on proven records of competence in the commercial area with a philosophical commitment to public enterprise.

To come back to the planning period, we must be conscious of what is referred to in Peters and Waterman's book In Search of Excellence. I quote: “We don't constrain with plans at the beginning when ignorance is the highest”.

Of course, we will make mistakes but let us learn and some of these mistakes can be very productive if they teach us what not to do in the future. In other words, the board members and a limited number of staff members must initially inform themselves of the opportunities prevailing and subsequently through the evaluation of alternatives, preferably on a sectoral basis, determine a work programme. Undoubtedly, there will be tension and jealousy between the corporation and other State agencies and they could very well be perceived as a threat to the narrow-minded. In overcoming such problems it will be critical that the corporation effectively communicate what they expect to achieve.

Many Irish businessmen admit that there is almost a spirit of continuous hostility between them in their fight for domestic market share but such an attitude invokes co-operation when export marketing is undertaken. Therefore the growing pains of the NDC will not be cured in one another's backyards but overcome in the heat of the marketplaces of the world. There is a very wise seanfhocal as Gaeilge which goes: Muna mbíonn ach gabhar agat, bí i lár an aonaigh leis. That is, even if you only have a goat, be in the middle of the marketplace.

Contrary to the untrue, denigratory comments of Deputy O'Kennedy, this Government place a very strong emphasis on the whole need for marketing. In that context they have refurbished the old Franciscan monastery in Louvain in Belgium which I visited myself. The whole purpose will be for it to be used as a base for training Irish graduates and others who are learning to compete in the business world of Europe. These people will be trained in all the necessary aspects of marketing. In relation to Deputy O'Kennedy's comment about the food sector, it should be pointed out also that this Government have set up an excellent centre in the Raheen Industrial Estate in Limerick which is involved in the promotion of strategies for the development of greater jobs and job creation in the food processing sector. It must be remembered that this is supremely important because the food processing sector, after the petrochemical industry, is the highest in Europe in terms of job creation.

To come back to the NDC, I would stress that the fundamental characteristic of the proposed corporation, despite the knockers — and we will have plenty of them — must be the commitment of the board and staff not only to believe in success but also to achieve it. However, instant success which may grab media headlines may also fuel suspicion. In the first year's track record this is important and subsequent risk ventures must be undertaken which can then be funded with a greater degree of confidence. The modus operandi of the corporation must strongly reflect the development role and therefore bureauracy must be kept to a minimum. We would stress this. Practical processes are normally associated with those who have had commercial coal-face experience. The priority consideration in the appointment of board members and their staff should relate to their commercial experience. Initially, understandably, it will be difficult for the corporation to achieve role clarity. While accepting that high fences make good neighbours, nevertheless the corporation should ensure that their initial policy guidelines should not be too restricted, which could be detrimental to their own future activities.

The significant difference between the NDC and the vast majority of other State funded agencies is that the corporation are primarily an investment agency as distinct from a grant administration or advisory agency. They will therefore have to live with their successes and failures. Section 10 of the explanatory memorandum of the Bill states:

In all of its investments, the Corporation will be required to act in a commercial manner and investments may be made only in enterprises which are profitable and efficient or are capable of becoming profitable and efficient and which have reasonable prospects for profitability, development, expansion, growth or providing viable employment.

That is important. People often foster sedulously the idea that because a concept is a socialist one it is automatically cognate with failure. That is a very carefully fostered idea. I was amazed at some of the erroneous and misleading statements which came from the other side this morning in this debate. It should be pointed out — and not many people realise this — that this country has more semi-State bodies than any other country in Europe outside the eastern bloc, according to my information. The vast majority of them are doing well. There are some contentious ones which have been traditionally failures and they are highlighted, but nothing is said about the successes. I should like to refer here, a Cheann Comhairle, to the models which exist in other countries which I believe this country should be following more properly as models for our own development. Deputy O'Kennedy and others have referred to the "fly-by-night" nature of some of the companies which come in here to invest. They are purely profit orientated. To be fair to them, they have never hidden that motive. They tell us that. I have spoken with people involved in other countries in Europe which are much more in tune mentally and culturally with our philosophy as an island nation. I am speaking about countries like Austria, Denmark, Finland and Norway which have tremendous records in the development of their own resources and countries which we should be following.

Údarás na Gaeltachta recently had here people from Finland and returned their visit. Let us remember that Finland, like us, lives in the shadow of a much greater and more aggressive political power. The Finns have had to live under that shadow and develop their own resources. Let us look at where Finland was at the beginning of this century and is now, with foreign companies restricted to investing something like 28 per cent in Finnish enterprises. They have come to this country and are prepared to put up with what would be deemed to be inadequacies of infrastructure and other matters in the west of Ireland, given importance by people from more advanced countries like the United States and Germany. There is in Finland a company called KERA. That is the regional development fund of Finland which finances enterprises, industrial estate companies and municipally constructed industrial premises in the development region. The financing is granted in the form of loans, cash grants, share capital investments and is guaranteed. In addition to investments the fund finances research and development of enterprises, product and process development, marketing, training and consulting. The sectors within which that fund operates are also defined in the legislation — industry, tourism, fur farming, fishing, fish breeding, commercial horticulture, plant nurseries, peat production, mining and quarrying and workshops. In addition, for a few years the fund has been able to finance enterprises engaging in certain services such as product development enterprises, marketing companies and service enterprises in the fields of accounting and electronic data processing. Industrial premises constructed by municipalities and industrial estates constitute an important object of financing. The fund can also grant loans for investment in fixed assets and for operating capital and grant guarantees for loans taken in Finland by enterprises. The same applies in Norway and Sweden, where these public State companies are responsible for the creation of the type of work that we envisage will be done here by the National Development Corporation.

As a commercial organisation the NDC must adhere to commercial criteria. We must remember that we are talking about taxpayers' money. Deputy O'Kennedy made a facetious reference to running up a cul-de-sac but I would infinitely prefer to be found standing still at the end of a cul-de-sac than being smashed to pieces at the bottom of a cliff, which I suggest is where this country was being taken by the previous Fianna Fáil Government with their profligate policies and their visitation of huge repayment burdens on workers. The workers have had to pay. That statement will stand up to close scrutiny.

Everything the Labour Party are saying in this Bill is aimed at providing work and relief for workers by way of jobs in the first instance and then by diminishing the pressure on taxpayers of borrowing repayments. It will be a difficult task for the NDC but they must focus on opportunities rather than on petty problems. We have plenty of wasps in jam jars. The opportunity to invest in joint ventures and/or to take an equity stake in companies presents a very real challenge. Such an investment portfolio should embrace projects that have an almost immediate potential return and others of a more long-term nature. Through such an investment programme the corporation can be cushioned against financial failure which will inevitably arise if the correct entrepreneurial decisions are not taken. The NDC must be pro-active, generating and bringing to fruition on their own initiative, rather than being a reactive agency providing financial assistance to support the initiative of others.

Somebody spoke scathingly this morning about investment in education. The level of investment by this Government is higher than ever before in the history of the State and the number of third level graduates has trebled since about 1979. I am open to correction on the exact figures. In my city we have the National Institute for Higher Education and Members may have seen a programme last night where Professor Joseph Lee of University College, Cork, dealt with the role the NIHE is playing in training people to get into the European situation. The Crescent Comprehensive College also figured prominently.

We were always told that our best people emigrated to America and built up that country, as well as other countries. That may be true, but during the last century an Augustinian monk, Mendel, put forward the theory that like begets like. We are now producing the best of our people from the same origins and the same sources. Now that they have been given the best educational chances they will stand foursquare with Germans, Belgians, Frenchmen, Englishmen and anybody else. It was always said by the British Government that their real anguish at the loss of Ireland was not because it was a geographical entity but because of our administrative capacity. It used to be said quite rightly that the British Foreign Office was run from the Dingle Peninsula. We can go back and look at the track record. We have people as competent, as capable, as visionary and as imaginative as anybody in the world in what we are seeking to do.

Private enterprise has manifestly failed to provide employment for our people and we must now look to ourselves to do it. Deputy O'Kennedy referred to the new threat coming in at 60 miles an hour from Europe in the form of Portugal and Spain. I told the workers in Shannon Airport ten years ago that this would be the situation. A competent labour force on the European mainland a couple of hours journey from the golden triangle will represent effective competition to us. We cannot sit back and moan about the situation. We must be up and doing. I am not speaking in any pejorative sense when I say it is cold, objective historical fact that private enterprise has not risen to meet the employment needs. We were advised by the NESC report and by Telesis that we must look to ourselves to do it. There are very good examples in other places in Europe.

I urge the support of the House for this Bill. I sympathise with Fianna Fáil because they are expected to oppose and are very good at doing so. It is one of the great contradictions of democracy in the western world that if a Government on budget day offered bars of gold to the country by way of tax concessions they would still be opposed by the Opposition. I hope that the workers will evaluate the guff and cant, obviously insincere, artificial and spurious contributions by some spokesmen from the Opposition. There is no coherent, logical approach from them on this issue.

What about Limerick?

Limerick will do all right and I do not want any sneering remarks from Deputy Flynn.

If the Government said they found gold in the street nobody would believe them.

Deputy Flynn would be far better advised to look over his own shoulder.

I have listened to a lot of claptrap from Deputy Prendergast.

I am appalled by the lack of vision and courage coming from a party such as Fianna Fáil who made such a wonderful contribution in the past to the ordinary people. Their disparaging sourness, their discouraging knocking, their "wasp in the jam jar" approach will, I hope, be seen by the workers for what it is. Not once in the lifetime of this Dáil have Fianna Fáil put up even one policy document on anything. That is their sad record. They may well say that this is political strategy, but if we are to be knocked in the public opinion polls it is surely the ultimate irony that we are being knocked for what we are trying to do consciously, while the Opposition are coming up, having sat back and done nothing. When I listen to the decibels of sourness coming from the Opposition and their begrudging tone I am reminded that Robert Browning said in one of his great couplets that a man's reach must always exceed his grasp, else what is a Heaven for, and the vision must always be finer than the view.

I ask the workers to recognise that it is Labour Party policy which is being implemented. Fianna Fáil have at least identified the fact that it is Labour Party policy reflecting the attitudes of the workers, the ICTU which is the elected parliament of the workforce. I support the Bill in full.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill. Any proposals which could give hope and promise to the thousands of unemployed merit serious discussion and consideration, especially when the unemployment figure is escalating. However, I believe the Bill as framed will not lead to job creation.

Coming from a constituency in north Kerry which is plagued by unemployment — we are approximately 7 per cent above the national average — I do not see anything in the Bill to create worthwhile employment in the country. The Bill will allow the Government to invest in certain industries. Is this not in conflict with the present policy of the IDA? As a result of the Bill what will happen to the NDA? I believe this Bill is going to replace the NEA which proved itself to be very effective.

A recent study by the Trade Policy Research Centre examined the performance of public investment companies in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. Only in Sweden did a state agency produce a portfolio whose return compared with that of the private market. In Belgium, Holland, Italy and the UK the public agencies went through periods of very bad performances. Experience in the US has been even more unsatisfactory. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation was established in 1932 with the main aim of assisting industrial development during the depression. The RFC came into its own in the booming forties and fifties. However, instead of industrial development it took to financing the construction of massive bars, drive-in cinemas and motels. Unfortunately those deals frequently involved political and financial favours and the RFC was wound up in 1953.

The object of the NDC under section 13 is to realise its investments as soon as financially prudent. Is it a fact that all viable investments will be disposed of? Why not dispose of them to the workers involved? This would be an incentive to the workers in successful ventures. The NDC must sell off investments as soon as they become a commercial proposition. What will happen to bad investments? Will they all come back to the taxpayer for propping up, as has been the case in the past in the ICI and the PMPA?

The financing of the NDC will mean further taxation with no guarantee of worthwhile job creation. Increased taxation now is not on. I was hoping the Bill would give some gleam of hope to the various regional development organisations throughout the country for development on a regional basis which, I understand, will be policy at European level. In north Kerry the IDA have about 1,000 acres between Tarbert and Ballylongford. The land was purchased over a number of years with the intention of developing it for industrial purposes. That will not happen until a single Shannon estuarial authority have been set up. Why is there not some provision in the Bill to assist areas like Kerry? Is it because of political pressure and vested interests in the Limerick Harbour Board Authority? They monopolise the Shannon at the expense of Kerry and Clare.

Recently the Minister for Communications visited the region and gave an undertaking that if he could get agreement between the counties involved he would set up a single estuarial authority. In their submission to the Minister, representatives of Clare and Kerry wanted equal representation for all three bodies. Early last year the Minister promised a decision before the end of the year. We still have not got a decision from him. I have no hesitation in forecasting that if a single estuarial authority were set up in the Shannon region the counties bounding the Shannon estuary would prosper. I speak in particular of Kerry where we have 7 per cent more unemployment than the national average.

Tourism, which has the greatest growth potential, needs an injection of capital, which would pay off in employment as well as helping the economy. However, this does not come within the ambit of the NDC. In statistics issued by Bord Fáilte we are told that approximately 20,000 jobs have been lost to tourism in the last five years. Without fear of contradiction I can say that in Kerry alone we have lost 3,000 tourism jobs in that time. Thousands of jobs would be created by an injection of capital into tourism because the spin off from tourism is tremendous. I welcome the recent introduction of tourism grants but they are not enough. I appeal to the Government to consider the matter seriously immediately. Refurbishing grants are needed. It is a pity the Minister did not include tourism in this Bill because it has been proved that tourism had a magnificent role to play in job creation. I had hoped to see provision made in the Bill for sound feasibility studies so that investment would be available to exploit the full potential of agriculture, tourism and fishing. I had hoped the Government would have created an atmosphere to ensure that private enterprise would be encouraged to continue with job creation programmes. This is not so.

Section 8 of the Bill provides for the take-up of share capital by the Minister for Finance. This can be financed only by more State borrowing. To break even, not to speak of earning a profit, the average rate of return will have to be well in excess of the 13 per cent the Government have to pay on domestic borrowing. How many Irish firms are generating a rate of return of anything like this?

Section 11 gives the Minister a veto over the appointment of an auditor to the NDC. That is not an unusual procedure. Section 14 requires the NDC to inform the Minister in writing of each and every investment. The Minister's approval is needed for any office expenditure in excess of £250,000. That would hardly buy a computer these days. Section 15 provides that any investment in excess of £1 million must be approved by the Minister and if it is in excess of £2.5 million it must have Government approval. One can imagine the Cabinet being bogged down financing NDC loans. The scope for political interference is only too evident. That is not my view alone: recently an expert stated that guarantees required in regard to day-to-day operations will mean little if the NDC have to approach the Government for expenditure approval.

Section 10 allows the NDC to invest in management and assistance of any semi-State body. It also allows the NDC to act as a holding company for any State-sponsored commercial enterprise. Do we really need another State body to assist existing State bodies? It is wholly inappropriate that the Government should even contemplate setting up a big brother to existing State companies.

In the final analysis the National Development Corporation should be judged on whether, in the words contained in the Programme for Government December, 1982, it will prove to be a major vehicle for job creation. I contend that the National Development Corporation will do nothing for the 65,000 who have since joined the dole queue and, for the remainder of the lifetime of this Government, that the only jobs created will be ones at headquarters.

There are better ways of creating jobs than by setting up another white elephant. For example, the National Enterprise Agency should be given their head, enabled to build and tackle the defects in the domestic capital market which are impeding that agency in meeting with financial needs of our industry. Also the venture capital market should be developed and those people involved should be listened to more carefully. There should be reward for the creation of wealth and a change in the present structure of incentives favouring the use of capital at the expense of employment. Indirect taxes on employment should also be reduced and, above all, the present tax code should be reformed.

I contend that the Bill is too political, it is a bad decision to dispose of successful investments within the National Development Corporation. Existing State agencies, such as the National Enterprise Agency and the IDA are doing good work. They should be helped in its continuance by an expansion of their powers.

I am pleased to welcome this Bill which I consider to be a new exciting initiative on the job creation front, of vital importance to our future industrial development. It has been contended that this is a political Bill, that it is a brainchild of the Labour Party. I am not worried about whether it is political or was first thought up by the Labour Party. Rather am I concerned that its provisions will provide major employment opportunities for many of our young unemployed, which I believe they will.

In the past there have been industrialists with excellent projects they could not get off the ground. They could not create the jobs that this new corporation could develop simply because they were unable to obtain the necessary financial capital. In that regard I believe the provisions of this Bill will play a major role with both private and semi-State involvement. The House should recognise the advantages and opportunities presented under the provisions of this Bill. Many industries at present importing commodities that could be produced on the domestic market will discover that such can be produced as a result of this Bill.

Prior to its introduction this Bill attracted some unwarranted and singularly non-constructive criticism on the part of the Leader of Fianna Fáil. It was evident that very little thought was given to those remarks. I very much regret that he did not await its introduction. Let us not forget that, when the Industrial Development Authority were being established by a former Coalition Government in 1949, Fianna Fáil had the same remarks to make about that Authority then as they have now about the National Development Corporation. We are all aware what a tremendous success the IDA have proved to be. I sincerely hope that, in time, the National Development Corporation will prove to be as satisfactory.

Arising from those comments by the Leader of Fianna Fáil and other Fianna Fáil speakers there has been put out a false impression of the objectives of this Bill. I might reiterate some points made by the Minister on its introduction. First, the National Development Corporation will not be giving grants but engaging in equity investment on which they will be seeking to make a profit. It is only proper that profits should be sought from such investment. I might point out that they were not designed to undertake the functions of a rescue agency, again something which I believe to be right and proper. Neither do I believe there will be any conflict whatsoever between the National Development Corporation and the Industrial Development Authority. I know the Minister will ensure that there will be an operating agreement drawn up between the two bodies, which will be subject to Ministerial approval.

By operating on a commercial entity basis, the National Development Corporation will provide an opportunity for useful State investment, the establishment of new enterprises and, unlike the IDA, will be able to dispose of them in accordance with normal commercial criteria. They can invest in a project which, if successful, can be disposed of in the normal commercial manner. I believe that policy to be correct, that if a project is got off the ground, is self-financing, then the funds arising therefrom should be utilised for further financial investment. The National Development Corporation can be involved in the development of highly value-added investment to be used as a vital industrial base. They can play a major role in the development of our natural resources, much of which did not receive the type of investment or high priority they should have received in the past.

Employment objectives can be achieved only by way of selective investment. When it comes to valuable resources we should be careful how we invest, for example, in what type of projects. At a time of scarce national resources it is important that, in the long term, identifiable projects are viable ones. It is not unreasonable to expect that the corporation will invest in projects which will take some time to mature. It is right and proper that we should invest in them. Unlike private industry, it may not be practical for the corporation to get involved since they might have to wait a considerable time to get a return on their investment. Resources should not be tied up indefinitely in technology of the mid-eighties and the National Development Corporation should, due to their revolving investment fund, be in a position to stay on the frontiers of technology and provide the jobs required for our young population.

It is important that the corporation should be able to sell their assets and reinvest in new technology because we must keep abreast of new technology, new products and processes. In the past, many firms ran into financial difficulties as a result of heavy borrowing. In this connection the National Development Corporation can play a major role by becoming involved with private industry and providing the necessary financial capital and loans.

The Government are committed, in conjunction with sectoral and agricultural interests, to a co-ordinated development programme for indigenous resources. To expand on this point I wish to draw on one or two examples from my own area. In County Roscommon indigenous industries of a servicing nature for farm products have proved commercially viable and lead one to suggest that the potential of indigenous industries in many rural areas, such as farm land, rivers and other natural resources, have remained largely untapped. The National Development Corporation can play a major role in the development of rural Ireland. Industries in my area which are based on indigenous resources include Hanley's of Roosky, North Connacht Farmers, Connacht Meats and the Shannonside Development in Ballaghaderreen. These are all extremely successful industries but we still have not come to grips with getting the maximum value for our agricultural products. Far too often in the past we were selling a commodity which did not give the best possible returns.

I can think of many areas in agriculture where many jobs could be created but, unfortunately, these have not been fully tapped. By comparison with indigenous industries based on agriculture, very often multinational companies employ fairly large numbers of people. However, these companies have a tendency to take the easy option on occasions when faced with difficult trading circumstances. Examples of this can be found all over the west in urban areas such as Roscommon, Castlebar and Sligo which have all suffered over the last few years.

One can also question the method of assessing job potential in the context of financial investment and huge moneys by the IDA. The National Development Corporation have as their principal objective the creation of the maximum number of viable jobs as a result of their investment. Under the legislation, the National Development Corporation are required to act commercially, which is welcome and I compliment the Minister and the Government for ensuring that this is part and parcel of the Bill. We must also consider our fisheries and forest resources. In recent weeks forestry was the subject of much comment and I am not unduly concerned whether our forestry development is carried out by the State or by private interests. For far too long we have failed to recognise the tremendous potential and opportunities which lie in the forestry industry, such as job creation, developing the industry and preventing imports of timber. In many cases we export timber which is wasteful and a misuse of a vital natural resource.

I also believe that the National Development Corporation can play a major role in developing our fishing industry. In that context one cannot help but notice the lack of impact any such development is making in the media at present compared to ten years ago when EC regulations were being discussed and we had very lengthy debates as to how this industry could best be utilised. Much of the development has been piecemeal and I hope that the National Development Corporation will bring about a more uniform approach. We are an island situated in the midst of some of the richest fishing grounds in the world and it will be our own fault if we continue to allow other nations to capitalise on what is effectively one of our greatest natural resources. Unfortunately we have not taken advantage of this natural resource. We have not developed it or created the opportunities for jobs in the processing of fish. This is an area in which the National Development Corporation can play a major role, together with private investment, in bringing in modern techniques to develop the fishing industry and creating the maximum number of jobs.

The National Development Corporation can also play a major role in tourism as we have only touched the tip of the iceberg in this regard. We have neglected this vital source of revenue and tourism received scant attention and small financial resources in the past. I regret that many of our lakes and waterways are totally under developed. Development associations and other bodies, such as county councils, have received small financial allocations to provide amenities and to carry out other improvements.

I should like to see the National Development Corporation getting involved in the development and provision of much needed facilities in the tourist industry. In the midlands the MRDO, an organisation involving five adjoining counties, have set up a sub-committee to develop Lough Rea. It is regrettable that such a major tourist asset has not been developed. Whatever work that has been done has been carried out by one or two private companies. Here the NDC can play a major role in the co-ordinated development of the entire Shannon to exploit the tremendous tourist potential of that region. I should like to see the corporation invest in that area.

The accusation is often made that there are many bureaucrats running the country. Frequently we say that State companies are overloaded with civil servants. I hope that will not happen with the NDC. I am glad to see that they will have a nine member board and I hope that those appointed to the board will have the ability to develop the NDC to the maximum so that the greatest number of jobs possible may be created for our young people. The announcement by the Minister last Wednesday, together with the announcement by the Taoiseach of other employment incentives, will help to create many vital jobs. Those measures together with the social employment scheme and other schemes of the Department of Labour in the next 12 months will play a major role in reducing the number of unemployed.

I welcome the introduction of this Bill and I compliment the Minister. I am confident the NDC will be an important vehicle for employment in the years ahead.

This latest example in the basket of Coalition announcements is no more or less than a measure to keep the Coalition together for a little longer. It is well known to all commentators that the Government are disintegrating and are grasping at straws irrespective of the cost to the taxpayers. This latest example of Coalition blundering and mismanagement can be seen for what it is, namely, an election strategy. Every single attempt by the Government to address the unemployment problem, the basic fundamental problem affecting the people has failed. This is because their basic economic philosophy is wrong and faulty. They have depressed the economy by squeezing the money market. They have failed to tackle personal and corporate taxation levels. They have not created the climate necessary to attract investment from the private sector and thus create job development.

How else could it be when we had a reluctant sponsor in the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism introducing this measure? We are all well aware of the series of internal arguments, some of them carried on in public in the past six months, that heralded the introduction of the National Development Corporation. We have seen the ideological split, with the Labour Party threatening to introduce this measure and the reluctant sponsoring Minister seeking by every means available to him to thwart the efforts of the Coalition partners. We saw diametrically opposed ideologies flaunted before the public and finally we got the outturn which is before us today.

The outturn is a document that is over-politicised. It is more responsive to political influence than to commercial viability. There is ministerial over-involvement at every stage of the investments proposed in this measure. It is impossible to isolate the proposal from the charge of power politics involvement by the Ministers concerned and by the Government parties.

As this measure is framed it cannot be insulated from the political environment. It seems to me that it runs contrary to everything the Government have been preaching in the past three years. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, does not concede easily on any measure. If his consent had to be dragged from him for this measure, we can be quite sure that inherent in this Bill is the means to prevent his deeply-held principles being entirely eroded. Every section of the Bill shows the involvement of the Minister to guarantee that the philosophy which he failed to hold sway with at the Cabinet table will, in practice, be inherent in this measure.

The public agency introduced here will be concerned with matters other than that of straight commercial viability. The agency will have to take on board the social aspects and the sectional aggrandisement of some parts of the community. In addition, geographical considerations will have to be entertained. It is obvious from the wording of the document that there will be a trade-off between the social and economic benefits hoped for as a result of this measure. We have seen in certain circumstances where it has not been prudent for banks and private investors to get involved. However, it will now be prudent for the Government to expend reasonably large sums of money on measures that will not be taken purely on grounds of commercial viability. We hear people like Deputy Prendergast pontificating, as is his wont, telling us that this is a Labour Party Bill. It certainly is such. He has identified what everybody outside this House knows to be true. This is not a Coalition measure. It is not a measure of the Minister. The Deputy has admitted that this is a Labour Party measure. They are providing nothing in this Bill except the witness that Fine Gael in the interest of survival will concede anything to their reluctant partners in Government.

How can any entrepreneur guarantee success in advance? The banks themselves cannot do that. We hear of bank losses every year in write-offs. The multinationals have failed in several well-known instances in the past 12 months, not least the Travenol Laboratories in Castlebar and also Mostek. We hear of factory closures, of banks, industrialists, financial institutions and major private investors failing and making bad decisions. Now it is suggested that this new Bill will be the panacea to cure all the ills of the Irish economy, will only be involved in commercially sound and viable projects and that nothing but that will be entertained by the NDC. That is the greatest joke of the lot because there is an element of risk even with enterpreneurs who are familiar with and expert in dealing with these matters. The Government see this as a means of trying to get an election platform in place somehow to convince the unsuspecting public that hundreds of millions of pounds are being made available for job creation when anybody who reads the document closely will recognise fully that there is no money being made available. There is the promise that if some investors offer themselves and they are found suitable at some future date they may get a reluctant go-ahead from a reluctant Minister and get a little investment by way of State support. But that is all that is promised, and I guarantee that before this Coalition Government leave office not one single productive job will be in place because of this measure.

The Fianna Fáil Party had an organisation in place called the National Enterprise Agency who were set up in 1984. Is it not interesting that that agency had 444 applications to date and that they have made 16 worth while investments with a total investment of about £2 million? The NEA were capable of doing that amount of work and it must be remembered that for the past six months they have been working with a temporary staff and in a political limbo because the Coalition had to arrange that they would not be overactive because that would have cut the floor from under the proposal to introduce the NDC. If the NEA were doing the job to an efficient standard acceptable to all, people might ask what was the purpose of the new agency. To justify the introduction of this measure, the NEA had to be sabotaged by the Coalition. Despite that, they made 16 worth while investments in the national resource development, the import substitution programmes and in commercialisation of research and development. Those 16 ventures are working satisfactorily. I am putting it to the Coalition that if they had shown the same enthusiasm for the NEA that some of the Labour members are showing for the NDC, there would be no need for this extra expense to be put on the taxpayers by introducing this new measure.

We hear that innovation is to be the key role so far as venture capital expenditure is concerned and that it can play a major role in national development and employment. There is not a single sentence in this document to suggest that innovation will be promoted by the NDC. But the National Enterprise Agency did promote innovation at company and sectoral level and the central theme for that agency was investment programmes in product and process innovation, in marketing structures and in new technology-based enterprises. That is precisely what the new document before us professes to support. I put it to the Government that that document bears no relation to what is required as far as development is concerned, but the NEA had it set down clearly and specifically what they were about. There was no ambiguity in the terminology. Why did the Government take the opportunity to cast aside an agency who were working well and producing the goods? The only answer is that it was necessary to satisfy the whims and desires of the minor party in Government and to provide them with some type of electoral platform for the forthcoming general election.

The NEA were very involved in investing risk capital and they did so in the areas I have mentioned, such as natural resources. That is specifically mentioned in this document as well. They were also involved in importation substitution programmes, also mentioned in the NDC document. They were involved in export opportunities development, research and development and providing capital at the very early high risk stage for these ventures. What more are the NDC going to do? Nothing. We are saying there is no need for this Government document because agencies already exist which are capable and could carry out these functions if they had been given the opportunity. But the NEA have been strangled over the past six months to accommodate the Coalition desire to give a political sop to the Labour Party at a time immediately prior to the next general election test.

The question has to be asked: if the Minister, reluctant as he is with his over-politicised document, is going to press ahead, how much is it going to cost and who is going to pay for these investments if and when they come to pass? We are told there may be £300 million authorised share capital made available. Anybody who understands these matters will readily recognise that not a single shilling had to be put forward at this time. It is not issued capital, it is authorised capital, and unless it is called upon at some future date then no money is available for the ventures being suggested in the document. We all know that eventually it is the taxpayers who must pay for any bills that accrue because of this document and that borrowing for low return projects is a very dicey operation and will end up in an economic upset and higher unemployment levels.

Who will be the directors of the board of the NDC? From where will they be drawn? There are only two places — the Civil Service or the private sector, and more than likely they will be drawn from well-known industrialists, some banking people or people from the financial institutions, but all will have Fine Gael tags attached to them or, perhaps because this is a Labour document, they will have the Labour tag on this occasion, but they will be members of the board before the next general election. I would like to know where they will come from. More than likely they will come from the private sector. If the banks can lose money, if multinationals can close down, if financial institutions have to be taken over and administered by the Government, will these people be able to pick and choose only winners? We must take it that there will be failures attached to this operation, that is in the order of things. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, admits that high risk ventures will be involved and this means there will be a reasonably high proportion of failures. We are not talking about £5,000 projects. Not on your life. We have something much grander in store for the people. We will be talking in tens of millions of pounds and, if experience is anything to go by, then with departmental involvement we are going to have a number of failures and over the years substantial losses will have to be entertained by one section of the community, namely, the taxpayers.

The nine favoured sons or daughters of Ireland who will sit on this board will have an unenviable task and they will have a mandate from the Minister. "Direction" is the word used in the document which has connotations which will have to be looked at very closely. They will be charged with the responsibility of picking the commercial successes. That is outlined in section 10 of the Bill. It is well worth taking a closer look at the terminology in section 10. To protect his good monetaristic principles the Minister has made sure that he has framed section 10 in such a way as to give him an escape if he requires it later on. The NDC will get involved in enterprises that are capable of becoming profitable and that have reasonable prospects for profitability. The words "capable of" and "reasonable prospects" are the words of flexibility and compromise. This is an escape from public accountability. If they fund any project or investment they can always fall back on section 10 and say it had been capable of profitability. There is no guarantee in that section that it will be profitable or that it will generate employment. Section 10 is a two-way release so far as the Government are concerned.

Management will take policy directions from the Government through the Minister. That is catered for in another section well distanced from section 10. The Government will evolve policy dictated by sectional and geographical interests. Therein lies the fundamental weakness in this document. The Minister knows that there is no guarantee of success in any venture in this document and it will always be available to the board of directors to say that they were authorised under section 10 to take on high risk ventures. When the Government take on a high risk and one adds in the social dimension as against the commercially viable dimension there is sure to be a plethora of disasters in the foreseeable future. Those disasters will have to be paid for eventually by the taxpayer.

It is interesting to note that the corporation will be entitled to depart from the conventional risk return consideration. They are being given flexibility to allow them to take on board elements that would not normally be a part of the criteria used by the private sector or highly commercial interests. They are being given discretion outside the normal commercial yardstick. That is an inherent weakness in this corporation. It is the way out for the NDC in politically sensitive areas. I refer the House to section 31 in support of my argument. It says that the Minister will be empowered to issue policy directives to the corporation. That suggests that there is no cut off point in relation to anything the Minister might like to suggest by way of policy to the corporation. The Minister could direct them to any location to take on any type of investment, viable or otherwise, as long as the social dimension is enough to warrant the investment. The social dimension in Irish political life means the political dimension. If it is politically advisable, the Minister has given himself the power under section 31 to enable him to direct the corporation to do anything that he desires on his behalf. If that is not politicising the corporation I do not know what is. It should be political anathema to the Minister who has been preaching the separation of the private sector and Government agencies. The Government have been divesting themselves of some of their lame ducks, some of the corporations and institutions which were not paying their way, and here the Minister is getting back into the arena of creating further bodies so that eventually the same fate will befall them as has befallen so many in the past and the tab will have to be picked up by the taxpayer.

This provision applied to all other State investment companies in other countries. The power to direct the corporation to do what the Minister or the Government of the day wanted existed in all other jurisdictions investigated and those State investment companies failed for that reason. But as in the good Irish tradition we are taking on board again the weaknesses that should have been evident to us from a careful scrutiny of similar State investment bodies abroad.

The Government may have good intentions in relation to creating the right climate for investment and in relation to providing venture capital to certain institutions but those good intentions will not prevent the Minister utilising his discretionary power to back non-commercial enterprises if political expediency is the order of the day for that project. That is the basic weakness in this document. Section 10 has the ambiguity to allow the board to get involved in dubious ventures and section 31 gives power to enable the Minister to direct them to get involved in non-commercial ventures and projects that will be undertaken for reasons other then commercial viability. The looseness in the wording makes a nonsense of the stated aims of the NDC as outlined in section 10.

The question of accountability is worth pursuing because we have heard quite a bit about public accountability for money spent on behalf of the taxpayer. There is so much flexibility built into this corporation that everyone will find it easy to use the escape clause in section 10. To justify the introduction of this Bill one would have thought the Minister would have been charged with the responsibility to show that there was a deficiency in the existing capital. The Minister should also have been expected to show how this public agency could remedy that shortfall in capital supply.

I put it to the Minister and to the Government that any weakness that exists in the Irish equity base is due to our tax regime. That is why the private sector and the people who control the money market are encouraged to expend their finances into property and services rather than into the manufacturing sector. This was recognised in the Government's White Paper. Enormous amounts of money are available in the private sector for certain kinds of venture. We had a good example of that when it was suggested that the oil boom had reached the shores of Ireland. Then £1,000 million was available from under the mattresses to invest in high risk ventures in oil exploration. How come then, that this tremendous amount of risk capital available in the economy was not readily available for the manufacturing sector? The equity base is weak because of the taxation regime we have, and nothing has been done by the Minister or the Government since coming into office to redress that. It is a Government's job to create the conditions which will allow growth in the productive sector and to create a climate and environment which will give a decent return for risk taking and risk takers. Is that not the inherent weakness that we find in the whole question of venture capital usage that the burden of personal taxation is a major disincentive to risk taking? The Minister, the national plan, Building on Reality 1985-1987, last week's package and the NDC hold out no hope whatsoever for a change in the taxation regime in the foreseeable future. That is the major reason why we have such an enormous black economy.

It might come as a surprise to the Minister that people in industry, highly paid executives, are at this time unwilling to accept promotion in their place of work. People are unwilling to do overtime or give anything extra because of the level of personal taxation attached to their incomes. It might come as a surprise to the Government and the Minister that it is becoming increasingly more difficult in the private sector to recruit suitably qualified executives to man our industrial sector. However difficult it is to recruit them, we have been losing our best trained and most experienced executives to other jurisdications in the past six months, again because of the frustrations attached to the taxation regime. That is the basic reason for the shortage of venture capital in this economy, but the NDC are not going to redress that, and no measure as yet outlined or suggested by the Government is going to redress the inherent weakness that presses the Minister to have to introduce this measure.

The NEA were the venture capital risk taker and were expending the money. They were in place and were not overladen with enormous powers as outlined in sections 10, 14 and 31 of the Bill where we get a real insight into the Minister's demand for power control over this organisation. He will have to be given the closest details in writing before the corporation can do anything. We expect that at least they will be able to set up house before they have to give in detail what they propose to do, but the consent of the Minister will have to be sought and obtained at every stage along the way. Taking sections 14, 15 and 31 in tandem you see the everyday involvement of the Minister in this proposed corporation. Why does he bother to encumber us with another layer of bureaucracy when he is to be involved in the day-to-day running of the thing anyway? He could have set himself up in a nice new office in Kildare Street and done the job himself, but that is exactly what the Minister wanted to do and, if I might put it to the Labour Party Member present, that is where the Minister has codded the Labour Party in this. They wanted it to be somewhat different. They thought they were getting something grandiose, but in effect the Minister, Deputy Bruton, a leading member of the Fine Gael Party, is the controlling influence, the directing influence, and his consent must be had before any project, any investment, any venture or risk are undertaken by this corporation. They have been sold a political pup and before too long they will recognise that. We are expected here to sit idly and quietly by and give recognition to something that has no chance or hope because the Minister is determined that his basic fundamental philosophy, in so far as money control is concerned, is not to be taken away from him to satisfy the whims of the Labour Party.

The Government had a glorious opportunity to do something about the Irish equity base, about generating the climate that would make it possible to attract in the risk capital. They are not going to do it. If they had shown a little imagination and perhaps a little courage in this area of personal and corporate taxation they would have released plenty of venture capital in the private sector. There has always been an abundance of venture capital available from the private sector when the climate or investment environment was right, when the risk was worth taking and when the prospect of benefit was in proportion to the element of risk taken. Now all the money is being put into services and into property because the risk takers see that while the return might be small on their investment at least it is secure. If they undertake any other type of investment they are penalised and crucified by the most penal taxation code in western Europe. I suggest that the Labour Party would have done better to press the Minister for Finance to do something on that level than to press the Minister, Deputy Bruton, to introduce the NDC when in effect he has brought it in but has codded them up to the two eyes in the wording and the ambiguity he has written in for his own purposes.

Apart from it being the Government's business to create the conditions necessary for the productive sector of the economy, they have a responsibility in regard to the national attitude to risk. I have preached about this here before now and it is worth reiterating. Those who take the risk must be rewarded. We must have the proper attitude from the general public that it is not a mortal sin in Ireland in 1985 to make money, and the only way to get job creation and create new avenues for the generating of new employment is by allowing business to make money. That is a good, capitalist idea. I am sure it pains the heart of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and his friends in the Labour benches but be that as it may, it is still a capitalist idea and, let me say without using a pun, it is a capital idea also to allow businessmen to make money. One reason that the people in the private sector with capital are not willing to invest is that they are not satisfied that the socialist wing of the Government are not engineering ways of taking it from them.

The Government are putting in place something that will not and cannot work. The corporation will be only a duplication of other agencies who are doing the job quite well and who would do it much better if given a little Government support. The Government should have undertaken to do something about the competitiveness of our manufacturing productive sector. Such a step might have enticed a little extra venture capital into the arena. It is worth noting that since 1978 unit costs of production here have increased by about 15 per cent more than was the case of our competitors in Europe. Ours are the highest essential service costs in Europe, whether in the areas of telecommunications, internal postal charges, electricity supply or the tax inclusive price of petroleum products used in industry. We are out of line in all those areas. If the Government had applied themselves to bringing our essential costs into line with the European average, we would not have experienced such an enormous number of factory closures and the putting out of work of tens of thousands of our people. Would that not have been a much better response than what the Government are doing now? Would it not have been much better to protect our indigenous industries that were already in place and to which the capital allocations had been made? Instead, those industries were allowed die because of the Government's lack of interest in protecting our competitive base. What we have got is a silly, over-politicised document which is no more than an effort at salvaging the Coalition for another quarter at most.

One would have thought that the NDC would have been opposed totally to stated Government pseudo policies to the extent that for sometime the Government have been talking about reducing bureaucracy. In this context I must take Deputy Prendergast to task. He has told us that bureaucracy must be kept to a minimum. At least the Deputy is sensible enough to admit that we are creating another layer of bureaucracy but he is begging us to keep that to a minimum. Has it not been the tradition to keep bureaucracy to a minimun? One would not think so in the light of the path indicated in this Bill.

Has not Parkinson's law run riot for half a centruy with organisations feeding on themselves, generating the need for extra staff, the need to protect themselves and to expand? Is the new corporation not a formula for the creation, not only of another layer of bureaucracy, but of a conglomeration of a whole range of subsidiaries and bureaucracies?

Deputy Naughten seems to accept that some nine people will be responsible for the operations of the NDC. He seems to think that the nine political hacks who will be appointed by the Coalition before they leave office will be responsible for the work of the corporation. That is nonsense. They are the people who will be appointed for the purpose of ensuring that the ministerial directions are complied with as set out in section 31 but what about the hundreds of people who will be put into good, permanent and pensionable employment for the purpose of carrying out those ministerial directions? That is the layer of bureaucracy I am talking about. There is no need for it. The Minister, who is a very capable man, has conned Labour in the way he has framed the ambiguity in sections 10, 14, 15 and 31 but he would have been better advised to have used his considerable talents to co-ordinate the existing agencies. There are a number of substantial, well-established and effective agencies among which are the IDA and Fóir Teoranta, a company I am deliberately putting second because they will have to be expanded and given much more resources if and when the NDC get off the ground. I say this because of the rescue operations they will have to engage in and which will have to be paid for by the taxpayer. Then there are the other agencies such as CTT, the National Enterprise Agency, the IIRS and the NBSC as well as Bord na Móna and so on. These are all referred to in one way or another in this document to the extent that the NDC will become involved in areas of activity that were formerly the responsibility of these agencies.

It is not merely a dislocation or a dissolving of the NEA that is involved. All the other areas are mentioned specifically in the document as being suitable avenues for investment by way of venture capital through the NDC. I am satisfied that this is a vote of no confidence in all these other agencies but I doubt if such a vote would stand up to scrutiny. These agencies may have had their weaknesses; they may have made bad decisions or may have involved the country in the expenditure of large sums of money by way of rescue packages, but at least they have reasonably good track records. Now we are to add another layer that will be expected in some way to superimpose itself, be gifted enough to make the right decisions and not to be involved in failures. It is the lie in that document that somehow new expertise or experience will flow from the private and public sectors and be co-ordinated in a way that will allow only the right choices to be made. There will be an element of failure and that factor must be faced here.

It is suggested in the document that at some time the good projects will be sold off. The Minister did not get his own way there but in the later part of section 10 he got his way to the extent that he will be entitled under section 31 to sell off any project by way of ministerial direction. There is no provision for any such sale to be at the discretion of the board of the NDC. They will not be in a position to say no to the Minister. He will direct them and his political appointees will put that direction into effect. The Minister will sell off the good projects, as he indicated publicly six months ago. It will be necessary to sell off these projects in order to accommodate the roll over funding because there will be no other money available for that purpose. In other words, that fund will be accommodated by the sale of the successful projects, if there are any, while we will keep on board the herd of white elephants because of political pressure to back uncommercial ventures and hopeless cases. It has never been the tradition to make an immediate decision to sell off a white elephant. Such decisions became a protracted business but the reason for that was that initially the venture was established to accommodate sectional interests or a geographical or political interest.

How will it be possible for the Minister of the day to divest himself of the nonviable project when the political toing and froing will provide the pressure to hold on a little longer in the hope of the venture becoming profitable, as is provided for in section 10? These are words of flexibility and compromise, words inserted deliberately to avoid having to pull out of the weak project, to avoid closing down, selling off or liquidating. Liquidation to a Minister or any other politician is the last straw. There is always the prospect that things will change, that the exchange rate might improve. Maybe fishes might fly. That will be the attitude of the Minister when the time comes to divest himself of the uncommercial projects. It is a pity, when so much work has been put into this document for the purpose of creating that type of scenario to accommodate the political outturn of a number of years hence.

I confidentally predict that before this unfortunate Government go to the next electoral test not a single productive job will have been created in the life of the Dáil that brings about this National Development Corporation. How could it be? All the corporation are going to get involved in over the next 12 months — if the Government are there that long, which they will not be — is outlined in section 21 where the administrative expenses are forecast as £2 million a year. It is a pity that Deputy Prendergast is not present to hear that. It was obvious that he did not read the document. He would have had his answer as far as bureaucracy is concerned. Therein lies the first step in the bureaucratic layer. They will get £2 million a year for as long as they like and after that with the Minister's consent as much as they like. Then you come to section 33 where the corporation will be allowed to lease or purchase premises They will have to get the Minister's consent for sums over £250,000. That is not to suggest that the amount will not be another couple of million pounds. For the first 12 months there will be a search around town for suitably spacious and luxurious office accommodation which will, no doubt, be given the Minister's sanction and consent. He will have to consent, to keep the Labour Party in office with them.

Surely this must be regarded as the greatest waste of public money in the last 12 months. They are putting in place a tier of bureaucracy at considerable expense, despite the fact that there is already a plethora of investment, grant-aiding and capital agencies in existence here. To make it worse, it was responsibly suggested recently by a Government spokesman that perhaps Bula might be a suitable natural resource for National Development Corporation involvement. Are we creating this corporation to take over existing lame ducks, not to mention creating new white elephants when we have already expended £9 million of the taxpayers' money and put it into the pockets of certain capitalists and we have not even got a hole in the ground? It is now suggested that we provide authorised share capital, if and when called upon, up to £300 million to support projects as ill-fated as that.

Take a look at the inconsistency in the Minister's thinking in this matter. I am delighted that Deputy Skelly is in the House. If he follows through on some of his comments in this House for the past 12 months he will give an awful scorching to this Bill.

We will not be giving it over to Tara, to a multinational.

All the Fianna Fáil Party want to insist on is that there is an orebody there.

Tara will not work it.

It should be worked and for the benefit of the people.

Will Tara work it?

To date, because of the involvement of the Labour Party in the first instance and now by their neat suggestion that this might be another area for NDC involvement, to continue the mortal sin of investment that they started ——

Tara have 20 years of ore life to run.

Acting Chairman (Mr. J. Fahey)

Deputy Flynn, without interruption, please.

The Minister for Communications. Deputy Mitchell, in the recent past stated that Westat, comprised of RTE and Bord Telecom could not become involved in such things as satellites because that was a high risk involvement. What are we being told here? The State are not to get involved in high risk capital involvement and venture capital expenditure so far as that Minister is concerned, but his running mate is now telling us that we must become involved in high risk ventures and create a climate in which high risk ventures will seek our support. Why did the Minister not take on board some of the 440 projects put up to the NEA? They were involved in natural resources, in marketing strategies, in R & D, in all the things being suggested and touted here as suitable for venture capital investment. The NEA did remarkably well with temporary staff and a Government choking them every day so that they would be seen to be a failure, otherwise the Government would not have had the courage to introduce this Bill.

The institutional experience elsewhere throughout the world would advise against proceeding with this type of corporation. Surely if the experts in the field of venture capital investment and companies of a State investment nature advise against it and if the experience has been a failure in all the developed countries, that would have cautioned the Minister to think twice about it. But, of course, he had no choice in the matter. He was carrying out the direction of the Taoiseach to satisfy and placate the Labour Party in the short term: "But make sure, Minister Bruton, that you frame the terminology in such a way that we can scuttle it later on".

Not a single Minister or Government spokesman has made a clear, unambiguous, economic argument to justify this new creation. They have talked loftily about profligacy in other administrations, about the need for job creation, the need to pour State funds into a whole range of areas such as natural resources, about the need to do down the National Enterprise Agency. They have talked about the need to supplement all the other agencies which I mentioned some time ago but not a single word to justify economically the need for this. There was no word on why institutions in other jurisdictions had failed so miserably, not just in western Europe but also in North America. The legislation is full of ambiguity. That is enough, as far as I am concerned, to guarantee that it has been introduced for political reasons. And this from the Minister for Reform, the man who was going to divest the Government of all the white elephants, put them out to pasture or liquidate them. Here he is taking on a guaranteed organisation that will have a failure rate and must inevitably involve the expenditure of taxpayers' money through Fóir Teoranta to bring about a rescue later on.

Never was there less enthusiastic selling of a Government measure by Government Ministers. Not a single one of them has come from the Fine Gael side to justify the reason for this corportion. There has been plenty of Dáil talk, well recognised by the public servants in the House and by the correspondents. We have heard a fair amount of Dáil talk in relation to this Bill. Words have been floating in the air across the Chamber such as "indigenous", "viability projects", "macro-economics", "value-added" and "flexibility". All this mumbo-jumbo is known affectionately as Dáil talk and we have had a surfeit of it. This Bill is the last kick of the dying Coalition and it will not provide a lifejacket for either of the Coalition Parties. It is a nonsense because it is surplus to our requirements. It is so geared and so phrased that it has no chance of success and does not deserve the support of Dáil Éireann.

As a member of the Labour Party I am happy and proud to support this Bill. It is only right that I should make some comment on the remarks by Deputy Flynn. Some of the things he said need to be answered. We heard him mention lame ducks, white elephants, flying fish and pups of various breeds. At times I despair when I see a senior member of the Opposition party, a former Minister, indulge in that type of rhetoric. He is endeavouring to turn this from a national Parliament into a political flea circus.

That is all the Bill deserves — nonsense.

I dare say that in the realm of white elephants events of recent days would prove beyond doubt that Deputy Flynn has greater expertise than anybody on this side of the House. He is no stranger to that breed of animal.

I challenge Deputy O'Sullivan to justify the Bill economically.

Let Deputy Flynn justify the white elephant he helped to create.

Acting Chairman

Deputy O'Sullivan, without interruption.

It is not surprising that Fianna Fáil are reacting in this manner. It is not without precedent. On 9 March 1950 the Bill to set up the IDA was placed before the House. The late Mr. Seán Lemass said:

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

That bring us back to 1950. Had not the Government of that period taken the initiative what would have been the consequences for this country? We are seeing history repeating itself in this House.

There is the same negative approach from Deputy Flynn and his party. He says that no economic reason has been given to justify the setting up of the National Development Corporation. Are 230,000 unemployed people not a sufficient economic reason, or do they matter in the least? There is an element of risk involved and it is only fair to say that some of these companies may fail. If we are to be timid in our approach to solving the problems of the nation we might as well stay at home.

There has been much talk about Labour Party ideology. Has it now become undignified to hold an ideal? This State was founded on an ideal but nowadays it is seen as wrong to be idealistic. If I may offer any criticism of the Bill, it is that it has taken three years to come before the House. It would be wrong to suggest that there were not differences and some measure of conflict between the parties in Government. That is quite legitimate and understandable in a democracy where every person has a right to express his or her views on any issue within the law. That is the normal process of government and to me it is quite acceptable. It recognises the depth of the unemployment crisis in our community and we are going forth in a fearless way in an attempt to resolve these problems. Deputy Flynn said that risk taking is not getting enough incentive. I dare say the Fianna Fáil Government of 1977 did provide incentive for the private sector and they failed dismally in this regard.

There are 12 million people unemployed in the EC. Is anybody suggesting that the capitalist system has succeeded? There is a socialist content in this Bill and rightly so because the old ways have not succeeded. It is time to come forth with new ideas and to tackle courageously the problems which confront us.

The Labour Party have never opposed the coming of multinationals to this country if it meant the creation of jobs, but we have reservations and there is a need for us to consider how we can help ourselves without being totally dependent on the multinationals. I am a little concerned that Deputy Flynn should refer to section 31 as being of a dubious nature, indicating that he feels there is something underhand or sinister about it. The use of this type of language in no way compliments the Opposition. Regarding State enterprise and the setting up of bureaucracies, Deputy Flynn dwelt at length on his criticism of the State sector but he, like myself, is an employee of the State sector in his non-political life. Is he suggesting that to work for the State is less than honourable and that the only activity indulged in by public employees is ripping off the State? It is sad that an elected Member of this House should refer to the people who will head the corporation without giving the facts. It is deplorable that highly qualified people should be abused in this way by Deputies.

No Government so far have taken a decision solely on ideological grounds. We have had much talk about Irish entrepreneurs. We have a State sector because the private sector did not, and were not prepared to, invest. We have the ESB, a transport company and we had a shipping company simply because the private sector was not able to undertake their provision. Governments in Britain set up State enterprises on ideological grounds but here it was done because the private sector were not prepared to take the risk. It is important that that should be pointed out.

Deputy Flynn said that we can get people today to invest in service industries only. Have we been lacking in courage? Deputy Flynn criticised the Government for making available £300 million to the NDC. This Government have shown courage in the face of our problems. Deputy Flynn said the private sector was being penalised and victimised by taxation and he said that was not a just reward for investment. What did the Government of which Deputy Flynn was a member do in 1977? They announced commitments but they failed to deliver, they failed to respond to the needs of the private sector.

As a Labour Deputy I am happy that at last we have a Government with the courage to produce this Bill. My hope now is that it will provide the jobs we so badly need.

I am glad of the opportunity to make a brief contribution on this Bill. Like Deputy O'Sullivan, I was amazed at some of the things Deputy Flynn said on behalf of Fianna Fáil. He took strong objection to the prospect of the investment of up to £300 million in the NDC and the country. It is an investment in job creation. I cannot imagine why Fianna Fáil are opposed to this investment. Perhaps Deputy Flynn is worried that some of the money might be wasted, might not be used properly, that some of it might go on administrative and bureaucratic expenses. The job of looking after the people's money has been better served by people on this side than those on the far side. Squandering is unlikely to take place while this Government are in power.

I was amused by some of Deputy Flynn's references, particularly towards the end when he spoke about the Bula-Tara situation. He and Fianna Fáil have been pushing to give this ore body over to Tara, lock, stock and barrel. He seems to be very upset because Irish investors and Irish incentives have been involved in this. He spoke about £9.5 million being put into back pockets but he did not refer to what the State got in return. He conveniently omitted many of the details in that connection. It is only right, therefore, that the record should be put right.

I do not think anybody on this side will be fooled by either Tara or Bula, but Deputy Flynn seems to have fallen for the idea that Bula should be made bankrupt and the mine handed over to Tara. The Bula ore body is the richest in Europe. There is enough in the ground to be mined over a 20-year period. Tara have 20 years reserves left in their mine but there is no prospect of any jobs coming out of the ground if the Bula mine is handed over to Tara: Tara would bank it for the next 20 years, leave it there, and when they are good and ready, mining being a long term investment, they might go back to do something with it. One thing is sure: the Government or the taxpayers will not get a single penny from that mine, in the same way as they have not received a penny revenue from Tara to date. Indeed, the Tara people are on record as having bragged that they never will contribute a penny to the Irish revenue.

Does Deputy Flynn not remember that many years ago Tara offered the meagre sum of £80,000 for a 20 acre farm, which included the mineral rights, to Mr. Wright, the farmer? It was only when Tara categorically refused Mr. Wright any equity or royalty participation, even 1 per cent, in the development of his mine that Mr. Wright approached the Bula people, Mr. Tom Roche and Mr. Wymes, to get him out of his dilemma. When Bula was formed Mr. Wright received £500,000 and 20 per cent in the company. Does Deputy Flynn not remember that the State now owns 49 per cent of Bula Ltd., having paid £8.9 million for 24 per cent, receiving 25 per cent free in 1977?

Acting Chairman

I would ask the Deputy to return to the Bill.

We are discussing the NDC and investment in Irish jobs. We are talking about a sum of up to £300 million to be used for that development. One of the suggestions made by Deputy Flynn was that some of that money be used in this project. All I am doing is clarifying that.

Acting Chairman

I am asking the Deputy to move from it.

I have to discuss it because it was used as the main part of Deputy Flynn's plank. I was talking about a national resource, a national project which can create jobs. The private shareholders in that company lent £13 million to the company and guaranteed a further £11 million of a bank debt. That was a real commitment on behalf of the Irish investors in this project and it is too glib to talk about somebody putting £9.5 million into their pockets. That is not true.

If Tara get their hands on this ore body we will not see it developed in the next 20 years and neither workers nor taxpayers will benefit from it in any way. Tara, a multinational company, have succeeded in conning, or trying to con, the Department of Energy and the Government into scuttling Bula.

Acting Chairman

Will Deputy Skelly return to the Bill?

I am on the Bill. I am saying that we are providing up to £300 million for investment in jobs. I thought I heard Members on the far side of the House screaming, roaring and shouting over the past six months — I have done quite a deal of it myself — endeavouring to get job promotion. I wish to God I had £300 million or even £50 million to invest as I wished in joint ventures.

There is no £300 million there.

I said up to £300 million; I made it very clear.

That is just paper talk.

It is not paper talk.

Of course it is.

The IDA have up to £500 million. Is that paper talk?

They receive an allocation.

Will this corporation not receive an allocation?

Acting Chairman

Will Deputy Skelly please proceed without interruption?

Is the Deputy saying that the Irish Government will not honour their word, that they will not come up with money to invest in a project if they approve of it?

Acting Chairman

Would the Deputy please proceed without interruption?

I am merely answering questions coming across the House. I am sorry about that. It appears to be nettling Members opposite an awful lot, that we have here a National Development Corporation——

The Deputy is engaging in bamboozlement now.

I do not know what the Deputy is talking about. I will tell him this much that you are talking about joint venture, private investment and, because the socialist element of this Government has been recognised to the extent that it wishes to invest in the public sector in job creation is it wrong? Whereas this Bill talks about different kinds of investment and ventures. It talks about private sector investment, about investment directly by the corporation, in joint ventures with the private sector or in co-operation with a State-sponsored commercial enterprise. That covers the whole gamut.

Deputies opposite should welcome this opportunity. As many people in this House in recent decades have pointed out — and as Deputy O'Sullivan and others of his party before have said — the private sector have not been an unmitigated success and have not always succeeded in investing in certain areas. That is true. They do not always invest for prudent reasons when it is not opportune to do so. That strengthens the case for the State helping in investment areas. In the preparatory documents for the national plan it was estimated that it cost £6,125 to create a job, of which the State received back £3,000 in revenue. Therefore it cost £3,125 to create a job. If the private sector invest in job creation there is a negative cost to the State, the State receiving £6,125 back in revenue for every job created.

This National Development Corporation, together with the recent move by the Government to open up investment in certain parts of the city, constitute prudent steps in the right direction. The record of the performances of different semi-State corporations, where public money is involved, in recent years has improved to the extent that it is carefully and strictly monitored, not least by way of establishment of committees of this House so that we can confidently monitor their performance.

Anybody in this House who has any feeling at all for the population at large, who wants to keep our total population including youth, together — and it should be noted that for the first time in 100 years we have our total population together——

What about those emigrating?

The reason they are all together is that emigration ceased in the seventies. In the great Famine of 100 years ago a large part of the population emigrated when we lost the cream of our people. As Deputy M. Ahern has mentioned it, I should say that emigration is beginning again. The objective is to stop it. This kind of investment will help in that respect. It should be remembered also that in the fifties and sixties there were 20,000 per annum leaving the country which amounted to approximately 400,000 people over 20 years. They were all the disadvantaged and less-well-off workers who left. That is not now happening. They remain, now and many of the professional and educated classes emigrate.

If Deputies opposite think that tens of thousands of such people will sit around, allowing us in here to twiddle our thumbs, without engaging in enlightened investment like this, they are making a very big mistake because this time the people will be here to march and vote with their feet. Therefore, I do not see what Deputies opposite are complaining about when the Government decide to invest in a project such as this providing money for the creation of jobs. Jobs must be created on a massive scale. It is sums like these only that will create the numbers of jobs required to put people back to work. Remember one is talking of perhaps 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000 jobs. People who welcome this Bill are enthusiastic about the prospect of what can be done with this money——

Keeping the Government in power for another two years.

They will not just close their eyes without giving it a second glance. The people from the Labour Party will be watching every pound, if not every penny, of it as it is invested over the next couple of years. If the private sector wish to become involved there is room for them also. I have great confidence that projects such as these will put the country back on its feet, providing the kind of employment that is needed.

I do not share the pessimism of Deputy Flynn as demonstrated in the course of his remarks. It does not demonstrate constructive opposition, when some proposal is put forward when constructively one could come along and say: "That is good, at least you are doing something positive, something which will assist the state of the nation by way of investment in jobs, in infrastructure." This is by way of getting our young people back to work and allowing them to remain at home with a future. Yet all the Opposition can say is that this constitutes another white elephant, that the money invested will be to no avail with no prospect of solving our problems. What do the Opposition want or expect us to do, sit back, do nothing, wait for another five to eight years until everything has returned to normal by which time we may have lost 500,000 of our population, many of them young? This is a vote of confidence in our young people, in their future, that you have been saying for years have constituted the State's greatest asset——

Would the Deputy please try to use the third person form of address? He should remember that when he says "you" he is referring to me.

I beg your pardon, a Cheann Comhairle. This Bill and its provisions constitute an investment in our future which can be monitored on a graded scale because one is not expending, as Deputy Connolly said, £300 million all in one go. It is being invested and monitored in different parcels to different projects, each one of which can be examined. We have learned much. We are no longer fools. We will not accept wastage or squandering of money on office blocks around this city, leasing office blocks from our pals and friends and leaving them almost empty with ten or 15 people only in occupation.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share