asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will make a statement on the operation to date of the National Development Corporation.
31.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - National Development Corporation.
6.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the number of projects under consideration by the National Development Corporation; the total number of projects which it has decided to support to date; the number of projects initiated by the NDC and the number of joint ventures initiated by others; in relation to joint ventures the number of projects in which the NDC is a majority shareholder and the number of which it holds a minority share; the number in which it holds no equity; the total number of jobs involved to date and the number involved in projects under consideration; the amount of equity available to be drawn down if required this year; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 31 together.
The total value of the investments approved by the National Development Corporation Ltd. — NADCORP — since taking over from the National Enterprise Agency on 11 June 1986 is £6.212 million. No investment by the corporation to date has required my consent or the consent of the Government. As regards the initiation of projects by NADCORP, the establishment of wholly or partly owned subsidiaries by NADCORP requires my consent, given with the consent of the Minister for Finance. No such consent was sought or given. With the exception of investment in its subsidiaries, NADCORP is precluded, under section 28 of the National Development Corporation Act, 1986, from making an investment in an enterprise which would lead to a majority shareholding for NADCORP in that enterprise. The number employed in companies in which NADCORP holds investments is now estimated to be 600. I have no information about the number of jobs involved in projects under consideration. In any event such information would not be meaningful as many such projects may not be regarded as viable on examination. A provision of £7 million has been made in the Public Capital Programme for 1987 for NADCORP's capital purposes.
I have no direct function in regard to the day-to-day administration of NADCORP. However, details of their operations and of investments made and held will be contained in NADCORP's Annual report which is required to be made to me not later than six months after the end of the corporation's financial year, which ends on 31 December. This will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. It would be inappropriate for me to make a general statement on the work of NADCORP in advance of that report.
Has the Minister sought or had any meeting with the National Development Corporation to discuss their activities or, failing that, does he intend doing so? Does he see that he has a role to play in discussing such projects? Furthermore, does he support the concept of a National Development Corporation for the purpose of actively and aggressively being involved in job creation which the country so badly needs?
I have had one meeting with the chairman and chief executive of the National Development Corporation and a second meeting with the chairman. With regard to becoming involved in the day-to-day activities of the corporation or in assessing projects in which the corporation are involved, that is not my function. I am precluded from becoming involved in that function. The question of evaluation of projects to be undertaken by NADCORP is a matter for their board and that is the way it will be left.
The Minister did not answer my second question with regard to his attitude to the National Development Corporation being utilised aggressively for the purpose of creating jobs. Perhaps he would reply to that. Would he also indicate to the House what he means — bearing in mind that £7 million of public money is being provided— when he says he is not concerned in their day-to-day activities. Surely when £30 million of public money is involved the Minister would agree that it is up to him to say to the chairman: what are you doing; could you be doing more; what jobs are you creating—and to give a directive to ensure that that money being provided by the Oireachtas for the purpose of job creation—through the corporation—is used aggressively for that purpose rather than, as the Minister seems to be doing, standing back, washing his hands of the whole affair and leaving them to it?
I will carry out my responsibilities to NADCORP under the provisions laid down in the relevant Act. The Deputy can be assured of that. In relation to the certain of jobs by the corporation, I should say that any investment by the corporation or indeed by the Industrial Development Authority will be in the area of job creation. I cannot understand what the Deputy is getting at. Of course we are interested in ensuring that the maximum number of sustainable projects are brought on stream, through both NADCORP and the IDA. I have no quarrel with that, so I cannot understand what the Deputy is getting at.
Do I take it that it is the policy of this Government to ensure that NADCORP continue in existence, that this Government have no proposals to abolish them or in any way reduce their activities?
I have no proposals to abolish NADCORP. I am already on record in the House as saying that they have a role to play in relation to the provision of seed capital, in a vacuum created in the whole industrial development structure. NADCORP have a role to play in that regard. I have no doubt from the two meetings I have had with them that they are pursuing that purpose. There is a limit to the amount of good, viable projects available; it is not a question of money only in this regard. I have already stated the Government's position. What agencies are doing and on what they are spending money will form part of my overall review to ensure that we get value for money from all that is invested in industrial development.
I welcome the Minister's confirmation of what he said on another occasion. Would the House be correct in assuming that the Minister's reply, on behalf of the Government, overrides the promise that the then Leader of the Opposition—now Taoiseach—gave to the effect that he would abolish NADCORP?
If the Deputy wishes me to reply to that perhaps he would give me the date of such statement; I do not have it. If he puts down a question some other day I will be quite happy to reply to it.
The Taoiseach is overruled.
The U-turns are becoming consistent.