Deputy John Farrelly moved the adjournment. I am calling Deputy Michael Begley.
National Development Corporation Bill, 1985: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I welcome the Bill if it is operated in the right spirit. I hope it will not be regarded by some people as a soft touch like some of the semi-State agencies such as Údarás na Gaeltachta. Údarás na Gaeltachta went into some of the companies involved first as an associate company and got a grant and the associate company got into trouble and more money had to be given and eventually that company was wound up.
How can the Minister be sure that the NDC will not compete with the IDA, SFADCo and Údarás na Gaeltachta? Who in the Department will monitor a possible conflict of interests? If a conflict emerges, what machinery is in the Bill to enable the Minister to say "halt"? Secondly, who will audit the companies set up by the NDC? Is it the Comptroller and Auditor General? If it is, I would ask the Minister to think again. The Minister must be aware that there are subsidiary companies in the semi-State sector which have not been audited since 1981.
Independent auditors will be hired by the individual companies.
That is most reassuring. That is vital to the credibility of the NDC. There are many fields open to the NDC and when the Bill is in operation I hope they will concentrate mainly on natural resources, that they will stimulate local initiative so that one does not have to have a foreign accent, a flashy car and a black attache case with several airline labels attached to it before one gets a grant. There is a feeling about certain State agencies at the moment that one has to be in that position to get a grant.
Name them.
There is a common belief — names were given to Deputy Molloy and he did not like it very much ——
The Deputy is a great man for making allegations.
Deputy Molloy does not like to hear that.
Name them.
I will name one, the IDA. There is a common belief in rural Ireland that native industry or initiative is frowned on by the IDA.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Begley to continue.
The Chair is on Deputy Begley's side.
The Chair is impartial and the Deputy should withdraw that remark. However, one can expect anything from Deputy Molloy. He comes from a part of the country where anything goes. I was speaking about the common belief in rural Ireland regarding native industry. County development teams are supposed to be in charge of small industries but the amount of refusals that they are sending to local enterprises is unbelievable and that is why I say that there is a common belief that the IDA frown on local initiative.
I hope that the National Development Corporation will stimulate a new awareness in the fishing industry, tourism, agriculture and forestry. Does the Minister realise that the fishing industry is stagnant and that the agency responsible has repossessed 25 trawlers in the last 12 months? If the NDC are to be worthwhile they should encourage fishermen to concentrate on fish processing. It is ridiculous that there are factory ships anchored 70 miles out and that some of our fishermen would prefer to give their catch to the foreign trawler factory ship rather than to the local fish merchant. There must be a reason for that. Some local fish merchants have got rich overnight. I know some are doing a good job but there are a couple of fly-by-nights also. I hope that the NDC will go into the market-place in the different ports, encourage the fishermen to form co-operatives and give more money to the genuine enterpreneur who has a good fish processing factory.
The NDC have a glorious opportunity to develop and promote tourism. I have no hesitation in saying that Bord Fáilte are doing a great job in difficult circumstances. They have to subsidise too many lame ducks and to compete against international agencies who have unlimited resources. Tourism will be the biggest industry in the nineties. Are we ready for it? The NDC can play a very positive role in this regard. From forecasts, in the nineties there will be a four day week, early retirement——
The Chair considers that a full blown debate on tourism is not in order.
If you let me develop my point a little bit more——
As long as you do not develop tourism.
The NDC have a glorious opportunity to monitor and motivate the different agencies, preferably on a county basis. The regional tourist agencies would not exist but for the fact that they are heavily subsidised by Bord Fáilte. I can see the NDC playing a positive role in stimulating local initiative. I will have to diverge to develop my point. In my county there are several tourist organisations or promotional agencies in different towns and parishes. They may be dealing with the Ballybunion Bachelor Festival, the Tralee Festival, Dingle tourism, south-west Kerry, Killarney tourism and Tralee tourism and are all competing against one another. If all those groups formed a company it would be to the benefit of all and the NDC could provide the money and monitor it on a county basis.
I can also see a positive role for the NDC in regard to travel to and from this country. In the south-west there has been no ferry from Cork to Swansea for the past two years. Moves are now afoot in Pembroke County Council in Britain, Cork County Council, Cork Corporation, Killarney Urban Council, Kerry County Council and Tralee Urban Council to form a company to charter a ferry from Pembroke to Cork and vice versa. The NDC could ask those various interests to form a company to get that ferry moving. Under this Bill we could have a debate on fisheries, tourism, farming and forestry. I wish the Bill well and I will have a lot more to say on Committee Stage.
I extend a welcome to the Bill in general but I want to sound a note of caution. There may be conflicting views in the House and in the country at large as to what the National Development Corporation propose to do. In some quarters they are seen as a panacea corporation which will pick up the tab for any sector which may run into difficulties whereby the State could intervene, shore it up and let it continue indefinitely to provide employment at any cost. I do not believe that that is the intention of the Bill.
The NDC are a constructive, extra tier which will help to monitor the areas where an involvement by them or a similar body could be beneficial. Unlike other speakers, I believe that the competition which the NDC will provide could be beneficial in the sense that it will sharpen the other State agencies in the job promoting area and put them under a certain amount of pressure. I have often said in the past that the State agencies involved in the job promotion areas do not respond nearly as quickly as one would like. Form personal experience in dealing with constituents I think too great an onus is placed on the applicant or the person proposing a project to follow it up. There is not a fast enough response or follow-up on the part of the existing State agencies. Perhaps the NDC will be able to galvanise those agencies into greater activity. I am not reflecting my own views here: I am merely relaying the views of people I represent and I know that these views have been stated by Members on all sides.
The motivating factor in business and enterprise has always been and must now be profit-making. The blessing of any agency, whether it be the NDC, the IDA or ICC, will not improve things unless the enterprise in question is viable in its own right. The NDC will have to be discerning and discriminating in the way they go about their business. They will have to be certain that, wherever they become involved, the national coffers are protected in the sense that taxpayers' money will not be spent wildly or lavishly on something that is not likely to succeed. However, I accept there are many areas in which one would expect the NDC to become involved. I do not believe the NDC will resolve our major problem overnight — I refer to the problem of unemployment. They will contribute to a resolution of that problem but they cannot resolve it immediately.
I referred to the competition that might be created among existing agencies. We know that some agencies have not responded as quickly as they should have but I hope the intervention of the NDC will improve that response. I hope the NDC will not operate at the same speed as some of the existing organisations. The underlying factor is the importance of competition. State agencies should compete, without overlapping, in the field of job creation and the promotion of commercial enterprise. They should try to ensure that the money of the State is spent in a worthwhile fashion.
I wish the Bill well and I hope that all the positive elements are realised. I hope in a few years time people will not get the impression that the State has a crock of gold to provide money for any madcap scheme or lame duck industry.
I should like to express my concern at the proposals in the Bill. It is absolutely unnecessary to establish an organisation such as the NDC here. It is well know that this is the result of the political marriage between the Labour Party on the left and Fine Gael on the right. It is part of the bargain that was struck, that the NDC would be established to satisfy the Labour element in the Government.
I am afraid there is a tendency here to create many organisations in the belief that they will solve our problems. The tragedy of unemployment which is affecting our country so seriously at present could be more readily tackled if the Government sought to create the environment for investment. This would allow the market place to operate successfully, with rewards given for endeavour and, as the previous speaker pointed out, it would allow profits to be made. The market place would respond adequately and the result would be an increase in employment. This would remove one of the greatest blots on the economy, where so many of our people have no opportunity to work and have no hope of obtaining work in the foreseeable future. As a result, a huge number of our young people are in despair of ever getting an opportunity to work and to settle down in their own country. As a consequence of this there has been a massive increase in emigration.
I am sure the Minister will agree with me that were the Government to introduce an attractive tax regime to ease the massive burden of personal taxation and to remove the disincentives built into the present system, it would bring much better results than could be achieved through the establishment of yet another State organisation. That organisation will try to deal in an artificial way with the problems that confront the country.
I wish the NDC well but I do not see that they will have any great success. We are fidding around with the problem. The Government have failed to realise that the problem has to do with the climate here, where there is a massive disincentive to people to invest money in worthwhile projects because there is no return and where personal taxation levels are so high that there is a disincentive to work. We are forcing a brain drain out of the country because of the structure of the personal income tax system. It is very difficult to hold on to the highly qualified personnel. The motivators and innovators are leaving the country because there are no rewards here for them. I do not believe another layer of bureaucracy under the guise of the NDC will solve our difficulties. Until the Government and the country face up to these problems and until the Government implement policies that will create the right environment, I do not think we will have any great success.
I am disappointed to have to say these words. When we bring forward legislation to achieve the results all of us wish for, at least that legislation should have built into it the ingredients for success. That has not happened in this case. It is a political sop to keep the Labour element quiet. It is something they can point out to their supporters as their achievement. Socialism in this area in unnecessary. It is excessive. For the continuation of this Government we are being asked to pay a heavy price. An organisation of this kind will not result in the establishment of enterprises that will operate successfully and provide employment. I hope I am proved wrong but I have no faith whatever in the success of the NDC. Its very birth was for the wrong reasons. It was forced on the country as a sweetener to keep the Labour Party in this Government.
First, I should like to reply to the remarks of Deputy Durkan. He said that, while the NDC should be active in seeking new opportunities for investment that would not otherwise be found, he was very concerned to ensure that the national coffers would be protected, that the taxpayers' money would be invested only in a manner that would ensure it would earn a return for the taxpayers. I assure Deputy Durkan that the terms of the Bill were devised very carefully in order to achieve the objectives he has in mind.
By putting the NDC on a statutory basis we are ensuring that they will be controlled adequately. The predecessor body, the NEA, were established by the party opposite to do the same work, to a considerable extent, but that agency were established as a private company and therefore were not subject in the same fashion to Oireachtas control, or to the same safeguards vis-á-vis the taxpayers. That will obtain here under this Bill because the NDC are being established by statute and are responsible, accordingly, to the Oireachtas on a basis agreed by the Oireachtas. That is a major step forward and will ensure taxpayer protection which was not present in the case of the NEA.
Deputy Begley was concerned to ensure that the NDC will not compete with other State agencies. I assure him that both in the terms of the Bill and in the intentions of the Government as set out in the White Paper on Industrial Policy — and in my introductory speech — it is provided quite clearly that the NDC will not compete with, rather will they complement and co-operate with, other agencies. They will be different from the IDA. As I will elaborate on later, the NDC will be concerned solely with investing equity in companies with a view to getting returns and creating jobs, whereas the IDA are concerned exclusively with giving grants — two entirely separate activities which may have the same objectives in mind but which will employ different means. There is no question, therefore, of competition between the two bodies.
Since I became Minister for Industry three years ago I have initiated procedures to ensure that when State agencies have similar objectives they will operate by different means and that there will be no overlapping. We have required State agencies to enter into clear operating agreements with other agencies. For instance, the IDA and the Irish Export Board, with my agreement and at my suggestion, entered into a formal agreement setting out in detail what one agency will do and what the other will do. There is no question of competition or overlapping.
It is my intention that the IDA will enter into an operating agreement will all other relevant State agencies to establish clearly what are the responsibilities of one and the other. I expect this corporation to enter into an operating agreement with the IDA, Fóir Teoranta, the Irish Export Board and the agricultural agencies to ensure that in their export promotion and investment capacities the corporation will work in conjunction and in a complementary way with other agencies, so that there will not be overlapping or competition with the other agencies. I hope that will satisfy Deputy Begley and others.
Deputy Molloy, who is no longer here to hear my reply, was somewhat concerned that the corporation might be unnecessary. This, of course, is a very contradictory attitude for a Deputy of his party to adopt. They introduced the NEA, some of whose functions are being taken over by the NDC.
But not all of them.
I am sure Fianna Fáil regarded that agency as necessary, and how they can object to the NDC, which will be carrying out some of the functions of the agency on a statutory basis, I do not know. I cannot understand the attitude of the Opposition in that respect. Deputy Molloy trotted out the old chestnut of the corporation being in some sense a politically motivated organisation reflecting disagreement between the parties forming the Government. I should like to remind the House that the establishment of the NDC has been not only the policy of Labour but of Fine Gael for a number of years. I was responsible for drafting the Fine Gael policy document Jobs in the 80s, which formed part of the Fine Gael platform in the 1982 general election. That document contained a clear commitment by Fine Gael to the establishment of a national development corporation. The Labour Party document also contained such a commitment, so there is no disagreement whatever between the parties in Government and never has been in regard to the need to establish a body such as this on a sound statutory basis, responsible to the Oireachtas.
Deputy Molloy suggested that this agency are superfluous. I reject that totally. From the very beginning, in drafting the terms for the NDC I have been concerned, as have my Cabinet colleagues, to ensure that the corporation will be integrated fully into the total industrial promotion fabric of the State. The corporation proposal was published as a chapter of the Government's statement in the White Paper on Industrial Policy.
In regard to functions, the NDA are being assigned responsibility for investment in the overall Government economic strategy. The corporation will be responsible for investing equity in various activities. They are being given a specific role for the promotion of the food industry. It has long been the view of people commenting on the Irish food industry that lack of equity handicapped the Irish food production industry after initial losses. The industry was handicapped by initial output, by marketing and by a knowledge of it. Obviously, equity was necessary to enable people to wait long enough to achieve market acceptability. This was recognised by the Government and by the NESC report.
The Government, taking those reports, decided that the specific responsibility for remedying that lack of equity investment in the food industry should be assigned to the NDC thereby putting the corporation clearly in the centre so far as the achievement of a very important objective of overall Government industrial policy was concerned.
The same can be said of the recommendation that an initiative should be taken by the Government to establish what are known as shell companies to undertake common functions for a number of small enterprises which, for instance, wish to become involved in exports and investing, for example, in a company set up by a number of companies producing similar products to market jointly the product of that wider number of firms whose resources individually would not be sufficient to enable them to undertake overseas marketing. The need for this development has long been pointed to by analysts in the area of industrial policy. It was called for in the Telesis report and in the report of the NESC. In the White Paper on industrial policy the Government decided to assign the sole responsibility for investing capital in the establishment of such marketing companies to the NDC. Again, that indicates that the corporation are being given, not a marginal role, but a central role in the achievement of one of the clearly accepted objectives of Government policy.
I am sure the Opposition believe also that we need to have a body who are prepared to invest equity in joint marketing companies set up between a number of small industries. The Opposition must agree, too, with the need for a company who will be prepared to put equity into certain long-term development of new food products so as to enable those products gradually to gain acceptability in the market. If the party opposite agree that we should have a body prepared to invest equity in marketing companies and that we should have a body prepared to invest what one might refer to as patient money in the development of certain new food products, why are they opposing the establishment of the NDC? The corporation are intended to perform a function which the Opposition in their more reflective moments must agree is necessary.
Similarly, it is common cause in this House that we need an agency who will be prepared to invest equity in the development of new products and processes emerging from our universities and higher level institutions. There is a tremendous resource available to us in the higher education institutes. In Trinity College, in UCD, in Cork and Galway universities and in the National Institutes of Higher Education as well as in other institutions, there are highly talented people who are engaged not only in teaching but also in research in the engineering field, in the food science field and in similar disciplines. As part of their academic work they are developing ideas that could be turned into products to create jobs if those products could be sold profitably to consumers here and overseas. What we have lacked in the past has been an institution that would be able to bring those ideas from the concept stage through the product development stage into the marketing stage. Unfortunately, private enterprise, concerned very often as it is with survival, does not have sufficient resources to become involved in partnerships on a sufficient scale with the universities.
Clearly what is needed to capitalise on the intellectual resources available in our universities is an outside body who will come in with equity and invest it in the development of a particular product, who will say: "We know that the product is not ready at the stage of coming from the university to be sold to the consumer. It needs more refinement, some test marketing and so forth. That will take two or three years and you need money to enable the product to be developed. We are prepared to give you the money on condition that, when the product is sold, we will have a share in the profits we expect you to make." I am confident that the Opposition, too, would agree that we need a body who would be prepared to invest equity of this kind in the development of commercial products and of the intellectual resources that exist in our higher institutes of education. This is precisely the role the corporation are being given under section 10 (1) (i) of the Bill.
I am sure the Opposition agree that something of this nature should be done. If they do not agree, I can tell them that the NESC who represent employers and trade unions do agree and I can tell Fianna Fáil, too, that the OECD who recently conducted a study of innovation policy in Ireland advocated very strongly that what we need, if we are to achieve our maximum job creation potential, is to invest in developing products from the intellectual resources that exist in our universities and higher institutes of education.
Why are the party opposite opposing the NDC? Are they opposed to a Government agency being involved in investing equity with a view to making a profit, as a result of the development of the up to now unexploited ideas in our universities and which could create jobs which we would not create otherwise? Are the Opposition telling us seriously that they are opposed to this activity? If they are not opposed to it, I call on them to justify to the public their opposition to the establishment of the NDC. If Fianna Fáil believe in the development of our food industry and in joint marketing between small companies in order to achieve the full potential of the many good products we have, but which cannot now be sold adequately overseas, and if they believe in the development of the intellectual resources of our universities, why are they opposing the establishment of the corporation? Why are they not only opposing it but saying that, if by some increasingly doubtful mischance they are returned to office, they would reverse the action of the Oireachtas in establishing this corporation?
Nothing they have said in this debate has given us any inkling as to the motivation for their opposition to this development. No contribution from the benches opposite has included a serious or reasoned criticism of the establishment of the NDC or of the objectives the corporation will be setting out to achieve. Yet in the absence of such argument and even within hours of the Bill being published, the Opposition announced that not only would they oppose the establishment of the NDC but that they would abolish it should they be returned to office. That does not indicate that the party opposite think very deeply or carefully about the policy stances they adopt. It would suggest that they invent policy, not even on the back of an envelope but on the back of a postage stamp, at high speed and that they are prepared to change policy at equally high speed if they find that it is becoming somewhat unpopular.
We have seen in another instance to which I will not refer because it is not directly relevant to this debate, evidence that the party opposite are prepared not only to advocate policy but to climb down on policy as soon as it becomes obvious they have backed the wrong horse. This attitude of political opportunism rather than serious thought about the national needs is what lies behind the otherwise inexplicable attitude of the Opposition in opposing the idea of having a National Development Corporation which is, in many respects, no more than putting statutory reform on the National Enterprise Agency and giving it a wider, clearer and more extensive mandate.
The Government's policy is doing a great job for the country, I am sure the Minister believes that.
I have not been surprised that Deputies on the opposite side of this House have chosen to reject the provisions of this Bill out of hand. What does surprise me, however, is the paucity of their arguments against it. In the first instance, Opposition Deputies have, throughout this debate, referred to this legislation as being intended to be a panacea for all the economic ills facing this country at present.
Created by you.
The Bill is intended to be anything but a panacea, and most certainly it has never been promoted by the Government as being such. The National Development Corporation should, as I stated in my opening speech, be seen as an integral part — and I emphasise the word "part"— of the Government's overall package to tackle the unemployment problem and to stimulate a greater level of investment in the traded sectors of our economy. The potential contribution of the NDC is enormous but it could not, and should not, stand alone with the full responsibility for ensuring our future industrial prosperity. It is grossly misleading for opposition speakers to suggest that the NDC is intended to cure the problem of unemployment of its own accord; it is only part of that cure — but an important part.
The declining uniformity and the boring lack of originality in the individual contributions of Members on the opposite side of the House has been most notable. It is as if they all sat down around a table — I will not venture to suggest whose table — and decided what they were going to say, and then proceeded like auditors to trot out the same arguments, one speaker after another, in the manner of a broken record which continually repeats itself. That has been the tenor of the Opposition contributions in this debate.
No dispute about it.
I am going to bore the House by repeating, in abbreviated form, the Opposition's arguments. In the first instance, they suggest that the NDC will be just another layer of bureaucracy and will be able to achieve nothing that is not already within the ambit of existing State agencies. They claim that the functions of the corporation will overlap unnecessarily with those of the IDA in particular and of other State industrial promotion agencies in general.
I should not have to repeat to the House that the principal function of the NDC will be to take an equity stake in industry by investing in suitable projects with a capability for providing sustainable and viable employment opportunities. They will not be empowered to make grants available to industry as the IDA are, and their power to give loans will be limited to the extent necessary to complement their overall effort and may be exercised only in the specific circumstances set out in the Bill. This clearly indicates that the NDC will function differently from the IDA.
The IDA have, of course, taken minority equity stakes in industry in a small number of cases where this was necessary in the past to formulate an overall package of aid to a particular project. We should not forget, however, that the IDA's principal statutory function is to contribute to the industrial promotion effort by means of providing grant aid to industry. I will not deny either, that the Industrial Credit Company have also from time to time taken equity stakes in industry but they are primarily a State banking institution and their taking of equity stakes is largely incidental to their banking activities.
Fóir Teoranta is a State rescue agency which has an investment perspective which would be very different from that of the proposed National Development Corporation. It is my intention that the NDC will draw up detailed operating agreements with the agencies mentioned above so as to rule out any overlap. It will be necessary in these agreements, and in particular in the one with Fóir Teoranta, to elaborate the principle clearly, that the NDC will not be involved in industrial rescue of any kind.
Deputy Keating raised the question of a possible overlap between the NDC and the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards. The IIRS is a technical consultancy agency whose function is to promote improvements in the technological capacity and quality of Irish industry. It only provides financial assistance in respect of the costs of patenting new inventions, otherwise it does not provide finance to industry. On average, it has dealt with six new inventions each year at a cost to the institute of £50,000 a year. Thus, its remit is substantially different from the proposed NDC and there is no scope for overlap, as Deputy Keating seemed to fear.
The IDA have been one of the principal cornerstones of our evolving industrial policy down through the years and it would be gratuitously insulting to suggest that this Government, by establishing the NDC, want to institute another agency to usurp that Authority's functions. As I have made repeatedly clear, the NDC and the IDA, while pursuing similar objectives, will be doing so by radically different means. What we are proposing in the NDC is the establishment of a State investment agency, whose primary method of operation will be substantially different from that of any other State industrial promotion agency, other than the National Enterprise Agency which it is intended to replace. Venture capital, in which the NDC are involved, is a very specialised area of industrial financing. It requires specialised and particular skills and expertise in order to be successful. A true venture capitalist must be prepared to take risks and to recognise that some of his investments are going to fail. Furthermore, a venture capitalist is not interested in making investments in order to provide a steady, slow dividend income over the years. His primary aim is to invest in business which will yield substantial capital gains.
All of these factors contribute to an investment perspective which is unique to the venture capital business, and quite different, for example, from the investment perspective of a pension fund which is looking for a flow of income rather than capital gains. The main banking institutions, not only in Ireland but abroad, have recognised this and have established their venture capital activities within institutions which are totally separate to and divorced from their principal banking business. Likewise institutional investors such as the pension funds and life assurance companies have never involved themselves directly in venture capital activities. Their participation in this particular area of investment is by way of shareholding in the private sector venture capital agencies where, by investing in a range of investments, they achieve the type of steady income they are looking for rather than backing a particular winner in the business world.
In setting up the National Development Corporation therefore, the State is providing for a separate institution in the venture capital area on the basis of a tried, tested and proven precedent in the private sector.
In my opening speech I explained why the Government are replacing the existing National Enterprise Agency with the National Development Corporation. The National Enterprise Agency has performed a very valuable function over the last two years. However it has been inhibited by the fact that it was established, by a Fianna Fáil Government, as a private limited company, with only a nominal share capital, and no specific statutory remit. The areas of activity in which the NEA might get involved have never been set out in legislation. This has produced a large degree of uncertainty with regard to the agency's operations and in order to redress this problem this Government are establishing a National Development Corporation which has been our policy objective since 1981.
We are placing a statutory obligation on the corporation to assist in the creation of the maximum amount of viable employment in the State; we are providing it with an authorised share capital of £300 million. We are also setting down in section 10 of this Bill the principal areas of activity in which the NDC can become involved.
There is a suggestion implicit in the Opposition's argument that this Government are attempting at a stroke to do away with the National Enterprise Agency and ignore the work that it has done to date. This is not the case. The agency, its investments, its assets and its liabilities will be subsumed into the National Development Corporation. In this way, the work of the agency to date will be built upon by the corporation and its role and chances of success greatly enhanced by the provision of a proper capital base and an adequate statutory framework clearly setting out its objectives and methods of operation.
Indeed Deputies on the opposite side of the House might be interested to hear what the Chairman of the NEA has had to say about the proposal to set up the National Development Corporation. In the current issue of the NEA's Newsletter, "Venture News", he states, and I quote:
The National Enterprise Agency welcomes the publication of the Bill to establish its successor, the National Development Corporation. The Bill confirms the Government's intention regarding the important role of public venture capital. The legislation as proposed will ensure the availability of adequate capital to the Corporation, freeing it from the financial constraints and uncertainity under which the Agency has been operating.
—operating under terms established by the party opposite. The Chairman continues:
The Agency has already gained wide experience as a State venture capital body and this experience will be of considerable benefit in planning the expanded role of the new Corporation.
This public expression of support for this legislation by the NEA clearly demonstrates that the agency's feelings on the matter are considerably at variance with the attitudes expressed by Deputies on the opposite side of the House who have sought to defend its continued existence.
Deputy Lyons and Deputy Reynolds, as well as many of their colleagues, have criticised the Government for stifling and choking the National Enterprise Agency and starving it of funds so that it could not adequately perform its investment role. I would remind the Deputies on the opposite side of the House that under this Government the agency was actively encouraged to identify and make suitable investments. Furthermore, it was provided with adequate resources to perform this role. In the last two years it has made some 20 equity investments, committed £2 million of public capital to these projects helped in the creation of some 150 jobs with a potential for much more. I would further remind the Deputies that under a Fianna Fáil Government nothing was done other than to give the agency its name. Not one person was recruited and not one investment was made. We can hardly be accused of choking and stifling the activities of the agency when the party opposite have had such a dismal record in regard to that body.
Referring back for a moment to the question of possible overlap with other agencies, Deputy Lenihan suggested that there was substantial evidence of the ability of existing State bodies to do the job now being proposed for the NDC. He cited Aer Lingus, who have engaged extensively in the provision of training facilities to foreign airlines, and the ESB, who have engaged in foreign consultancy. Praiseworthy and all as such activities are, the contribution to the creation of employment for our young workforce is limited to particular areas.
These bodies are concerned, in the case of Aer Lingus with running an air service and in the case of the ESB with running an electricity service. How Deputy Lenihan could suggest that an electricity body could be the means of investing venture capital in the overall range of industrial activity in the country is quite difficult to understand. It suggests rather limited analysis of the role of public venture capital on the part of Deputy Lenihan before he made his contribution.
Deputy Reynolds and Deputy Séamus Brennan have questioned the need for a State investment agency such as the National Development Corporation in the first place. They doubt its potential to succeed and referred to the existence of similar State investment agencies in other European countries and stated that, with the possible exception of Sweden, such agencies have been dismal failures. Perhaps the Deputies have never heard of the MIP equity fund which has operated as a very successful State investment agency in Holland and on which this National Development Corporation is largely based. Perhaps Deputies who decry the whole notion of public venture capital are also not aware that the UK State investment company, the British Technology Group, have made a number of significant and successful investments, and have continued under a Conservative Government.
It is very strange that from the vantage point of Opposition, Deputies opposite should question the whole idea of having a public venture capital body when their own party, in Government, established the National Enterprise Agency. It is certainly a contradiction in the attitude of those Deputies. Perhaps as spokesman for the area Deputy Lyons might take Deputy Reynolds aside and ask him if he was actually speaking for Fianna Fáil in what he said.
Some Deputies on the opposite side alluded to the success of the NEA. Indeed, Deputy Reynolds alluded to the success of the NEA and then in the same speech went on to say that we did not need a public venture capital body at all. How he could praise the NEA which is a public venture capital body and then say we do not need one is a logical feat that is surprising even in somebody of the known dexterity of Deputy Reynolds.
We do not need another one.
This organisation is replacing the NEA, in case Deputy Lyons does not realise that by now. There will be the same number of State agencies in existence after the passage of this Bill as there were before this Bill was introduced.
It is just a different name. Is that what the Minister is saying?
The Minister should not be interrupted.
Much criticism has been made of this Bill in so far as it provides only for an authorised share capital of the corporation. Deputies have asked for details of the Government's commitment to the NDC in terms of how much Exchequer funding is actually to be provided by way of issued share capital. Deputies will be all too aware that it would be impossible for me to give any indication of this at this stage. That is something to be dealt with in the Estimates.
In the first instance it is essential that the level of funding to the NDC remains at all times within the discretion of the Government. The amount of issued share capital provided to the corporation will depend among other things on the performance of the organisation in fulfilling its primary role of creating employment in the State. As I said in my opening speech, if the corporation in its initial years is successful, the flow of funds can be increased. If it is not performing successfully, the flow of funds can be restricted to push it towards the development of a more judicious investment portfolio. Had this Bill provided for an issued, as distinct from an authorised, share capital of £300 million, then we would have rightly been accused of being foolhardy and lacking in consideration for the taxpayer from whom all Exchequer funding is originally sourced. One has to accept that the NDC must, if they are to be worth while at all, make a rate of return which will be in excess of the rate of interest paid by the taxpayer on the money borrowed to finance them. That is an extremely important consideration. Any money received by the NDC for investment from the State will not be free money. It will be money borrowed by the taxpayer upon which the taxpayer will have to pay the interest and it must be a requirement of the NDC that they make a return which is in excess of the amount paid by the taxpayer.
In taking up share capital in the corporation the Government will have regard to the investment commitments of the board and the number of projects in which they are likely to become involved. This procedure will involve the allocation of a specific sum of money in the Public Capital Programme. The Public Capital Programme is published annually and so Deputies will be kept fully aware on an ongoing basis of the Government's commitment to the NDC. However, Deputies will be all too well aware that until such time as the Public Capital Programme is published I am in no position to indicate the level of funding which will be available to the corporation in any particular year.
Deputy Keating suggested that the public should be allowed to buy shares in the corporation while retaining control of the corporation within the State sector. This suggestion was made also by the OECD in their report on innovation policy in Ireland. It does not, however, seem to me that this would be a practical proposition from the outset. The investing public would be averse to putting money into the corporation until such time as they have established a proven and profitable track record. If the Government were to decide at some time in the future that this was a practical and desirable development, then a simple amendment to this legislation could permit it.
Deputies Brennan and Connolly suggested that the NDC would become a millstone around the neck of the taxpayer because all successful investments would be sold off and the lame ducks would be retained in order to be propped up by the corporation. This shows a lack of understanding as to what the corporation is all about. In the first instance there is nothing wrong with the corporation selling off their successful investments. This is the way any venture capital agency works in the real world at the moment. Where investments have proved successful and are no longer in need of the support of the National Development Corporation in the form of additional equity, the disposal of the investment will involve an immediate and useful cash gain to the corporation. The project concerned will have built up a viable level of employment which will be sustained and expanded on exactly the same commercial grounds, no matter who owns it, whether it be the NDC or those to whom it is sold. On the other hand, by disposing of the investments, future profits will be brought forward and capitalised in the cash sale price, thereby making new funds immediately available to the corporation which can be reinvested in further projects providing new employment opportunities. This is what we refer to as the concept of the revolving investment fund for employment. It means that the corporation will not be a static body with an ageing portfolio of time consuming investments, nor a constant drain on the public purse, but a truly developmental body with a constantly renewable source of funds, and in later years a high degree of independence of the Exchequer in the funding of their new operations as a result of what they will have available to them from within their own resources in the revolving fund for employment.
As to what becomes of the less successful investments, commercial prudence will also apply. It would make no sense to retain loss makers just because the taxpayer is the nominal owner of the lossmaker. One must apply strict commercial criteria to deciding what is successful and what is not. Any venture capitalist will tell you that investments which limp along create the greatest headache for a commercial organisation. They are a drain not only on money, but, more importantly, on the time of highly talented executives who ought to be employed in the most creative way possible. Such investments may have to be sold without profit, or even at a loss, in order to avoid a continuing drain or even greater losses.
NDC companies will be eligible for aid from State sources in the same way as other commercial companies. This will include aid from the IDA, CTT and Fóir Teoranta.
I have repeated time and time again that the corporation are not designed to be a rescue agency and will not be required to prop up their own failures at continuing cost to the Exchequer. Therefore, contrary to Deputy Connolly's contention that the corporation would be under pressure to hold on to the losers, the opposite will in fact be the case. The corporation cannot be allowed to become bogged down in the administration and management of unsuccessful or pedestrian investments. If they were to do so they would soon become deflected from their primary developmental and job creation role and would be in direct contravention with this legislation which this House, we hope, will have passed.
In my opening speech on this debate I referred to the key role which the corporation would have in the natural resources sector and, in particular, in assisting in underpinning the development of long term contracts between producers and processors. Deputy Keating asked if the use of the term "underpinning" might mean the giving of grants. I can assure him that it will not. Indeed, it is my intention to introduce an amendment on Committee Stage to clarify beyond doubt the Government's intention that the corporation will not be empowered to give grants and I trust that this will generally clarify their investment powers. In so far as Deputy Keating's query is concerned, let me further clarify that it was not my intention to suggest that the corporation, in developing such long term contracts, should apply anything less than the stringent commercial criteria that will apply to all their other investments.
Deputy O'Kennedy suggested that it was implicit in my opening speech that there would be no failures, that the NDC would take no risks and that they would in fact have a totally timid approach to investment in industry. In the same tone Deputy Flynn ridiculed the wording of the legislation which says that the corporation should invest only in projects which are "profitable and efficient or capable of becoming profitable and efficient". He suggested that the word "capable" was nothing more than a loophole or a way out for the corporation should some investments subsequently prove to be unsuccessful.
Well, again there is an inconsistency in the line of thought in these two arguments from the party opposite. Deputy Flynn is right to suggest that the legislation is being couched very deliberately and in very precise terms and for a reason. The NDC cannot, any more than any other investor, predict with confidence what projects will succeed and what projects will fail and, of course, there will be failures. Of course, they have to make a judgment in the matter and will do so, but they cannot predict in the sense that they can guarantee that any of their investments will turn out to be profitable. Every investment which the NDC make will constitute a risk. There are no certain winners and the NDC certainly will have no monopoly of wisdom in this regard. What the NDC will look for, however, is a judicious spread of investments which will enable that risk to be minimised. This is the feature of any venture capital operation. The normal profile of investment of any venture capital agency suggests that out of every ten investments made no more than two or three will be hugely successful, another two or three will be moderately successful although not spectacularly so, while the remainder of the ten investments will fail, but we should not be afraid of that failure. There has been a traditional stigma in this country attached to the notion of failure. It is necessary, however, to ensure that the NDC are not forced by back door political or ministerial pressure to persist in investments which are obviously a failure just because they are in somebody's constituency. This is one reason why the NDC — established by law — are preferable to the NEA — a creation of the Minister. Their statutory status will require the board of the NDC to resist political pressure — other than formalised and open policy directives made under the appropriate section of the legislation with the full knowledge of this House.
Deputy Flynn had some fixation with the NDC as being a panacea for all our ills. He asked why it was being suggested that the NDC would invest only in winners. As I stated earlier, the NDC is not and was never intended to be a panacea. Nor is it stated anywhere in this legislation or in my speech that the NDC will only pick winners.
He further suggested that there was not a word in the Bill about investment in innovation, which is a crucial factor in determining our future industrial prosperity. I would refer Deputy Flynn to section 10 (1) (i) which empowers the corporation, "to establish, promote and assist any enterprise engaged in the exploitation of research carried out in a University or third level educational institute, the Innovation Centre, the National Microelectronics Application Centre, the Invention Service of the IIRS or similar bodies in the State." If this is not a sufficiently direct reference to innovation let Deputy Flynn suggest a better one.
The Deputy suggested that the NDC would be empowered to depart from normal commercial criteria in deciding on an appropriate risk-reward ratio for its investments. He suggested that, as Minister, I would have power under section 31 of the Bill to direct the NDC to do anything I desire it to do. This is not true. I would refer the Deputy to section 31 of the Bill which states that directives must be general in nature, must not involve day to day operations of the corporation and may not relate to any particular investment with which the corporation is or may be concerned. Furthermore, directives under section 31 are required to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas or else they carry no force in law. Therefore, no directive can be issued to the corporation without the full knowledge of this House.
Deputy Keating asked for clarification as to what constituted a policy directive, when it might be given and to what extent it might impinge upon the normal commercial criteria applied by the corporation in respect of their investments. Let me clarify the situation. Under section 31 a policy directive may only be issued in relation to all or any of the objects of the corporation specified in the memorandum of association of the corporation. These objects are enshrined in section 10 of this legislation.
A policy directive may not — and I want to underline this — purport to alter or amend those objects as this could only be done by amending legislation. Similarly, a directive may not purport to alter or amend the general commercial duty of the corporation as set out in section 13 of this Bill. It is a somewhat hypothetical matter to try to predict at this stage what form directives might take but, for example, the Government might, as part of general industrial policy, require the corporation to actively seek out suitable investment opportunities in the small industry sector or perhaps to actively seek out suitable tourism related projects rather than waiting for such to come knocking on their door. Clearly directives of this nature would not, should not and indeed could not require the corporation to divert from their normal commercial assessment procedure in deciding on such investments.
I think that this also answers Deputy Richard Bruton's concern that the NDC might, by means of policy directives, be subverted from their commercial brief towards a social or political brief.
Deputy Flynn, as well as Deputy Brennan and others, also suggested that the legislation provided for too much political interference in the activities of the corporation. They criticised the limits on investment expenditure set down in section 15 of the Bill. I would remind these Deputies that the upper limit of £2,500,000 above which Government approval must be sought, and which we are now setting up for the National Development Corporation, is the same as that which has applied for years past under successive Governments, including Fianna Fáil Governments, to the activities of the Industrial Development Authority. If the Deputies are so opposed to such a limit why did they not act to change it long ago in the case of the IDA? The lower limit of £1 million above which ministerial approval is required is a most judicious and prudent provision in the case of an entirely new State body and assists in ensuring the widest possible spread of investments.
It is not a bad idea for any corporation of this kind to have to get some outside body to look at some of its larger investments. The very process of preparing a proposal for submission to the Department will force the corporation, and its executives, to tease out on paper certain problems that might otherwise, perhaps, be allowed to slip their minds. The second opinion process by the submission to the Minister and/or Government will probably ensure that the investment procedures within the NDC, even for the small investments to which these requirements will not apply, will be more rigorous and more formalised than they would be in the absence of such a provision in the Bill. That is another good reason for having such a requirement.
Deputy Keating asked if these limits, or indeed the limit of 30 per cent on loans, were arbitrarily set. In the case of the limits about which I have just been speaking, they are arbitrary only in the sense that they have been related to the limit which exists in the case of the IDA. In the case of the loans limit, it must be remembered that the NDC is not primarily a loan giving agency. However, the giving of loans is a feature of the venture capital business and applies in cases where a prudent mix of equity and loans is desirable or in the best interests of a particular project.
The 30 per cent limit is based on the best advice available to me. A limit is necessary to ensure that the NDC does not become deflected from its primary role as a provider of equity capital. Deputy Barnes asked if the power to give one loan and one loan only was unnecessarily restrictive. I emphasise again that the NDC is not intended to be a loan agency and if it could give second, third and fourth loans to a project in which it had initially invested, it would become a sort of a rescue-banking agency rather than an investment agency. Loans will be available to projects supported by the NDC from other commercial sources whose specific remit will be mainly that of giving a loan.
Indeed, it is useful that if an NDC project need loan capital they can go to somebody else for the loan. Again, that will be a means of getting a second opinion on the project from, for instance, a bank that may be lending the money. The NDC may be prepared to put up some of the equity, but some money has to be raised by loan and, therefore, a bank will be looking to ensure that it gets its money back and will have a further examination of the project to ensure it is viable and capable of repaying the loan. This will also ensure that a profit return is available to the NDC as investor. That mutuality of interest exists in analysing projects between an external bank and the NDC. It is a good reason for forcing NDC projects to look for loan capital elsewhere.
Deputy Flynn and Deputy Brennan criticised the level of discretionary expenditure allowed to the NDC in respect of office equipment and so on. The limit set is £250,000. It was suggested that this would not even buy a good computer for the NDC. Well let me point out to Deputies who must be a little out of date that it would be a pretty big computer that would be purchased for £250,000. Furthermore, and to answer Deputy Barnes' question on the subject, this limit is an annual limit and it applies in respect of any single item only. It is not aggregated over all purchases. It would be a substantial amount of office space that could be leased for £250,000 per annum. This limit is a vital ingredient of protection to the taxpayer to ensure that the administrative budget of the NDC is not gratuitously wasted.
Might I also correct the impression given by Deputy Seamus Brennan who suggested that the corporation would be empowered to spend £250,000 over and above the maximum administrative grant-in-aid of £2 million which the Government are empowered to give under section 21 of the Bill? The limit of £250,000 applies in respect of expenditure of that grant-in-aid, whatever it might be, and is not an addition to it.
Furthermore, let me point out that the legislation provides that this administrative grant-in-aid may be provided annually for the first five years of the corporation's existence only. The intention is that the corporation should have become self-financing as far as their administration expenses are concerned by the end of that time.
I would like also to correct another false impression given by Deputy O'Kennedy and Deputy Foley who suggested that the corporation would have a vital gap in their armour because they were not being empowered to invest in tourism related projects. I would draw the attention of the Deputies to section 10 (1) (d) which empowers the corporation to invest in any enterprise which is "being established or has been established to cater for tourists". Again I am afraid this is a case of Deputies not having read the Bill.
May I invite the Deputies opposite to say if they are opposed to a corporation being set up to put equity into the development of tourism related projects? Do they think that our tourism industry is sufficiently developed and that there is no room for money to be put into developing new recreational facilities for tourists in this country from public sources on a profit-oriented basis? If the Deputies agree that there is a need for equity investment in tourism, why on earth are they opposing the National Development Corporation? Why are they not only opposing it, but saying that they would repeal it in the unlikely event that they ever came back to office? It appears to me that they do not care whether our tourism industry is developed in this fashion, if they can be so crass as to suggest that they would reverse this decision of the House to establish a National Development Corporation.
Deputy Keating asked for clarification of what I meant by saying that the corporation would fill an important gap in terms of State financial aid to the tourist industry. My concern is that, as I said in my opening speech, the development of tourist related facilities such as hotels and related activities often requires significant capital investment and that the seasonality of return does not always make it initially a sufficiently attractive proposition for the private sector acting on its own. The NDC's ability to become involved in joint ventures in this area will therefore be an important means of encouraging the involvement of the private sector in developing and expanding our tourism infrastructure and helping the private sector investors to take a sufficiently long term view of certain projects.
Deputy O'Kennedy told the House that the United States experience was that the major growth in employment happened in the services sector. He criticised the legislation accordingly for restricting the NDC's investment role to manufacturing industry. Again we have a case of a Deputy opposite who did not read the Bill, just as their party leader did not read it before he said that he was going to repeal it.
The definition of enterprise contained in section 2 of the Bill does not restrict the NDC's role in this way and it will be empowered to invest in suitable projects in the services sector. It will do so on a strictly commercial basis. It is my intention, however, that the NDC should concentrate wholly on the traded sector of the economy where the main competition will come from companies operating from other countries. Its aim will be to develop new markets and to strengthen existing Irish firms by prudent equity investment. The NDC's overall perspective in assessing investments will be the potential of that investment to contribute to the employment effort.
The statutory obligation imposed on the corporation is to contribute to the creation of the maximum amount of viable and sustainable employment in the State. The NDC, therefore, should not be investing in areas such as retailing, where the jobs created will only be at the expense of other jobs already in existence. The task of ensuring that the National Development Corporation do not become involved in competition in a limited market with existing operators is something that might well be formulated in a directive issued to the corporation under the appropriate section of the Bill.
Some Deputies have suggested that the board of the corporation will be political hacks and that the whole exercise will constitute no more than the proverbial jobs for the boys. Well, the final figuration of the board has not yet been settled so I am not at liberty to disclose anything in this regard to the House at the moment.
Why not?
However, I can assure Deputies that it is my intention that the board of directors will be picked, and are being picked, not for their political views but for their proven business experience, acumen and skill.
That would be something new for this Government.
Likewise the board and staff of the corporation would be required to have a commitment to, and belief in, what they are doing. It is a fallacy to suggest that a venture capital agency of the type which operates successfully in the private sector cannot operate successfully within the public sector. The experience and business expertise of the staff employed by the National Development Corporation will prove, in the fullness of time, that it can.
Many speakers in the course of this debate, including Deputy Reynolds, and Deputy Richard Bruton expressed concern at the imposition of standard DPS procedures in determining the remuneration of the Chief Executive of the NDC. I must say that I agree entirely with the concerns expressed by the Deputies in this regard. I have always recognised that the success of the corporation lies in the recruitment of directors, a chief executive and other staff of the highest possible calibre. I agree that, in order to attract such people, we must be in a position to offer them an appropriate salary. Deputies may rest assured that the Government intend to recruit a person fully qualified and competent for the job. The fact remains that the actual salary rate, terms and conditions of this appointment are matters for determination between myself and the Minister for the Public Service. The NDC, however, did not exist when the review body examined the remuneration of the chief executives and clearly the appropriate level of remuneration for the NDC post will have to be considered in the light of the particular requirements of that position. This will, I trust, ease the concern of all Deputies who raised this subject.
Before concluding, I would like to take the opportunity to mention two points of detail raised by Deputies in regard to the Bill and which I have not covered so far in my contribution. Deputy Gene Fitzgerald asked why AnCO and the Youth Employment Agency are not included in the schedule of State-sponsored bodies in the Bill. In reply, I would like to acknowledge that the Deputy has a valid point. These bodies should be included and this omission will be rectified by means of an amendment introduced on Committee Stage.
In the course of his contribution, Deputy Keating commented on the competence of my Department to oversee the operation of the NDC. His comments apparently were based on a recent appearance by officials of my Department before the public expenditure committee, when the issue of cost per job created was raised. It would appear that some members of the committee formed the opinion, and perhaps Deputy Keating would be among these, that the Department had not got a figure for cost per job, but my understanding is that my Department indicated in reply to the Deputies' questions that the basis for calculating cost per job figures varied and that it would be inappropriate to give cost per job figures until the Management Committee on Industrial Policy had agreed a uniform basis for computing cost per job. I expect the Management Committee on Industrial Policy to agree such a basis shortly and I will return to this aspect in the course of the discussions in the House on the Industrial Development Bill.
I must, therefore, reject Deputy Keating's suggestions that because my Department declined to give a figure for cost per job to the public expenditure committee they are not competent to monitor the performance of agencies under their control. I should mention also that Irish Shipping, one of the agencies referred to by the Deputy in this context, did not come under the aegis of my Department.
That is the worse for them.
Furthermore, I am at a loss to know how the public expenditure committee could have formed an opinion on the adequacy of the Department's supervisory role in relation to insurance companies. I am not aware that the committee have yet addressed this aspect of my Department's activities at all in their examination.
Let me say that, from my experience in working in this Department over a cumulative period of five years, two years as Parliamentary Secretary and three years now as Minister, I have the utmost confidence in the ability of the officials in the Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism. I completely reject any criticisms addressed to them by Deputy Keating. If there are deficiencies they are, by law, my responsibility and I am answerable for them. There is no question of officials being made responsible for any deficiencies in that regard. Furthermore, it is my experience that the officials concerned not only have a high level of ability but are prepared to work — and this applies particularly to senior officials for whom there are no overtime payments — right through the night in certain cases, certainly up to very late hours, in the public interest for no additional award out of a sense of service and duty, making their talents freely and for no additional reward available to the Minister of the day in the performance of his tasks. I have the greatest confidence in all the officials concerned. I regret that Deputy Keating is not in the House to hear what I have to say in reply to what I would regard as a somewhat ill-judged criticism he made.
I would acquiesce in all of that.
In listening to the arguments put forward against the corporation in the course of this debate it occurred to me that I had read or seen something similar before. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition, speaking outside of this House, describe the corporation as a white elephant. I listened to him committing a Fianna Fáil Government to terminating their existence at the first chance they got. It occurred to me — although I am not perhaps old enough to remember this firsthand — that this is not altogether new. I was right. I should like to take the House back to a debate which took place in this House in 1949, when I was two years of age, when the Government of the day were proposing legislation to establish the Industrial Development Authority. The late Seán Lemass, much referred to——
The parties opposite will never achieve what Lemass achieved.
——by the Leader of the Opposition but in practice little imitated by the Leader of the Opposition——
The parties opposite will never achieve what Lemass achieved; that is for sure.
The late Séan Lemass said of the proposal to establish the Industrial Development Authority, and I quote:
...supporters of popular race horses frequently proclaim their merits by asserting their capacity to win dragging a cart. Irish industry is being asked now to show its merit by winning the race for increased productivity dragging a cart, a cart without wheels.
The cart without wheels referred to by Deputy Lemass was the Industrial Development Authority. He added, and I quote again:
...to the extent that the work [of the Industrial Development Authority] is necessary, it has been done in the Department of Industry and Commerce.
—the same old argument as we are hearing from the opposite side in this debate.
Very well done, with Lemass at the head.
To continue the quotation:
It has, I think been done effectively there and the only consequence of the change proposed in the Bill is that it is now going to be done more slowly.
Later in the same debate Deputy Lemass stated, and I quote again:
...my opposition and the opposition of Deputies on this side of the House to the whole idea [of the Industrial Development Authority] in this Bill is fundamental and at the earliest possible occasion we will terminate it.
That is the record of the Opposition, in Opposition, talking about the Industrial Development Authority. No sooner were they returned to office than they enthusiastically embraced the proposal of the then Inter-Party Government to establish an Industrial Authority and, in office, they continued to sustain it and give it additional resources.
That is important.
I am quite confident that the party opposite will, in the same manner as St. Paul, fall off the horse in so far as their attitude to the National Development Corporation is concerned. In turn, they will see the light. However, in this case they will be seeing the light from Opposition because they will still be in Opposition five and ten years hence as long as they continue to pursue the present policy line in which they are interested. But in five or ten years' time they will see the wisdom of this House in establishing a National Development Corporation. And, from the vantage point of Opposition, they will at last see that they were wrong in opposing the establishment of the National Development Corporation, that they were wrong in suggesting that if they were — as they will not be — returned to office they would do away with it. I am afraid I have to say, in listening to this debate, that the attitude of the Opposition has been entirely of a piece with their attitude in regard to practically all legislative ideas brought forward by this Government. Their idea is that, whatever it is, before it is published or read, it should be opposed and reversed. The Irish public demonstrated in a recent opinion poll that they clearly see this attitude, this knee-jerk opposition, for what it is worth.
Put it to the test, then.
It is worth nothing. It is a barren and destructive attitude of a party that have no policy and no ideas of where they are going. It is a barren and destructive attitude which has not resulted in the publication of a single policy document except on one subject — marine affairs. If as a party which is symbolically enough, itself quite at sea — at least it has a policy on marine affairs. I would suggest that they come back to earth, to the real problems facing this country rather than addressing themselves to the type of negative, destructive, carping criticism we heard from the Opposition leader last evening and from Deputy Lyons in his contribution to this debate.
They should come back to earth. If they have something to say about the nations problems, let them put forward constructive proposals. If they are good proposals the Government will be quite happy to adopt them and, if they are bad proposals, the Government will be quite happy to debate them with them in an objective and friendly way. But as long as the Opposition persist in condemning everything and advocating nothing constructive, there will be no real function performed in this House. This House can fulfil its full mandate only with the co-operation of the Opposition and the Government. If the Government put forward proposals in this House, if those proposals are to be properly debated, that must be done on the basis of alternative proposals put forward by the Opposition. In this debate and in every debate we have heard in this House over the last two or three years there have been no constructive proposals emanating from the Opposition——
The parties opposite are in Government. They have wrecked the economy.
All that has been emanating from them has been a consistent moan, wail after wail of negative criticism. To my mind that reflects no credit on them. I am glad to say that the results of the recent opinion polls indicate that the public are paying more attention to what is happening in this House than perhaps the Opposition would wish them to do——
Put it to the test.
——and that the public are beginning to realise that this negative, unconstructive attitude, with no alternatives being put forward, is the attitude of a party that have nothing to contribute, whether in Government or Opposition and that in that situation the safest place to keep them is in Opposition. I have no doubt that that is where they will remain for a number of years and that gradually, from the relative ease of the Opposition benches, they will be able to see that they are wrong in this debate and that the National Development Corporation will prove to be the success that they so greatly doubt it will be.
The parties opposite have dismantled everything Lemass created.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 57.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Myra.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Liam.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Molony, David.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, William.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Edmond.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Barrett (Dublin North-West).
Question declared carried.
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
On Tuesday or Wednesday of next week, subject to agreement.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 3 December 1985.