Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Nov 1985

Vol. 361 No. 9

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

I must admit that in speaking against the provisions of this new body I am doing so with some reservations. I know the Minister has no wish to provide this corporation now or at any other time. In putting this measure together he is simply acting on instructions. It is sad that the time of this House has been spent putting through a measure which Fine Gael see as being in conflict with their right wing views, while Labour see it as the single and complete answer to all the problems facing this country. In my view both sides are wrong in their approach. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with using public or private enterprises to do a particular job.

The yardstick for deciding this matter should be to find out which structure would give the best results in present circumstances. The main party in Government have no confidence in this corporation except as a means to quieten Labour Deputies. This action is obviously the wrong one for Fine Gael. Not alone is it the wrong one but it is a dishonest one. The Labour Party belief in the magical powers of the proposed corporation makes people wonder about such a simplistic approach. The agency is not fundamentally good in itself; it is only good if it can deliver the jobs. If they can deliver the jobs, they will only be delivering the jobs the Government failed to deliver.

Where similar bodies have been set up in other countries they have been unsuccessful. The original contention when setting up this corporation was that they would sell off successful enterprises and use the funds to set up new projects but because of Labour's opposition to this move, this will not happen. It seems to me that all the Labour Party want is to have this corporation set up. This has been their dream as far back as 1969. They see State ownership as the way to develop all industry. The Minister has backed away from the proposal to sell off successful enterprises and instead he has made a woolly statement about what will happen.

If there is a conflict between the two parties in Government over what should happen to a successful enterprise, what would be the position if the enterprise were less than successful? The attitude of these two parties so far as the National Development Corporation is concerned reminds me of two goats, each going their own way. The truth is that the National Development Corporation as proposed will be well nigh unworkable if these parties see it from opposite viewpoints. It would be a recipe for disaster. State enterprise, private enterprise or cooperating enterprises should be used as means for creating jobs. The late Seán Lemass, who was the doyen of industrial development, would use any method available to get appropriate results.

The Deputy would be aware that the late Seán Lemass opposed the establishment of the IDA.

I do not believe Deputy Collins or any member of his party can find fault with Deputy Lemass.

He opposed the IDA.

The late Seán Lemass had his own views but he was the man who was responsible for the development of this country in the fifties and sixties. He left a base which over the last few years the Coalition Government have made little effort to retain. The Grogan report, which is on the Minister's desk, relates to the huge amount of imports of building materials and ready-mixed concrete from Northern Ireland which are damaging our home industry. We have no objection to Northern producers exporting their goods——

Deputy Leonard will have to relate his remarks to the Bill.

I am relating my remarks to the corporation and what we should do to develop our resources. In talking about the NDC we must talk about industry in general. This is the only opportunity we will get to tell the Minister and the Government how to rectify the situation which is causing serious unemployment in the area which the Chair represents.

A detailed discussion on that would not be in order on the Bill.

We can do without the NDC if the Government develop the areas relating to concrete and pre-cast concrete blocks, where at present we have massive imports. Similarly in forestry we have huge imports. We should be allowed to deal with the areas neglected at the moment but which if developed would mean that the NDC would not be necessary. Grogan Associates were asked to look into the importation of concrete and quarry products from Northern Ireland. In the five counties along the Border, stone, gravel and sand imports were at 35 per cent in 1984; concrete blocks——

Deputy Leonard, the Chair is well aware of the problem the Deputy is trying to ventilate and I am reluctant to stop him doing so but if the Chair were to permit that, the Chair would then have to allow a wide ranging discussion that would cover everything from aviation to drainage, and the Chair cannot do that.

What is the position if the Minister recommends a National Development Corporation and we say that instead of setting up the NDC we should develop forestry, concrete products and areas in which we have lost hundreds of jobs? Those areas should be developed as alternatives to setting up the NDC.

If Deputy Leonard would bear with the Chair. The Chair does not object to the Deputy making reference to these things but the Chair cannot permit an in-depth discussion on them. To do so would be an absurdity on the Bill before the House.

I do not intend that. In view of the information we are getting as a result of parliamentary questions and so on, I am satisfied that there are many areas on which the Minister and his officials should concentrate so as to develop our natural resources, rather than the setting up of the NDC which the Government are only setting up to placate their bedfellows in the Coalition. I have a right to identify the areas which should be developed. The fruit and vegetable industry should be developed. We had a committee of junior Ministers set up last year but we have heard little of their proposals to deal with that area in which there are also massive importations with resultant serious unemployment. For instance, we have the infrastructure which includes tomato houses lying idle due to the inactivity of the Department in providing grants for solid fuel burners. These burners were belatedly provided although we had requested aid in this area so that people would be in a position to compete with the other EC member states who are exporting their goods here.

We have a report from the IDA, the 1981 report on the timber industry. What has been done to implement that report? It is more important to implement that report than to set up the NDC. This report outlines the defects in the system and the action needed to be taken. In reply to a question last week I found that the imports of chipboard amounted to 67,000 tonnes, costing £16 million.

I must try to keep the Deputy on the rails. What is relevant here is whether this corporation should be set up, not whether something else would do something else. If the Deputy refers to the explanatory memorandum he would see that the purpose of the Bill is to provide for the establishment by the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism of a limited company to be called the National Development Corporation.

I can answer that. The National Development Corporation should not be set up and I can say why it should not be set up.

I am sure the Deputy could find an argument which he could put forward for quite a while and be quite relevant and the Chair would not then find himself in conflict with the Deputy.

I said why it should not be set up but I said also that the Minister should exert his surplus energy which he is using on this Bill——

That is not in order.

If he has energy for this Bill it could be tapped into other areas very handily.

That would include everything under the sun in order.

I will conclude then because it is very interesting to read the Official Report of the last few days on this where Deputies did not wander but they were allowed——

There were long discussions on ideologies and private enterprise versus public corporations, and that is all in order.

There were also discussions on deficiencies in the system in the very areas I outlined which we should be concentrating on and applying ourselves to. It is a matter of bringing in legislation for probably the wrong reasons. Legislation brought in for the wrong reasons is never good legislation. When you bring in legislation to please, it is like giving a child sweets when he is going to bed. To bribe them along like that is not a good policy.

We have within the Department already, set up by way of reports and examinations in various fields, many areas where they could develop with great benefit and apply their staff, activity and energy rather than in this NDC. I hope the Minister will see the serious objections which this party have to wasting time on legislation which is unnecessary and which will not address itself to the many problems which beset us. If any private individual — for example in the industrial top bracket — were to be asked his views on whether we should have an NDC or development along other lines he certainly would not go for an NDC. There is little use in my pursuing this since I am restricted in what I am allowed to say.

I am delighted to know Deputy Leonard supports the Labour Party's policy in relation to the NDC. Certainly he did not put up any argument against it.

I did not get the opportunity.

That is the Deputy's problem, but he did not put up any argument against it, good, bad or indifferent, other than to say that it was Labour Party policy. He is correct. It has been Labour Party for many years and is Labour Party policy. It was Fianna Fáil policy also but it was not introduced in legislative terms and I will deal with that in the course of the few words I have to say. If we have succeeded in convincing our partners in Government, the Fine Gael Party, that the NDC will be good for the country, we did not do that over the last few weeks. We did that before we entered into Government. It was part of the Joint Programme for Government as agreed between the two parties and is clearly written down in that document. It is not only Labour Party policy. It is also the policy of the ICTU and has been for many years.

As one who has been a member of that congress for about 30 years at various levels, I am fully conscious of the amount of debate and discussion that has taken place regarding an NDC. Therefore, it is a fulfilment of the policy of the ICTU and their affiliated unions. As Fianna Fáil consistently support — or endeavour to support — the ideas of the trade union movement, I find it difficult to understand how anybody can stand up in this Dáil and say that the NDC is some figment of the imagination of the Labour Party and will not do this or that. We should be getting our heads together in a more constructive manner and trying to suggest ways and means that will help the NDC to succeed. However, maybe in Opposition the task is always to tear the thing down rather than help it to succeed, but it is clear that Fianna Fáil are not opposing the Bill. It will be interesting when we come to the vote. I am very curious about this because I have not yet heard one speaker from the Opposition side oppose the Bill.

They have not given any reason. Nobody has given any reason. I have been listening to the debate since it started and I have not heard one solitary argument against the Bill. The whole debate is centering on how Fine Gael agreed with Labour to introduce the Bill in the House.

They are going to oppose it.

Deputy Bell without interruption.

They also opposed the Industrial Development Authority.

Yes, history is full of that type of thing. The NDC can do a large number of things, given the opportunity to work. The establishment of an NDC has been an important part of Labour Party policy for a number of years. The proposed Bill contains many features which the party support fully. It is essential that the corporation be allowed to function properly from the beginning. For example, adequate capital must be made available for new projects and investments. The £300 million share capital allowed by legislation is very welcome as far as the Labour Party are concerned. The board of the corporation must be carefully chosen, with a wide range of skills and expertise, including people with strong commitment to public enterprise. In this connection we should forget about selecting people on the basis of their political affiliation and concentrate on getting the best possible expertise into that board based on ability.

The practical brief of the corporation must be very wide ranging. It must seek to establish and aid the development of strong, well managed Irish companies across a wide range of manufacturing industry and services. I would like to refer here briefly, to the tanning industry. You, Sir, will be aware that that industry, which many years ago played a prominent part in Monaghan, Louth and elsewhere was allowed to die. The Minister of State will be very well aware of that because his constituency has suffered as a result of it. There is no reason why the NDC could not set up a State tannery. The tannery industry failed and thousands of jobs and millions of pounds were lost simply because the tanneries were not properly equipped and were mismanaged. There was no co-ordinated national policy in regard to them. Subsequently as a result the footwear industry went to the wall and is now nearly defunct. I suggest to Deputy Leonard that that industry would be very viable in the Monaghan area.

That is one that I intended to mention here and was not allowed to mention.

I am mentioning it in the context of the NDC——

Deputy Bell is relating it to the machinery in the Bill before the House. I have no wish to refuse to Deputy Leonard or any other Deputy the right to speak but I must see that the Deputies are in order.

I related it to the alternative State corporation.

The Deputy had his chance and did not take it.

I did not get a chance.

The corporation must not be a grant giving agency. That in my opinion is the job of the IDA and it will expect adequate return from its investment. It must not be a rescue agency like Fóir Teoranta.

The corporation should become involved in many sectors of industry, in high technology areas, in natural resources and in considering ideas from the private and public sectors with a view to bringing them to fruition in well managed projects. The corporation must not, and I am sure will not, be interested in theory or research for its own sake but must apply the results of research in our third level institutions in projects which will provide real and lasting jobs. Above all a successful NDC will give public sector enterprise a new lease of life. Existing semi-State concerns should in many cases find it attractive and profitable to co-operate in projects with the NDC.

In passing I should like to refer to a visit the Chair and a number of Members made to Canada where we saw at first hand what can be done for the fish industry. We learned that fishing fleets there are restricted to fishing for five months of the year because of weather conditions, yet there are more than 200 fish processing plants in the general area of Montreal. The NDC could have investigated prospects in that area. We have an abundance of fish in the waters surrounding the country and our fishermen are crying out for new markets and new opportunities. That is one of our greatest natural resources and there is no reason why it should not be listed as a high priority for the NDC.

The Bill covers many of the key points contained in the Programme for Government. In fact, the maximum share capital at £300 million is £100 million higher than the figure in the programme. I should like to congratulate the Minister, and the Cabinet, for having the wisdom to see the necessity to write in a figure as high as £300 million. However, there are two important divergences in regard to the holding company role and borrowing powers. The NDC will not be a holding company for existing State companies. That is to say it will not take control of existing commercial semi-State companies. The reason for this is that major financial and operating problems in many of the existing State enterprises need to be solved. This fact has been accepted by trade unions and employers. It would not be correct to saddle the NDC in the beginning with a host of problem companies. It is far better to let the NDC get cracking in the first instance with new projects and job creation. There would be little point in handing over to the NDC unsettled policy problems of certain State companies. It is better to permit the NDC get down to the task of creating new projects and new jobs. It will be important for the NDC resources and staff not to be diverted from its primary project, development of the job creation role.

The corporation can, however, manage or act as a holding company for any new State-sponsored commercial enterprise. In my opinion it would be desirable if effective links were to be established between the NDC and existing State-sponsored commercial enterprises. The corporation does not have power to borrow for capital purposes but merely a minor power to borrow temporarily for current expenditure. The corporation, therefore, must depend on share capital or equity from the Exchequer of up to £300 million and on retained earnings from its projects or investments and from the sale of its assets or investments. This is known as the revolving investment fund for employment. One advantage of the borrowing restriction is that it means that the corporation will not have to service debt payments from the beginning. I know the Minsiter will agree that this has been one of the major problems of the State and semi-State sector. The Labour Party do not want to set up State companies just for the sake of setting them up. We all think of the failures in that sector but seldom consider the successes such as Aer Lingus, Bord na Móna and other who have been very much involved in job creation.

The ICTU document, Confronting the Jobs Crisis, referred to the National Development Corporation. The corporation is not only the creation of the Labour Party but is also the idea of the trade union movement which has strong links with the Labour Party. The Telesis and the NESC reports recognised that a 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 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 NDC.

While the Programme for Government of December 1982 envisaged such an innovative development role for a national development corporation in the development of the indigenous source 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. The Bill envisages a strong innovative development role for the NDC and that is one of the most important differences. Public sector enterprises should be used to secure the co-ordinated development of resource based industries. The NDC should be given the role of establishing new public undertakings where suitable projects are identified in this area and of working with existing enterprises to expand and diversify their operations. The NDC must be adequately funded and this should be done from the outset.

I am not too clear on how the £300 million will be channelled. Perhaps the Minister will give us that information. What criteria will be used in the provision of the money and at what stage? The NDC will have the role of establishing new public undertakings and the funding of up to £300 million as projects are developed will be adequate. The NDC 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. Potential for growth in traded services, including education, training and health care services where Ireland has both expertise and a reputation worldwide should be systematically examined. The National Development Corporation, in conjunction with the relevant State agencies, could play a major role in developing this area of activity. The Telesis report recommended that Ireland should concentrate greater efforts to develop a number of large firms with the scale, technological and marketing capabilities necessary to compete internationally. It emphasised that we must move into the larger scale high productivity industries such as machinery, transport equipment, electronics, consumer durables, chemicals, technical instruments and more highly processed food products and that we should concentrate on developing specialised niches in some of these lines involving innovative applications of advanced basic technologies developed elsewhere.

I would have to rule out a widened debate on the Telesis report.

I take the hint. We believe that the National Development Corporation can involve themselves in Irish private companies but not undertake major large scale operations and technological and marketing strengths necessary for competitive success in this type of industry. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions consider that the National Development Corporation must be given a major role in initiating and developing, in conjunction with existing public enterprises where appropriate or, where necessary, by the establishment of new enterprises, selected industrial projects in these areas. The ICTU say there must be a new growth of public enterprise. The National Development Corporation must be brought to provide for direct involvement with a dynamic public enterprise sector in the high growth areas of manufacturing in national resource based industries. Trade unions therefore are opposed to the proposal that the National Development Corporation must, within predetermined time limits, sell off their investments to the private sector. As far as the Labour Party are concerned, this will be a contentious issue as time goes on.

Under section 14 of the NDC Bill that agency are now not required to sell off investments within mandatory predetermined time limits. The section provides for flexibility considering the particular circumstances of the investment. Under section 31 the Minister cannot exercise power or control in relation to any particular investment. That was one difficulty that arose when the National Development Corporation Bill was being put together. We were fearful that what we would be doing would be setting up new industries under the NDC and, where they were good money spinners or were of use to the State for employment purposes or investment, they would be immediately sold off to private enterprise.

The National Enterprise Agency, which is still in existence, was set up on 25 June 1981 as a limited company by the then Fianna Fáil Government. Contrary to what Deputy Leonard has said, there was no Dáil legislation in connection with this. The original undertaking had been given in 1979 in the Fianna Fáil National Understanding which was worked out with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the Government of the day. The commitment to establish the National Development Corporation was given in the Fine Gael-Labour Joint Programme for Government in December 1982. In view of the Opposition's criticism of the National Development Corporation, it is worth restating the brief of the National Enterprise Agency for which the Opposition, when in Government, were responsible. First, it was to establish organisational responsibility for commercial exploitation of new development opportunities by the State where such opportunities were not being exploited by the private sector and, secondly, to provide a mechanism to ensure that commercially orientated research and development are effectively applied in the economy. I submit that those are largely the sentiments expressed in the Bill for the setting up of the National Development Corporation.

In addition, it was also envisaged that the NEA would engage directly in manufacturing, service and trading activities, either by themselves or in partnership with other organisations in the public or private sector, that they would be operated on a commercial basis and that there would be appropriate representation of employer and trade union interests on their board of directors. The board was made up of four nominees from the ICTU, four from the employer organisations, the CII and the FUE, and four more appointed by the Government. Over the past years there have been several changes on that board. In reality, the NEA never really achieved any of their aims. As a member of the Committee on Public Expenditure, I had the opportunity recently to talk with the senior executives of the NEA. Their submission and the record of the proceedings, which were in public, are there for everybody to see.

Since their inception the NEA were hampered by a lack of funds, inadequate staffing and the temporary nature of their board. For example, directors Mark Hely-Hutchinson, Harry O'Sullivan and Mr. H. Lunn retired by rotation in accordance with the articles of association and, being available, offered themselves for re-appointment. Those gentlemen, who have given long and loyal service to the State would, I am sure, tell you that they were totally, utterly and absolutely frustrated in their efforts. I feel that the same thing could happen in relation to the National Development Corporation. In other words, if the Government of the day or the Minister of the day wanted to kill the corporation, it would be very easy to do so. If Fianna Fáil came back into power and wanted to kill it, they could kill it quite easily. That is what happened with the NEA. Let us make no mistake about that. There were several changes in Government.

The original idea or concept of the NEA which I have given was a good one, primarily along the lines of the NDC, but the NEA were never given the teeth, or the money. They were never given the expertise and were frustrated in their efforts from the very beginning. They were, have been and will continue to be a total failure. Their last annual report for 1983, for example, stated that the agency received £250,000 in grant-in-aid from the Department of Industry and Energy to meet administrative expenses. They also received £3 million in capital from the Department of Industry and Energy. The capital funding for 1982 was £5 million but for 1982 and 1983 none of the capital funding was drawn down.

That is exactly what I am talking about in relation to the operation of the NDC. The very same thing can happen and we must learn from the lessons of the National Enterprise Agency. It would be a good idea for the Minister to examine the operation of the NEA and I am sure he and his colleagues have done so. As far as the trade union movement are concerned, the NEA were a total, utter and absolute failure. They suffered from a number of drawbacks but the most obvious one was lack of Government will to ensure their progress. They are now to be replaced by the National Development Corporation and I hope that the will and support of Government, whichever Government they may be, to make the agency work will be there.

We are not talking about who is politically right or wrong; we are talking about an organisation which is being set up for the express purpose of providing jobs for our people and for the control and operation of those jobs by the State, on behalf of the taxpayers who are providing the money. The NDC differs from the NEA in that it will have legislative force once this Bill passes all Stages in both Houses. This will entitle the NDC to significant State funding, a permanent staff, a board and a degree of innovative independence which the NEA never enjoyed. The Bill attempts to bring the NDC as close as possible to the Labour Party position as outlined in the Programme for Government in December 1982.

The NDC will have a special responsibility for the development of the indigenous resource sector of the economy. It will develop a comprehensive plan for the revitalisation of the food processing industry through profitable innovation by the State sector, the private sector and the co-operative societies. The commercial exploitation of our forest resources will also be a key priority area for the corporation. The corporation should particularly promote development by the State sector alone, or in partnership with private investors, of advanced technology projects to ensure that Ireland is in the forefront in adopting new technologies and products of wide-ranging export potential.

The Joint Programme for Government committed the new Government to initial funding of £200 million for the NDC, with a borrowing limitation of £500 million. We welcome the increase in that funding. The NDC will act primarily as a State investment company and will take equity stakes in new and expanding enterprises, initiate joint ventures and, on occasion, make available loan capital. I would suggest in this connection that lessons can be learned from developments that have recently taken place but which have not received the headlines given to closures. In Westport the footwear industry which had been the mainstay of the town closed down. Reliable Shoes had been established there for over 50 years. It was taken over by another company which subsequently closed. The workers got together and formed a co-operative, with the help of some local funding.

In view of my previous rulings, I would ask the Deputy not to proceed to a detailed discussion on this matter.

My point is that the NDC can develop areas such as this. There is plenty of talent and there are many skilled people anxious to go to work. Their skills can be used more effectively if under the NDC these co-operatives are funded from State funds. I have personal experience of another venture which is about to be launched following the collapse of Clark's in Dundalk which caused serious problems. A group of people are getting together to use their skills. The State agencies have been very helpful but that type of initiative and skill can best be co-ordinated with the funding and expertise provided by the NDC.

The primary intention is to assist in the development of the traded goods sector, particularly in natural resource type industries, and those with strong supply linkages elsewhere in the economy. I understand that the corporation will participate only if the venture is in their opinion profitable and efficient or capable of becoming so and has reasonable prospects for profitability, development, expansion growth and providing viable employment. Perhaps the Minister might develop these criteria when dealing with that section of the Bill.

The Bill mentions the particular areas of tourism, natural resources, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, marketing and related services. The NDC may also promote, with financial assistance if necessary, the exploitation of research carried out in the universities or other third level educational institutions, the National Micro-Electronics Applications Centre and the inventions centre of the IIRS.

Particularly welcome from a Labour Party point of view is that the Bill targets co-operatives as the prime area for participation. I hope and pray that the NDC will concentrate on this area. I spent most of my life from the age of 16 dealing with the problems of the working class and I have seen men and women who worked all their lives cast on the scrap heap by companies such as Clark's of England when they no longer wanted Irish workers. These companies simply went back to the UK or wherever they came from. I hope that the NDC will help us develop native industry with skilled, well-educated Irish people to own and control those companies, perhaps even on a small scale. I will be watching the NDC very closely whether I am in the Dáil or elsewhere to see if they succeed in that area and do not become another NEA.

It would be more satisfactory if the Bill actually specified workers' co-operatives or industrial and agricultural co-operatives, rather than the term "co-operatives". It should be spelled out more clearly in the Bill.'

The share capital of the corporation is £300 million but the October 1985 Bill reduces substantially the NDC's ability to borrow. While this reduction eliminates the risk of large borrowings which would be funded indirectly by the taxpayer, it may prove to be a serious drawback in their potential for investment, particularly investment in natural resources such as fisheries or forestry which would require substantial initial capital outlay. One of the problems in developing native resources is that one has to have money before one can borrow. I am suggesting that the initial outlay is most important. Financial returns on investments or dividends will become part of the revolving fund which is to be the NDC's float for investment in further attractive enterprises. Ministerial clarification will be necessary on the question of how this funding is to be applied. For example, section 8 (3) provides:

(3) The Minister for Finance may, with the consent of the Minister, take up by subscription shares in the Corporation, having regard to the amount of capital investment proposed by the Corporation and the amount of capital available to the Corporation derived from its own funds.

This puts the thing in a chicken and egg fashion — the Minister for Finance may, with the consent of the Minister for Industry take up by subscription shares in the corporation having regard to the amount of capital investment proposed by the corporation and the amount of capital available to the corporation from their own funds.

Ministerial clarification is necessary there. It must be envisaged that viable projects will require initial heavy capital outlay and it may take some years before funds begin to roll back to the NDC. Section 11 deals with the board of directors. Most interested parties acknowledge that the success of the NDC will depend in good measure on the board of directors. It will be necessary that they should have a steady commitment to the development of a progressive State sector. The board will consist of nine members, including the chairman, and they will be appointed for five years.

Proponents of a State investment company of necessity must put their trust in the ability of the appointed experts to select economically and socially advantageous projects. Labour in Government must ensure that the board will not prove to be a handicap to the principles enshrined in the Bill. Earlier I referred at length to the charade of the NEA which, of course, was not properly structured. It was a failure.

Not entirely a failure.

From my examination of it a couple of weeks ago, in my opinion it was a failure.

I think "moderate success" would be a fairer description.

I intend to be more blunt than the Minister. Section 13 (b) is concerned with the realisation of investments made by the board as soon as it is financially and commercially prudent, in such a manner as to enable the corporation to earn a reasonable return on any investment made by the board and to ensure that funds will be available for employment through the revolving investment fund. Though ensuring a steady flow of finance into the revolving fund, the section in practice could be interpreted as legislating approval to sell off viable State enterprises into the private sector, thus depriving the State of thriving industries. I said earlier that I hope we are not setting up a mechanism for developing good industries from natural resources and then handing them over for private gain. It can be envisaged that the private sector would covet the successful enterprises but that struggling operations would be left in State hands — we would sell off all the good fellows and be left with the cripples.

Section 28 (b) concerns NDC share capital in subsidiaries. The NDC may not hold more than half the nominal value of the share capital of an enterprise. This might cause future problems if the subsidiary were to move in a direction not wholly acceptable to the NDC. Perhaps the Minister would clarify this section for us.

In my opinion, it will be necessary to consider Labour Party policy on fisheries, agriculture, food processing and transport. A committee of the party are at present preparing a policy paper on forestry. We hope to use that policy to monitor the development of the NDC to ensure that they will be 100 per cent successful.

Investment is the key to the solution of fundamental production problems. State investment has been falling. The volume of State capital spending fell by 15 per cent in 1983 and 4 per cent in 1984. Building on Reality proposed further cuts in State capital spending in the next three years. The Government appear to have decided that because some past State investments were poor, most capital spending is suspect, if it is by the public sector. That is not the opinion of the ICTU, its affiliates, of my union, the ITGWU, or the Labour Party. I hope it is not the Fine Gael policy. The Government must ensure that the level of spending on the NDC will be the maximum available. I congratulate the Minister and the Government for having increased the amount of money being made available to the NDC as against the £200 million made available earlier.

State capital spending in 1985 will amount to £1,800 million. Central Government will spend £1,040 million of this and State bodies will spend £760 million. The three big spending areas which stand out in the Public Capital Programme are industry, at 19 per cent, infrastructure, 40 per cent, and housing, 21 per cent. Between them they account for most of total State capital spending. Industry has the lion's share of economic investment and it ought to be generating most output and wealth. Unfortunately, that is the area which has been cut most.

The bulk of capital spending on industry is accounted for by agencies which give grants to private firms to bail them out when they are in trouble, or in other forms of support. Agencies like the IDA, SFADCo, Udarás na Gaeltachta, the ICC, Fóir Teoranta and the IIRS receive hundreds of millions every year. According to the White Paper on Industry, £430 million was spent by the State on industrial development alone. State capital spending on industry involves a great proportion of taxpayers' money, all going to prop the private sector. There must be a limit to our patience while we wait for Irish private industry to perform on its own initiative.

Foreign investment here is inadequate in its size and linkage effects. Therefore, the time is overdue for the Government and their agencies to take the initiatives themselves to seek out and to invest in new industrial projects. We believe this is part of the NDC's function. This is Labour Party input into the Government. We agree there with the Opposition. If they say that the Fine Gael Party in Government are agreeing only to the NDC because it is Labour Party policy, and if that is correct, I do not see anything wrong with it.

That is not correct. The National Development Corporation was part of Fine Gael policy in the last election.

It is the Opposition who are saying here this morning that it is because of Labour Party policy this Bill is before the House.

The policy of both parties, freely agreed.

Deputies should cease interrupting.

If that is so I do not see one thing in the wide earthly world wrong with that. I am sure my colleagues and I will be very proud to see this Bill finally pass through the House knowing that a major part of the Labour Party policy has been successful.

I am not satisfied that the proposed National Development Corporation will constitute the answer to any of our major problems at present. Most semi-State organisations, other strata of bureaucracy and Government policies are wrongly geared towards solving these problems and are not helpful. The political will, backed up by cohesive planning policies and finance, is what is required to get the country moving again. I am firmly convinced that the National Development Corporation does not constitute the answer to the problems confronting us now having regard to what must be done in relation to industry, trade, agriculture, horticulture, tourism, afforestation, administrative decentralisation and in regard to integrated regional policies. I propose to illustrate how the National Development Corporation is not the appropriate body to confront the types of problems obtaining in these areas.

Everybody knows that our unemployment and emigration figures have reached alarming proportions. Nobody would oppose any proposition likely to reduce those two evils which have devastated and are about to break the spirit of our youth today. The Fianna Fáil Party neither agree with nor believe that the National Development Corporation will resolve such problems. We view it as yet another organisation which could duplicate the work being carried out already by other organisations, leading also to a duplication of many existing services. If the £300 million were allocated to other agencies in a manner I propose to detail it would be far more advantageous than spending the same amount of money on the National Development Corporation. For example, the National Enterprise Agency, duly expanded, would be suitably geared to deal with any situation that might arise in regard to the National Development Corporation. I foresee duplication in regard to the National Development Corporation, the IDA and in particular to the ICC, all being engaged in joint ventures and private investment. It is my opinion that the National Development Corporation could do no more than would an expanded National Enterprise Agency. No matter what new organisation is established I am convinced that nothing will happen without the political will to take the necessary decisions and have them implemented, coupled with the necessary finance.

I shall give a few examples of how I believe the National Development Corporation cannot help in situations in which we are led to believe it could, mainly because of lack of political will on the part of the Government, and that applies in relation to my constituency of south Kerry. I have been in touch with the Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism for some time past in connection with the establishment of a meat processing plant in the Killarney area. I have made representations to the National Enterprise Agency and the Minister setting out clearly what is required. The Minister may contend that the National Development Corporation would be in a position to get this project off the ground. However, I would ask him how the proposed corporation could do so while fuzzy thinking obtains in the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism and within the IDA? I might ask him additionally: will this fuzzy type of thinking be transferred to the proposed National Development Corporation?

I put down a parliamentary question here recently in relation to this matter. To say the least of it, the reply I was given was incorrect. With regard to the grant aiding of this meat processing plant in Killarney the reply I was given was to the effect that the Minister understood from the IDA that, following consultations with the Department of Agriculture — with primary responsibility for the meat industry — a statutory instrument for the development of the sheep meat industry had been drawn up. He stated also that this statutory instrument precluded grant assistance in respect of new slaughtering capacity on the home market, the project in question being ineligible for grant aid. It was made very clear to the Minister and the IDA that this project would be geared primarily towards the export market.

I do not want to interrupt Deputy O'Leary. I have no objection to his dealing with something that relates to the NDC——

I am coming to that, a Cheann Comhairle.

The Chair must be impartial. What he rules in regard to one Deputy's contribution he must apply to another. I cannot allow the Deputy go on at length about some problem in his constituency unless he relates it to the Bill before the House.

I am coming to the point. When replying to this debate would the Minister say exactly how the NDC could assist such a project when the Minister and the Department of Agriculture are completely against its establishment although I consider it to be a desirable one.

The NDC will have independent functions. They will not be taking directions.

The Deputy is now going into Department of Agriculture policy which is a matter for another Minister and another day.

I am asking the Minister present——

There is an answer to the Deputy's question. His fears are quite unjustified.

Perhaps the Minister would deal with this matter when replying. I cannot see how the National Development Corporation could be successful while policies being implemented by various Ministers are opposed to progress in regard to the establishment of industries and job creation. In replying perhaps the Minister would state how exactly the NDC can assist in the matter of the proposed closure of a major footwear industry in Killarney town when the IDA failed to assist or do anything whatsoever in this regard and when it had been evident for some time that this industry was in danger of closing. I raised this matter in the Dáil on numerous occasions.

They are not a rescue agency.

I know but surely one purpose is job creation.

They will not be involved in that kind of thing. The Deputy should have read my speech as he is wasting the time of the House.

The Minister stated that the National Development Corporation is not a rescue agency——

Fóir Teoranta are a rescue agency.

I presume that the National Development Corporation is involved in the promotion of industry and the creation of jobs. What can the National Development Corporation do in the case of a proposed industry where a huge sum is spent on constructing and equipping a factory but which gives no date for starting work? I refer the Minister to a reply from him to a Dáil question on 14 May relating to Schotte, a German company, who intend to set up business in Killarney. I was told that the start up date was mid-summer 1985 and that over 60 people would be employed within two years. A few days ago I was told that this industry may now start in January but that there is nothing definite yet. How can the National Development Corporation deal with that sort of thing?

That has nothing to do with the National Development Corporation.

That is a matter for the Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism. This is a separate Bill——

Deputy O'Leary is taking us on a Cook's tour of his constituency.

We are led to believe that the National Development Corporation is the answer to all our problems.

By whom? Not by me.

The Government have led us to believe that that is the case.

We know the NDC is not the answer to all our problems.

Deputy O'Leary, please stick to the Bill.

The Deputy has been reading his own party's propaganda.

I am referring to Government propaganda.

Please keep to the Bill we are discussing.

We are creating a new bureaucracy. We have sufficient organisations, semi-State and others, to deal with matters which the NDC is being set up to deal with. What is the role of the Central Development Committee within the Department of Finance? This is related to the Bill. Will the National Development Corporation take over from that committee?

What exactly will the relationship be between the National Development and the Central Development Committee? What will the relationship be between the county development teams and the National Development Corporation? Where will they fit into the new scheme?

They can suggest projects for investigation as can the Central Development Committee.

If the county development teams get the same reply from the National Development Corporation as they have been getting from other Government agencies, then they are only wasting their time and we are also wasting our time setting up the National Development Corporation. I have a number of examples where the county development team in Kerry sent up specific proposals to the Central Development Committee which were rejected out of hand. No reasons were given and apparently it is the right of the Central Development Committee not to give reasons.

This has nothing to do with the Bill.

I am asking the Minister if the National Development Corporation will act in the same manner as other agencies. How will the county development teams fit into the new organisation?

I have answered that question.

We are not satisfied in Kerry with the way in which the Central Development Committee operates at present and we are convinced that the National Development Corporation will act in much the same manner in relation to proposals put up by the county development teams. County development teams have a vital role to play and if they do not have access to the National Development Corporation and are not able to put forward pojects and proposals for approval, then the Bill will not serve its purpose.

This proposed legislation will not work because Government policy in relation to many areas is negative. In the absence of regional policies it will be very difficult for the National Development Corporation to work. If the proposed £300 million which is to be allocated to this organisation was given to other agencies such as the IDA, the ACC and to an expanded National Enterprise Agency, it would be far better than setting up another bureaucracy. There is a great need for plans and policies to create employment. Emigration is now running at the rate of 70,000 or 80,000 per year. I am well aware of the problem through dealing with people who are seeking holiday visas to go to the United States and who hope to be able to remain there. I also see young people leaving Killarney every week for England. People also ask me for help in relation to visas for Germany, Holland and Denmark to seek employment.

If the National Development Corporation have a role to play, it may be in the promotion of initiative forms of agriculture and horticulture, about which I feel very strongly. There is unlimited potential here for the development of agriculture and horticulture. Grants should be made available to farmers to intensify in these areas, particularly in horticulture. Food processing plants should be set up on a co-operative basis. I am anxious that the undertaking we are discussing here should not be operated by a semi-State agency. It is not possible to beat the co-operative spirit and I should like to see the farmers, landowners and those involved directly in intensive forms of agriculture and horticulture involved in the venture. There is a tremendous opportunity here. In Munster alone thousands of jobs could be created for young people if the Government concentrated on intensive forms of agriculture and horticulture. They are determined to get this legislation through the Dáil and I consider this is one area where the National Development Corporation should commence their work.

I can see the Deputy is now supporting the NDC.

I am not. My point is that there are other agencies that could do the work but as the NDC are about to be set up it is an area in which they could become involved. If we are to create jobs at the rate required we must get back to the basics, to the land and the sea, but particularly the land. It is our great natural resource and we must tap its potential to the full to get the maximum benefit.

If the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry got some of this proposed £300 million his Department could do a good job in the acquisition of land for planting and the promotion of afforestation. It is not necessary to set up a new organisation or a new stratum of bureaucracy to promote afforestation. What is required is cash. The number of jobs in forestry could be increased to a maximum of 18,000 to 20,000 by the year 2000 if the political will and the necessary finance existed. The Government could do better by giving some of this proposed £200 million to the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry than by setting up the NDC.

What is needed is an organisation or a person to co-ordinate the existing agencies. We have many agencies involved in job creation and there should be some Minister, organisation or committee to co-ordinate them. Perhaps an expanded National Enterprise Agency would be better geared to do that than any other organisation. It is frustrating for young people who may have worthwhile ideas regarding job creation or projects to find themselves pushed from one organisation or financial institution to another. We have the National Enterprise Agency, the IDA, Fóir Teoranta, the Central Development Committee, AnCO and the ACC. I have a particular interest in the Central Development Committee and I should like the Minister to tell us what is the role of that committee. From my experience in Kerry it appears they have no power or functions or else they have no money. They are not recommending the payment of grants where they should do this.

I cannot see the NDC being any more useful in the promotion of tourism than are the existing organisations involved in this work. We know that Bord Fáilte are involved mainly in marketing but there is more to tourism than marketing. There is also the question of better facilities and of improving hotels and guesthouses to provide additional accommodation and amenities. However, if the Government could allocate only £2 million for improvement works to hotels, how can they give sufficient money to the NDC to do a decent job for hoteliers who want to provide amenities and facilities in their premises? It is well known that the grant of £30,000 per hotel will cover only 66 hotels within the limit of £2 million proposed.

That is a separate issue.

It is inaccurate as well.

I am not talking about its accuracy but it is a separate matter. It has no bearing on the matter before the House.

The Deputy was sent in here to waste the time of the House.

Where will the Minister get money for the NDC when he can give only £2 million to hoteliers to improve the amenities and facilities in their premises?

It is not confined to hotels. It is also in respect of guesthouses.

I ask the House to stay on the Bill.

The proposed NDC will be in no better position to help tourism than the existing organisations. I should like to see more money being allocated to Bord Fáilte to help the hotel industry.

This Bill is a hasty measure packaged by the Government to cover up for their declining popularity, as seen in the opinion polls. However, I am convinced that this measure will not help the Government to increase their rating because the people will see this legislation for what it is. All this represents is the setting up of another organisation, another layer of bureaucracy to deal with matters that could be dealt with adequately by the existing agencies, assuming there was the political will for doing that. However, neither the political will nor the necessary finances are available so far as this Government are concerned. The Bill is merely a piece of window dressing for the Government.

One might be forgiven for thinking, on the basis of the contributions from the Opposition, that we were living in a world of fantasy because they are both agreeing and disagreeing at the same time with what we are doing. They might at least make up their minds as to whether they are for or against this Bill.

As a Member of the House I wish to express my appreciation to the Minister for his endeavours, his commitment, his hard work and his expertise in this whole area of trying to provide a proper climate for job creating. The Opposition have said that the NDC may have been the brainchild of Labour but I do not necessarily agree with that view because Fine Gael in their policies have always promoted something on the lines of the NDC. The corporation has taken the form as outlined in the Bill. I would remind Fianna Fáil that Fine Gael have been positive always in their approach to job creation. In that area it has been a pleasure to work with Labour and to bring forward a development that can work in the best interests of the community.

The Minister has put a lot of work into various industrial policies — White Papers and so on — and out of all that is born this legislation. At the outset, the Minister said that the purpose of the Bill is to establish a National Development Corporation and he went on to say that it was an integral part of Government strategy to try to overcome the malaise of what we inherited on coming into Government. The Opposition would be well advised to read the Minister's statement and to read the Bill, though obviously some of them have done so. It has been a pleasure during the past couple of years to listen to the positive approach adopted by some members of that party in regard to trying to solve our problems. However, the main Opposition speaker on this legislation, Deputy Lyons, referred, by way of his main criticism, to the various closures, liquidations and receiverships of companies. He did not pose the question as to how much of that problem was caused by the policies pursued by Fianna Fáil from 1977 to 1981. It was stated in the House last evening when we were talking about our foreign debt that the figure in that regard has increased from £800 million in 1977 to £8,000 million today. Most of that increase was caused by the extravaganzas of the Government who were in power from 1977 to 1981 and who to a large extent were corrupt. I appreciate that this has been said time and again but the sooner it sinks into the minds of the people, the sooner we may be able to move forward and try to create a climate that will help solve some of the employment problems of our young people.

The Bill before us is laying the statutory basis for what exists already in non-statutory form. The Opposition have referred to similar type structures for which they were responsible and say that what we are establishing will serve the same purpose. That may be so but we are now providing the statutory base.

The second very important point made by the Minister was that businesses, both new and old, are starved of investment funds in the form of share capital and that they must rely to an unhealthy extent on money borrowed from banks. We all know what has happened. The farming industry particularly recognise the damage that has been done to their inventiveness and their commitment to increase productivity on the land as a result of the level of borrowing they were pushed into and the subsequent problem of the variations in interest rates. If we had had a corporation of the kind we are setting up, they could have invested on a share basis, on an equity basis, in farming. If that had been the case we might not now have the difficulties that have arisen. On these two points made by the Minister I would say merely that the Bill before us is something new. It is not like anything we have had already. It is well worth while. In the various sections the Minister has included a variety of safeguards to ensure that the corporation will realise the purpose for which they are intended.

The NDC idea is innovative. The corporation will have a wide remit in terms of investment. There are many industries crying out for additional investment for expansion purposes. Market problems may leave some companies in much difficulty for a certain length of time and because of the high level of bank interest rates there is no respite for them. The NDC investment fund should to some extent assist in that area.

We all recognise that technology is changing and that the technology of today will be obsolete ten years from now. Consequently there is a continuous need for innovation, change and investment by way of trying to keep abreast of what the market place is demanding and of ascertaining the main areas of consumption. Only a fund of the kind we are talking of in this instance can be of assistance in this area. Of course there will be losses but we have invested heavily in job creation in the past number of years. Inordinate amounts of taxpayers' money have been invested in trying to create jobs but despite that there are 230,000 people unemployed. That problem has not arisen because of a wish on the part of any Government that that would be the case. Rather it has arisen because of policies pursued by different Governments though there are other factors involved also. I would not see great value in the NDC providing the necessary funding for a whole variety of industry but the Minister has provided in the Bill for limiting the level of equity that can be invested in any company. Therefore, the £300 million should find its way round a large section of industry.

We do not have a venture capital market, a fact to which the Minister has drawn attention though he has been involved to a large extent with outside financial agencies in trying to set up that sort of market. He drew attention to this in his speech. He sees the need for setting up a venture capital market here which can and will assist industry. Every Deputy would have to agree with that.

The National Development Agency will become the main State vehicle for investment in industry. It can, and will, promote indigenous industries. A great deal of attention is drawn to the development of indigenous resources, whether in agriculture, fisheries or forestry, but people are not prepared to invest in these areas because of the high risks involved. The State must become involved in risk taking, even if there are losses. Unless we do something to redress the chronic unemployment situation, we will be going down the same slippery slope.

The Opposition have been severely critical of the need for this corporation. Fianna Fáil in Opposition strongly opposed the setting up of the IDA. We all recognise the great contribution the IDA have made to the Irish way of life since 1952. At that time Fianna Fáil made statements like "putting the cart before the horse" or "a cart with no wheels" when we were setting up the IDA, and they are making similar objections to this Bill. They have tried to split the relationship between Fine Gael and Labour. A number of them said this Bill was the result of Labour ideology being imposed on Fine Gael. I do not accept that and I never have accepted it. In my view Fine Gael and Labour have always worked very harmoniously together in Government, and for the good of this country. I am, and always have been, a strong Coalitionist. I can state categorically that all Coalition investments in the promotion of industry have been worth while and there have not been any abuses.

There may be a measure of conflict between the IDA and the NDC but all these difficulties can be ironed out. They are responsible for different areas. The IDA are a grant aiding authority and the NDC will be an equity capital venture agency who can make loans, but they will be limited. I hope Fianna Fáil Deputies who have yet to contribute will take note of these differences. These two agencies can combine their resources. The IDA have built up a very strong organisation nationwide and the NDC will be able to become part of that structure.

The biggest difficulty facing industry is the variation in markets and because of that there must be continuous monitoring of the markets to see where there is a demand for new products. We have never invested to any great extent in that area, although Córas Tráchtála Teoranta and other State agencies have done a very good job in this area. This new agency will have the remit to develop in the service area. In America they are moving back towards the smaller industrial units, many of whom cannot function because of capital difficulties and shortfalls. This organisation can and will assist in that area. I do not see why so much alarm is being generated, why it is being said that this is another white elephant which will mean pouring taxpayers' money down the drain. I do not believe that will happen. From the point of view of small industries, this agency can be of considerable benefit in creating more jobs.

The multinationals and the Irish industrial whiz kids moved in to my area, but they were not able to make a success of the Waterford Iron Foundry. There were no jobs available until a group of small businessmen moved in. Now, 12 months later, they are employing 250 or 260 people. They are extending and expanding their business and they are providing a commodity for the home market which up to now had been imported. It is this type of company which the agency must assist. The corporation has a very wide scope. It can extend to almost every area. I hope it will be of particular interest to people who want to set up their own businesses and that it will encourage them to manufacture products which at present are being dumped on our markets. This would be of considerable benefit to the economy.

Because of the difficulties in this country over the last ten or 15 years our tourist industry has been very adversely affected. I recommend that the NDC provide funds for that industry because it has great potential for reducing the numbers on our live register.

The Minister referred to limiting the level of investment to any company. It is only right and proper that that should be the case. If the figure goes beyond £1 million there must be consultation with the Minister. That safeguard has been built into the Bill. The National Enterprise Agency was set up by the Opposition. It has some merit, and was inspired by the need for that type of agency. We do not condemn the Opposition for setting up the National Development Agency but it has not the same statutory basis or statutory responsibility as the National Development Corporation and it is not answerable in the same way. The people who will man the NDC will, I am sure, be able people just as are the people in the IDA. The Minister in setting up the board of this corporation will not bring in political hacks but people who have proved themselves to be competent in the area of industry, commerce and trade. We can monitor the performance of those people and we can be sure that the National Development Corporation has a bright future. It will be of considerable value as has been the IDA to the development of industry.

People get involved in companies to make a profit. That is the object of investment. Over the last number of years there has been a lack of commitment to investment in industry because there are more profitable investments in other areas particularly in insurance companies which control a fair share of savings. Insurance companies have invested in property markets which are non-productive. They sold policies which because of high inflation were giving a turnover at 20 per cent increase in the year, and sometimes people realised an increase as high as 50 per cent in any one year. These companies did not invest in jobs and in wealth creation areas such as industry. We must try to get people to save money in more productive areas so as to generate jobs and wealth. Under last year's budget a scheme was brought in by the Minister to allow a clawback for people who invested in industry. That is successful and is increasing in momentum. The Minister for Finance and the Minister in the House are to be complimented for that idea. Anything that will shift investment from the traditional safe gilt edge investments into investments that will produce jobs must be made worth while.

The National Development Corporation can sell off its investments if the company is doing well. The Minister should take care to ensure that extreme caution is exercised here. It is easy to get somebody interested in something which has been built up by State investment, which is doing well and making money. Such companies can be sold off and people can draw the profit from them. It would be like selling off State forests. The State has built up a considerable resource in State forests and nobody wants them to be sold off to private enterprise so that somebody can make a quick profit.

Hear, hear.

I would be opposed to that objective as the forestry should be held for the benefit of all those interested in creating jobs. If the NDC is properly monitored it could release money for investment in other areas. That is the idea behind allowing it to sell companies. Section 30 sets out the objective of the Bill to create a maximum amount of viable employment. Other agencies have contributed to this area over the years. There is a need to look at all those in the context of the NDC. That was suggested by Deputy O'Leary and I agree with him there. I also agree with him that there is a greater possibility in directing quite a lot of these funds into the area that he suggested. Agricultural land has been under-utilised and there is under-investment in agriculture, so there should be more investment in the processing of agricultural products.

This corporation has been highly criticised by the Opposition and others have expressed doubts because the idea has not worked elsewhere such as in America and in France. That is not a valid reason why we should not try it. The idea has worked very successfully in the Netherlands. If it worked in the Netherlands with a population of 12 million people where there was a need for huge job creation efforts, surely it can work here.

I have tried to stay as close as possible within the constraints of the Bill. This is a very welcome development which I hope will be successful. I support it because it has been introduced by Deputy Bruton. I have confidence in the man and in the work he has put into this Government since he came into office and I compliment the Minister for the thought and expertise he has committed his officials to since he came into this Ministry. If we have another five or six years with Deputy Bruton in that ministry, the National Development Corporation will be well on its way to being very successful.

Hear, hear.

This is a new development and it is necessary to try to do something about the growing disenchantment with politicians. Fianna Fáil might feel that they had the support of the country if there was a general election tomorrow, but general elections will yield nothing unless we can make some attempt at reducing the number of unemployed. We have various forms of levies instituted over the last number of years. People will eventually see that they are not realising the targets which were originally intended and that will give rise to a lot of unrest. I give my blessing to the National Development Corporation. I hope and believe it will work.

Maybe Deputy Dowling's blessing on the proposed corporation will be required. If it is to work it will require a considerable blessing. I always listen with great interest to Deputy Dowling's contributions in the House, and somehow we seem almost to coincide in our opportunity to speak in the House but I must say that while he made a very gallant effort to defend the Government and the Minister in relation to the Bill, I am not at all convinced by the argument he has put forward.

I welcome the opportunity of adding my voice to the debate on the proposed NDC. For almost three years this House and the country have awaited the introduction of this Bill. We were told that it would be a first major step on the part of the Government to deal with our economic and social ills and we were led to believe that it would lay the foundation stone for industrial development and job creation. Deputy Dowling said, correctly, that unemployment and job creation must of necessity be the greatest single challenge facing this House at present. Before the Minister brought the Bill before the House I was very critical of the lengthy delay of three years and, despite Deputy Dowling's optimism in relation to the Minister, Deputy Bruton, continuing in office, I feel that at this stage the time taken to produce the Bill almost coincides with the life span of this Government.

I had looked forward to the publication of this Bill. I had hoped that the product of three years' deliberations would have resulted in a Bill which would be positive and credible in content and would, even at this late stage, provide some remedy for our economic and social ills and some ray of hope for the many people who, in desperation more than hope, had awaited the publication of the Bill. I must confess my disappointment. I listened with interest to the Minister's speech. I listened with care and interest to Deputy Dowling's speech and I could easily identify with his opening comments and with the Minister's opening statement relating to the need for urgent action in the area of industrial development and job creation. The early part of the Minister's speech identified clearly the problems facing this country, but alas, here the positive approach ended. I listened in the House and on the monitor in my office to the many contributions from all sides of the House, particularly to Government speakers, in the hope that my political voice — I am frank enough to admit that probably we are all politically biased in one way or another — in assessing the Bill did not cloud what I thought would emerge in the debate as the hidden merits of the Bill. I was anxious to increase my knowledge and to get a greater insight into what the Minister was hoping to achieve. That is the way that any Bill should be approached. A teasing out process should take place. In this area of job creation and industrial development nobody would really want deliberately to play politics. My only regret is that I do not think that the Bill which the Minister has brought before the House will resolve any of the problems which the Minister believes it will resolve.

I listened in vain to those contributions from the Government benches and I must say now, having listened to them, that they were mainly politically motivated and were a political defence of this proposed legislation. In the first instance I want to ask the Minister why he took almost three years to bring his Bill before the House if it is as useful as he claims it is. If it is going to resolve the problems which he claims it will resolve, why did he have to wait for three years to allow this House to debate the proposals contained in it? Members who spoke in support of it were not in any way convincing either in the content of their contributions or the arguments they put up in defence of the Bill. Despite what Deputy Dowling said, the Bill does not really bring forward any new proposals. It will not do anything in relation to job creation and industrial development which could not have been done under the existing State agencies already in operation. It is a pity that we wasted three years in trying to find a solution to the problem.

We all tend to play politics, depending on which side of the House we are sitting, but I would like to believe that this proposal will be the commencement of a reversal of a trend which has been with us in recent years, of continuing closures of industry and a growing level of unemployment and all the other economic problems facing us at present. I want to ask the Minister — I do not think this question is politically loaded — why the Government spent the last three years pursuing an economic course which undermined and dismantled all the objectives which the Minister claims this Bill will achieve. I refer as an example to the deliberate undermining, perhaps not fully intentional on the part of the Government but it happened nonetheless, of the economic climate in which existing industry could operate. Is it not true that the last three years have shown an unprecedented level of closures of factories, large and small? Is it not true that people who had money to invest looked elsewhere or did not do anything with their savings because of the economic climate that has prevailed here for the last three years? Is it not true that foreign investors who usually look to Ireland as a rewarding and expanding area for potential productive development are no longer interested in coming here? Is it not true that those highly organised and well managed industries who succeeded in surviving the difficult economic climate creamed off their profits and invested them abroad? Any Government who deliberately create such a climate that makes our economy uninteresting and unrewarding are defeating themselves if they bring forward proposals similar to those before us.

That is arrant nonsense. What the Deputy is saying is total nonsense.

I do not have any intention of getting involved in an argument with the Minister and I can assure him that I listened attentatively to his speech when he was introducing the Bill, but it is my belief that it was ridiculous of the Government to pursue policies in the last three years that undermined all sectors of the economy. I will produce evidence to support that view later and I am sure the Minister will accept it. The Minister is hoping that the provisions of the Bill will reverse the trend of the last three years which resulted from Government policies. Any ordinary political commentator or a person with any type of interest in economic management or politics will agree with that comment. Even though the Minister may pull his jacket up over his ears he will have to listen to what I have to say.

That gesture did not have anything to do with the Deputy.

I accept that and my comment was by way of a joke. I am not in any way politically entrenched in my views and I am trying to be as reasonable as possible.

That is why I was surprised to hear what the Deputy said a few moments ago.

I could spend a lot of time, perhaps boring the Chair and Members and embarrassing the Minister, listing the problems that have arisen due to the Government's mishandling of the economy. Government is all about how the economic affairs of a country are managed and the results achieved. The Government had their own plans — they may have believed in them for a while — of how to deal with the country's economic ills but they failed. Deputy Dowling, who deserves credit for the objective parts of his contribution, was a little upset because this side of the House are drawing the attention of the Government to the country's problems. He fell into the political trap of reminding the House the problems the Coalition inherited from Fianna Fáil. That argument may have been acceptable two years ago, but approaching the end of the life of the Government it is no longer credible to refer in the House or outside to what the Government inherited from Fianna Fáil. We are entitled to judge the Government on their performance and the results of the policies pursued by them. I must remind the Minister of the extent of our national debt and what it was when the Coalition took office.

The Deputy is not boring the Chair but he is getting away from the terms of the Bill. He is astray.

I do not think I am astray, but I bow to the wishes of the Chair. Deputy Dowling made a passing reference to those matters. By way of passing reference I should like to remind the Minister, if he needs reminding, that the national debt, as Deputy Dowling said, is out of all proportion to what it was when the Government took office. Following the general election we were reminded almost daily of the level of national borrowing and the disgraceful performance of the last Government. What is the level of national borrowing today? What is the level of unemployment? No Member wants to make political capital out of the disastrously high level of unemployment but it is no harm to remind the people that on taking office the Government gave an assurance that something would be done quickly about the level of unemployment.

The Bill represents, we are told, the first real attempt by the Government to find a solution to unemployment and I read its provisions carefully to see if it contained proposals for the creation of jobs. I acknowledge that some of the provisions will help job creation but I wonder why it has taken three years to bring the Bill before us if it was to lead to the creation of jobs. There is not anything technical about the Bill and no reason why, if it has any merit, it should have been brought before us for debate 12 months after the Government took office.

It will take a number of years to get employment in the construction industry back to the level of three years ago. I should like to ask the Minister to identify for us how it will be possible for sections of the construction industry to benefit from the proposals contained in the Bill. It is my considered view that, for the purpose of talking about venture capital and equity, this new Bill is not really tackling the root causes of our economic problems, although the corporation would help in a correct economic environment.

To come back to my original point, unless you have the correct economic environment — and the Government have full control over the creation of that environment — there is absolutely no possibility that legislation of this nature can succeed. May I remind the Minister that, before he goes down the road of tackling the aim of the creation of new jobs, he must first stabilise the existing economic climate, and this is one area in which the Government have failed totally. They gave lip service to the need for job creation, but have done absolutely nothing to stabilise the present economic climate. The Minister may shake his head, but there are certain criteria for judging whether he and the Government have succeeded. I have already listed these and do not wish to draw the attention of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to me again by going over that area.

This Government have spent more on Fóir Teoranta than any of their predecessors. The Government can spend only what they get from the people, anyway.

I would remind the Minister, with respect, that it is rather sad that the Government and the Members of this House have to talk about Fóir Teoranta. That organisation certainly have an important role to play——

An Leas-Ceann Comhairle

But that has nothing to do with this Bill.

The Minister reminded me. I shall make only a passing reference to Fóir Teoranta because the Minister has referred to it. Fóir Teoranta are a rescue operation.

Yes, that is what the Deputy is talking about.

I suggest, with respect, that if the proper economic environment prevailed there would be no need, or very limited need, for an organisation like Fóir Teoranta.

Inflation is at its lowest level for years.

I want to acknowledge the positive role which Fóir Teoranta played as a rescue operation. They are now playing a greater part in the economic life of this country than the agencies set up to create the economic climate in which Fóir Teoranta's existence would not be needed.

Will you get back to the Bill, Deputy, please?

What will this proposed National Development Corporation do that would not have been undertaken by the National Enterprise Agency? I am not getting away from the terms of the Bill when I draw a comparison between what is now before the House and an existing agency which would have done the same kind of work. The Minister acknowledged the fact that the NEA operated well. I give him credit for that. The agency operated very well, in my opinion, in a climate of knowing that they could be dismantled but could, with additional support, have been an effective agency in containing the industrial decline over the past three years. It must be a source of embarrassment to the Minister, in bringing this Bill before the House, that the preceeding agency has operated so effectively. The Minister would be far more credible if he acknowledged this and avoided the unnecessary duplication of State agencies in the production of another tier of bureaucracy.

Deputy Dowling referred to the National Enterprise Agency, acknowledging that within the limited resources available to them they were doing an extremely good job. I ask the Minister, or any Member of this House, to examine the annual report of the NEA and the success they achieved in relation to the various projects which they assisted, to measure their success in relation to the limited resources available to them. It is wrong for any Government deliberately to disband a successful State agency for political reasons. It is wrong that politicians — and Ministers in particular — should be so naive as to fall into the trap of introducing change for the sake of change. There are no great political kudos in pursuing that kind of political or economic policy.

I ask the Minister to be honest enough, in concluding, to acknowledge that the National Enterprise Agency did an extremely good job. I ask him to tell the House how he thinks that agency would have succeeded and expanded if given the support which he is now giving to a new agency. I do not believe for one moment that there will be any new achievements or developments under the name — and I am deliberately calling it that — of this further layer of bureaucracy which he is about to set up.

In the first year of the present administration, if the Minister had examined the performance of the National Enterprise Agency and seen within their operations the potential for industrial development, he would have given them the support they needed at that time. I cannot understand — and I am saying this very genuinely — why after three years the Minister is bringing a Bill before the House to set up a new agency with new personnel. Deputy Dowling referred to his ambition or desire to put credible people on the management of the National Development Corporation. He referred to a term which I dislike, that of "political hacks". The vast majority of those promoted to management positions in the many State agencies while having their political affiliations have. I should like to feel, all done a credible job. When Deputy Dowling referred to political hacks he was probably insinuating that somehow or other people on this side of the House were associated in the past with the appointment of political hacks. Viewing the performance of this Government over the past three years. I do not believe——

——that anybody has gone as far down that road as the Minister and the Government have done. That fact has been adequately analysed and supported by the people who have observed what is happening in those areas.

Political hacks are not in this Bill.

My apologies, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

An honourable profession.

The previous speaker spoke about political hacks. I am sure he had in mind that other people were guilty of the appointment of political hacks. How could anybody who has observed the scene over the past two or three years unashamedly refer to that aspect of the management of public bodies?

I would ask the Deputy to come back to the Bill.

The Minister acknowledged that the National Enterprise Agency operated well. It should be put on the record in this debate that their performance within the limited scope available to them was excellent.

I accuse the Minister and the Government of having wasted three years pretending that they would bring before the House a Bill to tackle our social and economic ills. These three years have been economically disastrous from an industrial viewpoint and the courage, confidence and morale of our people have been undermined and destroyed. This Bill is merely a political smoke screen. The Minister and Fine Gael never believed that the proposals had anything new or positive to offer which could not be achieved within the scope of the existing State agencies. They know in bringing forward the Bill now that it will not make any difference. They hope that the magical figure of £300 million will have some kind of psychological effect on our people. There are people who believe that the Government are providing £300 million for industrial development. The Minister knows it is not true because the Government have not provided even £1,000 never mind £300 million. Absolutely no provision has been made for the financing of the proposals contained in this controversial Bill.

I support the theory that public confidence in the Government is necessary for success. If there is not an air of confidence and a belief that the Government can resolve our economic ills, then the Government cannot possibly succeed. I refer particularly to the need for political leadership in Government. I am not making an unfair political comment when I say there is an air of despondency and that even committed Government supporters, members of the Government parties, do not believe the Government can do anything right. I am meeting such people day after day. I do not blame them for being despondent and disappointed. This Government came into office full of promise, perhaps full of hope, maybe with the very best intentions. What has been the result? I do not want to make an emotional political speech but there are certain criteria used by ordinary citizens to measure the performance of Government. Under each of these criteria the Government have failed dismally. How are we to believe that this Bill can be an instant, over-night, magical formula for resolving the problem of industrial development and job creation?

I will not question the Minister's good intentions in relation to this Bill. He is a sincere man and has tried hard as a Minister. Possibly he believes that the Bill will do some good but its introduction in the third year of office of this Government means that we will not see any return from it in terms of industrial development and declining unemployment. No financial provision has been made for the implementation of the proposals in this Bill and another budget will be needed to give it economic teeth. At that stage we will be in the run-in to the end of this Government's term of office.

The end of our first term.

Why was the Bill not introduced two years ago during the Government's honeymoon period? We on this side of the House acted in a responsible way and gave the Government every opportunity to see if these magical proposals could resolve our economic difficulties. The Government had their honeymoon.

You are on honeymoon at the moment.

I do not think I am. I will come back instantly to the Bill, at your request.

This is the sixth time you have come back but you have gone on honeymoon again.

I am endeavouring to relate the proposals in the Bill to the performance of the Government. I do not think I am far removed from what the Chair would regard as being relevant.

You had intended it as a passing reference but it has been going on for 20 minutes.

I did not time myself in relation to it.

I feel so strongly about some of these things that it is difficult not to range a bit far afield. There is an old saying that when the heart speaks the pen runs far afield. When the heart speaks perhaps my contribution runs a bit far afield.

The field is very big.

The Deputy should stay in one field.

I bow to the ruling of the Chair. This Bill is a political smoke-screen. If the Minister and the Government believed that its proposals represented an answer to the problems of unemployment and economic development they would have introduced the Bill two years ago. It could have been drafted in two or three months.

Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share