Unlike Deputy Skelly, I have absolute confidence in the vast majority of our young people who in their leisure pursuits are unlike those whom Deputy Skelly knows. They are involving themselves to a welcome increasing extent in leisure activities of a fine, clean and healthy nature. I cite as evidence the Cork and Dublin city marathons, increased athletic activity, games being played and the increased need for community centres. It is a wonderful development and I do not share Deputy Skelly's view that the vast majority of our young people are following the wrong leisure pursuits.
Legislation needs to be analysed to ascertain its aims, who will benefit and what it will replace. I say there is nothing for young people in what the Government are proposing in this case. There are no jobs. Second, there will be no increased economic activity as a result of this measure and, third and most important, there will not be a restoration of confidence in the ordinary people. These three points must merit consideration from us in this House. That is why my party have decided, very wisely, that this measure is a combination of ideological nonsense and a public relations exercise on the part of an ailing Government. It is an effort to provide a new promotional image, to sell a Government who have lost their way very badly where jobs for young people, confidence in our economy and economic activity are concerned.
Here I must refer to the handlers. Today in this House we had the case in which a Member of the House drew to the attention of the Chair but was not allowed to raise in the House the way a handler of this Government tried to convey a completely dishonest story of something that happened six years ago in an effort to damage the image of a member of this party. What the Government are proposing in this Bill has much to do with their efforts to get a new image. If a Government have to resort to these dishonest tactics — I am sorry Deputy Skelly left the House so quickly because I wanted to outline my knowledge of the history of this measure — because of opinion polls, the recent local elections and because of their knowledge that their fortunes are waning rapidly, they are wasting the time of the House. I suggest that what is proposed for the NDC could be looked after by existing agencies in most cases and where that is not possible there could be minor amending legislation.
Deputy Skelly referred to the IDA and the great role they play. I have supported and continue to support that authority in their efforts at job creation and industrial promotion. They have done a very good job but times are different now. There is need to look at the whole area of industrial promotion and at the functions and role of an authority like the IDA. Because of technological development, I suggest that any new types of industry may not be as long-lasting as the traditional industries that were set up in the past decades. There may well be a more limited cycle of life for the new type of industry we will attract. I hope it will not be too short, although in a few cases there have been disappointments. We will have to take into account the fact that there may be a limited life for industries that do not adapt or change in accordance with technological development. In fact, Europe as a whole seems to have lagged behind America and Japan in the matter of job creation while taking account of advances in technology. If there is need to amend existing legislation this party will support it in any way possible. Young people deserve more honest Government and they deserve more beneficial and well thought out measures than those set out in this Bill.
The National Development Corporation has been around for the past ten or 12 years in various shapes and forms. The idea was first floated in the mid-term of the Coalition Government of 1973-77. Since that time four Labour Party leaders, several general secretaries and a host of Labour Party political advisers have come and gone. In that time the thinking behind the proposal has not become more concise or beneficial. There is no clearer idea now regarding the direction the NDC will take than was the case when it was first mooted some ten or 12 years ago. I will cite a parallel to illustrate the point I am making. It is something about which everyone in this House is complaining; in fact, I warned the Minister what would happen in 1981. I am talking about the Youth Employment Agency. We are told there is an ovelap of functions and that there is a need for an umbrella organisation. Yet, in 1981 in this House we were told that the YEA would act in that umbrella agency capacity and would embrace all the other organisations. What happened was different: another tier was set up. The agency was born in the same way as the NDC, a product of a marriage after an election when two parties came together.
Since the YEA was set up there have been changes at the level of chief executive and chairman. There was a kind of incest in the way the type of people concerned were appointed. I will not go beyond that. I hope there will not be a similar approach with regard to the NDC. I hope it will not be a case of appointing people close to the two parties concerned. I hope the Chair will allow me one brief diversion. The Minister appointed his entitled number of people to the Cork Harbour Board and for the first time in 23 years not one person was appointed from what I would describe as the lower Cork Harbour area because party people had to be accommodated who had no relation to the harbour board. When I refer to the lower Cork Harbour Board area I refer to Rochestown, Passage, Monkstown and Ringaskiddy. I will not go into that matter any further.
At the time I made it very clear to the Minister that not enough thought had gone into the Youth Employment Agency. I am afraid the same thing will happen in the case of the NDC. Everyone in the House agrees we have a plethora of agencies. Deputy Skelly spoke at length about this £300 million. I do not know what period is involved but I will throw out one figure to the House. In a period of about six years the various agencies have spent about £5 billion in job creation. I understand there are probably about 50,000 fewer employed in manufacturing industry today than there were six years ago. While I welcome any expenditure on job creation, Deputy Skelly should not get carried away with the idea that this money would be a cure for all our ills or that this was opening a bright new horizon which will help us solve all our problems.
If anybody is to be complimented for preparing this legislation it is the draftsmen, because I referred to this earlier as being ideological nonsense. I think these draftsmen were brilliant. They tried to appease both Government parties by throwing them sprats. The National Development Corporation was first promised more than 12 years ago and it is now being introduced three years into the life of this Government. I suggest that the timing of the introduction of this Bill has something to do with the next election, because many Government Deputies know there is no need for this corporation. They know that, if this corporation had been set up some time before the next election, it would have been seen to have been a failure. This Bill is being introduced near election time so that the Government parties will be able to say to the electorate that they set up this corporation which will cure all our ills.
Four years ago I spoke to the Minister opposite about the Youth Employment Agency and told him what would happen. Everybody accepts that what I predicted happened, and the same will apply in this case. The previous speaker rambled all over the place. He spoke about the Tara Mines and Bula Mines at length and more than once, but if he reads the debates in this House in the middle seventies he will see the warnings issued at that time by our spokesman.
Section 3 (1) reads:
Every body specified in the First Schedule to this Act shall be a State-sponsored body for the purposes of this Act.
Now, I look at the First Schedule which lists a number of State-sponsored bodies but some are omitted. There may be good reasons for their omission, but I am not sure about that. I would like to know why AnCO, the Industrial Training Authority or the Youth Employment Agency are not listed. I want the Minister in his reply to give me these reasons.
Section 10 is one of the most important sections in the Bill and outlines the principal objects of the corporation. There are many subsections to this section. I want to warn Labour Deputies who may think they got what they were looking for that I suspect Fine Gael traditional members have succeeded in inserting a clause which will help their Minister for Finance to pull the plug whenever he wishes. Section 10 (1) (a) reads:
to invest, in consultation, where appropriate, with State-sponsored bodies, in any enterprise (including any enterprise which is wholly or partly owned by a State-sponsored commercial enterprise) which, in the opinion of the Corporation, is profitable and efficient or capable of becoming profitable and efficient and has reasonable prospects for profitability, development, expansion, growth or providing viable employment;
The final clause is a strong clause which is included in almost every paragraph. The Minister may say my question is hypothetical, but supposing this corporation had already been in existence, would he have been able to use it instead of appointing a receiver, as he did, to Irish Shipping? Who decides on the "reasonable prospects for profitability, development, expansion, growth or providing viable employment"? The reason I ask this question is as follows. Many Deputies have experience of making representations to Fóir Teoranta on behalf of companies in their own area. I accept that the remit of Fóir Teoranta is laid down by statute, but we have all experience of experts being brought in, and they differed as to the future profitability, viability or employment prospects of that company. Are we going to have the same type of battle in this case as we have with Fóir Teoranta? Admittedly they do their best and have helped many industries but there is no reason why, if a little flexibility were given to them and the statute amended, they could not carry out many of the functions we are discussing here today.
Section 10 (1) (j) reads:
to encourage investment (other than by financial inducement) in any enterprise in which the Corporation has assisted (financially or otherwise) and to encourage investment (other than by financial inducement) in any enterprise of which the Corporation is a holding company;
How does one encourage investment? To say that you should encourage investment but that there can be no financial inducement is contradictory. Is it not true that if encouragement is being given to a hardheaded business investor he will expect that encouragement to be of a financial nature? In my view that is a bit like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. It reads well when drafted. Well done draftsmen.
Section 13 outlines the general duty of the corporation and reads:
It shall be the general duty of the Corporation—
(a) to assist in the creation of the maximum amount of viable employment in the State, and
(b) to carry out its objects, which shall include the realisation of investments made by it as soon as is financially and commercially prudent, in such a manner as to enable the Corporation to earn a reasonable return on any investment made by it and ensure that funds are available to the Revolving Investment Fund for Employment.
I say that paragraphs (a) and (b) are contradictory although the Minister will say they are not. This further strengthens my case that there was a deliberate effort made here to placate both sides by a good dose of verbiage. The Minister and his advisers will say that this is not contradictory and, in theory, they may be right but in hard, practical and real terms, it is a contradiction and let nobody try to tell me otherwise. The Minister and his advisers know what I am saying is true and the Labour Party will know it to their cost in time to come.
Now we come to the real whipping boy, the real boss. Who is the real boss? He is still in Merrion Street because in section 20, which deals with temporary borrowings by the corporation, we are told:
The Corporation may, with the consent of the Minister given with the approval of the Minister for Finance, borrow temporarily either by arrangements...
I pointed out constraints earlier, but that is the biggest one of all. If Merrion Street says one can borrow, one can, and that Bill might as well be not here at all. That is the harsh reality. There is no point in saying that it is in all legislation, because it is not. This is a millstone around the hopes and aspirations of people like Deputy Skelly to whom I listened. I am concerned, with good reason, about this further layer of bureaucracy.
I agree with Deputy Skelly's point that the Bill will help all parts of the country. I have a terrible feeling that Administrations are beginning to forget that there are regions outside of the capital and that is very serious. What will this Bill be able to do, for example, for Verolme Dockyard? The Minister will remember that closure which affected a fine workforce with very advanced skills in an already badly hit Cork region. The yard and the workforce are still there but there has not been alternative employment and they still have the skills and equipment.
Will the Minister give me some assurances on what the NDC can do for Verlome Dockyard and how does he see it within the strictures laid down in section 10? We know that it was advertised for tender and that the response was not very encouraging. I am concerned that the receiver was allowed to advertise in such a way that it could be sold off in lots. I objected to that on the basis that being sold off in lots could mean the breaking up of the yard and the end of hope for future boatbuilding and boat repairing there. How does the Minister visualise this corporation being able to resurrect work at Verolme Dockyard?
It is three years since this Government took office and this idea has been floating around for ten or 12 years. Why has it taken so long to introduce this legislation? What makes it more urgent now than the simple legislation for Cork free port which we were promised since May of last year? The task force reported in May 1984 and we were told that we would have it almost immediately. It is now November 1985. If we are serious about unemployment and job creation, surely we should have introduced this legislation earlier, those agreed measures rather than controversial measures.
We have several agencies, the IDA, the ICC, Fóir Teoranta, the National Manpower Service, AnCO, and the Youth Employment Agency, all filling a role. This new corporation will also fill a role and their main function, we are given to understand, will be providing jobs. Despite all the agencies we already have, we are not providing the jobs; we are constantly losing jobs. We spent £5 billion over six years and we are 50,000 manufacturing jobs worse off. The establishment of another agency is no guarantee. However, we are setting up a new bureaucracy operating without an umbrella which we all accept is badly needed. There is a need for incentives to encourage the profit motive, to give the businessman a chance. We need jobs urgently.
I accept that we want bigger enterprises but I do not agree with Deputy Skelly, as I know that small is wonderful. I am glad the Minister referred to small enterprises. In the US, big though they are, they have made very big strides in the provision of jobs in small industries. We are setting up a new layer of bureaucracy and, at the same time, we are cutting back on education, agriculture, the health services and in many other areas. I would be all for it if I thought the end result would be good. However, this is inspired purely by a combination of ideological nonsense and a PR exercise for an ailing Government.
The food technology area needs to be developed. There is no reason why the IDA working with other agencies could not do it provided needed amendments are made to give them more flexibility in their operations. In relation to the timing of this legislation it is reported that we are to have a break up of CIE. It might not happen in the way envisaged, but the cutdown of activity in CIE is frightening. In my constituency I frequently hear of bus services being cut off and numbers being reduced. Basically we are seeing the break up of CIE. We also hear of the selling off of our forests. Thank God our party said no. We liquidated Irish Shipping and allowed Verolme to close. Having done all that we are setting up a new bureaucracy, a panacea to cure all our future ills. It is a very political exercise, very late in the life of this Government.
The previous speaker referred to project identification. There is no doubt that we have funds. Bank managers tell us that they are depressed, that there are no applications for finance, that people have not the confidence to invest, to expand and to employ, but project identification is very important. It is all very well to talk about starting a venture, but the problem of project identification is there. Whatever complaints we had about the IDA, they were excellent in the area of project identification.
Only two weeks ago in the European Parliament we had a debate on counterfeit goods. I participated in that debate. I drew to the attention of the European Parliament the fact that counterfeiters were doing a great deal of harm and were estimated to have cost many jobs in the Community. I have no doubt that they have cost us jobs here too. However, the fact that a product is counterfeited, illegal though it be and I must condemn it, is probably a tribute to the original producer of that product.
I have referred to the way our Irish cream liqueurs have been counterfeited, in particular Baileys. In a continental licensed premises I saw Baileys Irish cream and a little away from it was a bottle that was almost identical with it; from a distance it was absolutely identical. I wondered why two bottles of what appeared to be the same liqueur were on the same shelf but not together. When I moved closer I found that one was an imitation, a counterfeit, with a slight change in the name of Baileys but everything else, the colour of the label, the shape of the bottle, identical. I understand that a court case is pending.
However, the point I wish to make is that here was a tremendous success. Here was a project identified from our milk base followed by other excellent products from the many co-operatives. They have all been very successful and it is tragic that they are being counterfeited. If any solace is to be gained from this illegal practice, it is that it is a compliment to the people who are so successful in producing, marketing and exporting the products so extensively. A major area of importance for any agency, existing or new, is the identification of projects and how the products can be produced, marketed and used beneficially for the good of the ordinary people.
The Minister referred to the discussion with the banks. I was amazed at how Deputy Skelly roamed all over the place from Bula Mines to Tara Mines and mines everywhere else, particularly when I noticed that my colleague and our spokesman on employment, Deputy Lyons, had tremendous difficulty and was interrupted constantly by the Ceann Comhairle when he quoted from various newspaper and magazine articles pointing out the arguments and the differences of opinion between the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism. Apparently the two were quoted in many newspapers as having completely different ideologies and approaches to this measure. However, the draftsman succeeded in pacifying both of them but at the end of the day has found a product that is of no use, no benefit to the young people who need to benefit and need support very quickly.
Deputy Skelly referred to the emigrants and the unemployed who have lost their jobs. There is no doubt about the growth of illegal emigration to the US which at present is given as about 60,000 or 70,000 people. There are two types of emigration. We have the educated person with languages and marketing skills who is anxious to go abroad for a short period or longer, and that person is quite entitled to that freedom. We must be concerned about the person who must emigrate because of economic circumstances. That is why jobs are needed urgently. I suggest that this legislation contains no function that cannot be carried out by existing agencies.
If a little flexibility is needed by Fóir Teoranta and possibly the IDA in certain respects, or maybe a coming together of the two, then by all means let that be done and amend the legislation suitably. It need not necessarily be a complete coming together; a co-ordinated working approach between the IDA, the ICC and Fóir Teoranta may meet the need. My concern is that we have here another agency added to the plethora of agencies. I said the same thing about four years ago in this House regarding the employment agency and I was told then that part of their function would be to be the umbrella agency. We all know now that they are not an umbrella. They are all there standing side by side and complaining that they are going in different directions.
I do not know over what period we are talking about in regard to the £300 million. A figure of £5 billion was referred to. That £300 million is needed, but let nobody run away with the idea that it will solve our problems. Deputy Skelly mentioned the Canadian situation and referred to Edmonton and a neighbouring city. I am glad he is a late convert. When our Leader and our party decided three and a half years ago to develop inner Dublin, and, having done that, to move to other cities, we were maligned and castigated for pulling strokes. Now Deputy Skelly says it was a pity that we did not do what has been done in two cities in Canada and in Belfast.
I have no more to say on the measure except that I support the views expressed by my colleagues. This measure is a combination of ideological nonsense and a public relations exercise of an ailing Government and the agency can do nothing that is not being done by existing agencies. It is constrained by the subsections of section 10. It is contradictory in its content in many areas as a result of placating two sides. Finally, it is tied and nailed down firmly by those in Merrion Street and by the Minister for Finance. This Bill can do nothing. It will not help to provide the jobs our young people need to restore economic activity and, above all, it does nothing to generate or restore confidence in people who are losing it.
