Industrial Development Authority Bill, 1949—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Defence (Dr. O'Higgins) (for Minister for Industry and Commerce)

In the absence of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the responsibility falls on me to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill. I must apologise to the Seanad, in that I have a bad cold, and Senators may not hear me very well. I think Senators will agree with the object of the Bill, in increasing the industrial development of the country, recognising that our economy must be strengthened by the establishment of new industries and the extension of existing ones. In order that this extension may be proceeded with, the House, I am sure, will agree that there is need for a vigorous and imaginative approach to many of the industrial problems which require solution. The Government decided that, in the national interest, the development of industry would be promoted by the establishment of an independent, autonomous body, charged with the responsibility of advising the Minister and the country on the measures calculated to increase industrial development and thereby provide additional employment.

They have appointed four members of the authority, and have selected those members because of their wide knowledge and long practical experience of industrial affairs, and of their contacts with industrialists, with traders, with workers, and with financial and professional organisations closely connected with industry. To those members the Government have given that degree of freedom which they consider essential to the effective discharge of the functions of the authority. The members will not be civil servants, neither will they be subject to Civil Service regulations or procedure. They will have their own offices, their own staff, and their own finances. Provision has been made in the Bill for an annual grant to defray their remuneration and to meet such expenses incidental to their work as they in their sole discretion consider necessary to enable them to discharge their functions. They will, therefore, be free to frame their own programme, to regulate their own procedure, to travel where and when they consider it necessary, and generally to operate as a fully autonomous body. Already the Government has had ample evidence of how this self-governing, flexible type of organisation has made for expeditious, practical and efficient handling of various problems on which advice has been tendered by the authority.

From Section 3 of the Bill, it can be seen how wide is the field over which the operations of the authority will range. So many sided are its functions and so closely related are most of them to the daily work of portion of the Department that, at the outset, it was obviously necessary to avoid duplication and overlapping and to ensure speedy co-ordination of effort. With this in view, it was decided that the work formerly undertaken by the trade and industries branch of the Department should be assigned to the authority, and hence the officials, engaged in that work in the Department, have been appointed to assist the authority, and now constitute the staff of the authority.

The primary function of the authority is that of planning new industries. As part of this work, the authority has been examining the steps necessary to undertake a survey of industrial resources and possibilities, so as to obtain as clear a picture as possible of what has been done and what still remains to be done and what resources and facilities are available or can be made available. This survey will be carried out by the staff of the authority under its direction and supervision, and thereafter will be maintained up to date on a continuing basis for the use and information of the Government, of industries already established and yet to come into being, and for the use of the authority itself.

The survey will show for the first time in comprehensive form the structure of existing industrial enterprise and will be a valuable indication of industrial possibilities. By this means, supplemented by information obtainable from the Central Statistics Office and other Government agencies, there will be available for each important manufacturing activity information on many aspects about which little is known at present, except in so far as an individual concern is aware of its own background. We do not know at present, for example, how much capital is invested in industry or how it is represented by buildings, by plant and machinery, by stocks of raw materials or of partly or finished goods, by debtors and by other assets. Neither do we know how these vary from year to year and from one industry to another.

We do not know how industry is financed, for example the extent to which the capital is provided by shareholders, debenture holders, bankers, creditors and reserves. We do not know how many shareholders have provided the capital nor have we any information as to the dividends they receive, which is itself an indication of whether times are good or bad. Much more information can be obtained than is now available in respect of each industrial product, as to the extent and type of employment given, as to wages and earnings, labour turnover, welfare schemes, unemployment experience, etc. So also can information be obtained bearing on the manner in which the distribution of industrial products is organised. Generally, the survey will show how and where the country is industrialised, the yearly progress in the case of each important activity, and the extent and location of the human and natural resources which allow of further development.

The compilation of this survey will take time, but meanwhile the authority is engaged in initiating the development of industries in which a preliminary survey made suggests there are promising prospects. I am aware, for instance, of an approach by the authority which has resulted in immediate steps being taken to establish a factory of considerable size to meet our requirements in an essential product hitherto wholly imported. I am also aware of visits by members of the authority to factories in various parts of Ireland, including the Six Counties, in England and in Scotland, which have given rise to proposals to establish industries of importance or have revived desirable proposals which had previously lapsed. I also know that the members of the authority are personally conducting negotiations in a number of directions which are likely to result in definite proposals to establish industries.

Broadly, the authority's method of approach in the case of a commodity not already being manufactured in the country will be first to satisfy themselves that the commodity in question can be technically produced here. Then the possibility of manufacture will be examined in all its aspects and such factors as capital, labour, raw materials, power, fuel, plant, etc., will be fully examined. Having satisfied themselves that manufacture is feasible, the authority will not wait for proposals, as has been the general practice heretofore, but will themselves, initiate steps to secure the establishment of the industry. Groups interested in learning of suitable industries will be contacted; if there is no such group in the area considered suitable, the authority will endeavour to bring about the formation of such a group. The formulation of a sound manufacturing scheme and the steps necessary to bring the project to fruition will be pushed ahead by the authority whose business it will be to remove all obstacles in the way of industrial promoters.

Of equal importance is the function of bringing about an expansion of the activities of existing industrial enterprises. Indeed, it is in this field that results can often be achieved most rapidly. In its examination of applications for tariffs, for quotas and for duty-free import licences, the constant aim of the authority is to bring about as wide as possible an expansion of existing industrial activity. Again, an instance of which I am aware will illustrate what is and what can be done in this respect. In the examination of a tariff application the authority undertook a survey of an industry in which so many competitive firms operated that a comprehensive picture of output did not exist. The goodwill of the manufacturers concerned towards the authority enabled confidential figures of output to be assembled by the authority, which, in conjunction with its statistical research showed for the first time a substantial scope for increased output and employment in a particular direction. This direction hitherto had been obscured in the complexities of the industry. In the examination of other tariff applications similar results emerged through coordinating the aim of expansion of output with that of affording protection.

Apart from pursuing opportunities for expansion which come to light in this way, the authority has taken the initiative in urging the need for expansion of output in other industries. It is our view, and I may say it is endorsed, that there is considerable scope for manufacturers to increase output and employment, and that being already established, it is very much easier for existing industries to meet market requirements than to have those requirements met by newcomers. By market requirements I do not mean domestic market requirements only. The authority has as a major item on its programme the aim of increased exports of industrial products, and have already furnished me with an interim report on this matter.

In carrying out its functions relating to the establishment of new industries and the expansion of existing industries, the authority is giving and will continue to give special attention to the question of promoting industrial activity outside the main centres of population. While it has been the undoubted desire of every Government since 1922 to decentralise industry and in particular to divert it from Dublin, no Government has sought statutory powers to control the location of industries, and at present, apart from externally-owned and controlled concerns requiring a licence under the Control of Manufactures Act, I have no authority to prescribe a particular location for a factory. The claims of many towns and districts for industries have from time to time been noted and the records are in the possession of the authority. In accordance with a longstanding practice, these claims are brought to the notice of parties likely to be interested. I am bound to say, however, that in the vast majority of cases in the past, industrial promoters had decided on a location before approaching my Department, and there was very little I could do to influence them in the selection of a site. I myself had experience of an industrial project which was proposed and which was approved by me on the basis of a provincial site, but which had afterwards to be located in Dublin. This example will serve to give Deputies an idea of the impotence of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the matter of having industries set up in particular districts.

The Government preference for a provincial location and the advantages attaching to the operating of a business outside Dublin, are invariably brought to the notice of industrial promoters. Despite official persuasion, however, the majority of those promoters show an unmistakable bias in favour of Dublin, with the result that the population of the city continues to increase, and that the major portion of the country's additional industrial population since 1926 is resident there. The question of any measures that might be taken to induce persons interested to locate their factories in provincial towns and rural areas is under examination by the authority, which will make a report in due course. I cannot make any definite statement on the matter until the views of the authority are fully considered by the Government.

An important function of the authority is the examination of all applications for tariffs, quotas, and for duty-free import licences. During the emergency, many quotas and tariffs were suspended for obvious reasons. Now that emergency conditions are passing, there are numerous applications for the reimposition of protective measures. Those require careful examination so as to ascertain the degree of protection required and to estimate the probable effects of such protection in the light of present conditions and with due regard to any special disadvantages under which our manufacturers operate. I have used the phrase "in the light of present conditions" having in mind that when an industry is first established it is problematic how much protection it really needs, but as it gains strength and experience, it should be possible to measure more accurately its reasonable need for protection and to require that with such protection it produces goods of satisfactory quality at a reasonably competitive price while giving maximum employment, proper wages, and good conditions.

These are matters on which the Government must get an unbiased view and hence they have referred them to the authority as being a body on whom they can rely for a recommendation which will take into account the views of industrialists, workers and consumers.

In addition to the examination of applications for either new protective measures or the reimposition of suspended protective measures, the authority will also have under constant review the entire scale of protection with the same aims in view as I have indicated. I am aware of certain industries whose critics point to a high measure of protection but whose products sell at lower prices than in neighbouring countries or at prices very much below those which would obtain if the industry took anything like full advantage of its protection. It is in the interests of such industries to relate the degree of protection to realities so as to meet unfounded criticisms so damaging to the industry. In general, it is obvious that, irrespective of the degree to which protective measures are being availed of, there is need for a periodic examination of the tariff position so as to ensure proper consideration of the interests of all the parties involved, industrialists, traders, workers and consumers.

The authority is also charged with the examination of applications for licences for the free importation of dutiable goods. No less than 51,523 such licences were issued in the year 1948 and the duty remitted amounted to £3,600,000. Not only does the issue of these licences give rise to considerable administrative and executive work but the very fact that they assume such large proportions suggests the need for close scrutiny with two objects in view. Firstly, it may be found, and in fact has been found in some cases, that dutiable goods for which free import facilities are sought are goods which could and should be made here by the manufacturers for whose protection the duty was imposed. In such cases by arrangement with the manufacturers, the authority is endeavouring and will endeavour to secure an increase in domestic output to meet market requirements. Secondly, it has been found that certain goods are of a kind which cannot be made here or are unlikely to be made here at any time, and in such cases the authority recommends the amendment of the tariff description so as to make it unnecessary to seek duty-free licences. The continuing careful examination by the authority of applications for such licences will, therefore, have a double advantage of increasing industrial output and reducing administrative and executive work.

The authority will also be responsible for the work involved in the administration of the Control of Manufactures Acts and of the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts since this work is ancillary to their other functions.

Numerous matters affecting industry are being considered by the authority either on their own initiative or at the instance of the Government. Among those are industrial taxation, provision of external technical assistance, methods adopted abroad to further industrial development, methods of developing industrial exports, etc. Reports on some of those questions have already been submitted by the authority and their recommendations on others are awaited.

The authority, as well as advising the Government, will be available to give advice, guidance and assistance to industry in general. I am already aware of cases in which the authority has intervened to provide an alternative activity to one which did not prove successful; to arrange the provision of financial accommodation required for industrial purposes; to nullify devices adopted by outside interests to evade tariffs, and to indicate to applicants for protection more suitable alternatives to meet their difficulties.

I have said sufficient to indicate how wide is the field of activity in which this body will operate and how important are its functions. No Government Department has hitherto been asked to exercise the specific and comprehensive functions assigned to the Industrial Development Authority, nor has any Government Department been empowered to operate with the flexibility and independence allowed to that body by the Government. The Industrial Development Authority is thus a new conception involving a planned approach to industrial development, a planned approach through selected personnel with wide industrial experience operating as a self-governing body assisted by a skilled and experienced staff of State officials. I am satisfied from the results achieved to date that this amalgamation of outside practical experience, together with the existing administrative and executive official machine, has fully justified itself. The Industrial Development Authority deserves the widest degree of support and co-operation in the carrying out of the task which so profoundly affects the national well-being. On the Government's part the authority will have the very fullest support.

To it will be referred all industrial matters and it will be by reference to its recommendations that the Government will decide on industrial policies. In short, the Government have set up an organisation which, with the prestige and influence which its very functions imply, and the flexibility of which I have already spoken, should be a fully effective instrument in the national task which has been entrusted to it.

Mr. Hawkins

I think all of us in this House welcome the Minister's introductory statement and are glad to learn that the intention of the Government, in setting up this organisation, was to see if a more vigorous approach to the industrial development of this country could be undertaken. I should like to avail of this occasion—and I think it is right that we should do so—to pay a tribute to those Irish people who have already established so many industries in this country. I should like to pay a tribute to them for their efficiency and particularly for the manner in which many of these industries were carried on during the years of the emergency. We hear of many tributes being paid now to increased production and increased efficiency. However, increased production or increased efficiency could not come about except after years of experience—experience gained both by the directors of the various industries and by the workers. Therefore, whatever benefits we may be reaping to-day are the result of the enterprise and foresight of those who began the industrial drive some years ago.

I come now to the Bill. I think the members of the House will agree with me when I say that never, I think, has a Bill been introduced into this House with so little enthusiasm as the present measure. Of course, it is introduced under extraordinary circumstances. The purpose of the Bill is to set up a body known as the Industrial Development Authority, which has already been in existence for the past 18 months. This body has been functioning for the past 18 months without consent or authority from either this or the other House having been obtained on the advisability of setting up this organisation. The fact is that the Minister came before the House some 18 months ago and put forward a proposal to set up this organisation with a view, as he stated, to have it engage in a more intensive approach to the development of Irish industries. He possibly then would have been in the position to make known to the House the purposes for which this body was to be set up because he could have, in such circumstances, painted for us a picture of what this organisation proposed to do and the great advantage it would be to have it there. To-day, however, we are faced with the position in which we are asked in this Bill to give effect to a body which has already been 18 months in existence.

Surely the Minister in asking this House for authority to set up that board, should be in the position to answer one or two questions on that matter. He should be able to tell us what activity this organisation has been engaged in from the day it was established up to the present time, and how many industries it has succeeded in having established in this country, and which would not have been established if that organisation had not come into existence. I think these two questions would have been sufficient, and if the Minister was in a position to give a satisfactory answer to these questions, then this House would, I feel convinced, have been prepared to give him this Bill.

I suggest also to the House that the Title of this Bill is misleading. It is entitled the "Industrial Development Authority Bill". The board, or organisation, or council, which has been set up under this Bill has absolutely no authority to establish industries. I think when we go back over the history of the occasion we find that on the 24th May, 1949, the present members of this board received their warrant of appointment. Therefore, that was something in the nature of a contract which had been entered into between the Minister on the one hand, and the members of the board on the other, to conduct this Development Authority Organisation, but no authority was given to the board to develop any industry. It has to be remembered that there was already in existence in the Department of Industry and Commerce everything that this Bill proposes in setting up this body of five persons. The Bill merely transfers to them and to their direction and control the various officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce who have been carrying on this work. The board themselves are more or less acting as a buffer between the Department, the public and the Minister. As I said, the members of the board were appointed on May 24th, 1949. The Bill was introduced in the Dáil on the 24th June, 1949, and here we are, on the 6th December, being asked to give a Second Reading to that Bill setting up an organisation which has already been in existence for 18 months. The Minister laid great stress on the assistance that this board or organisation would be to those people seeking or anxious to establish industries in the country. What assistance could they be in that regard? Any person at the present time anxious to start an industry in this country can do so without ever having to seek any assistance from the Minister or the Industrial Authority Organisation or the Department of Industry and Commerce except in so far as they might be compelled to apply for a building licence to erect the building in which the industry is to be carried on.

That is the situation in the case of straightforward industries but where it is necessary to have protection or quotas, then they will have to get the sympathy of the Minister or this organisation. If we examine Section 3 of the Bill, therefore, we find that the purpose of this authority is to initiate proposals or schemes for submission to the Minister on the possibilities of urban industrial development, to advise the Minister on the steps necessary and desirable in the establishment of new industries and to advise on the steps necessary for the expansion and modernisation of existing industries and to give the required advice and guidance to those persons anxious to undertake the establishment of industries. If Section 3 of the Bill stopped at this and did not continue on to sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) then I would say that this organisation might do something but when we examine sub-sections (5), (6) and (7) of Section 3 of the Bill, we find that a great part of the board's work and the functions of this organisation will be to make investigations into the effect of quotas, etc., and that the greater part of their time will be devoted to this work. There is already in existence a section of the Department of Industry and Commerce dealing with work of that nature and, therefore, I think that this body should not be asked or expected to carry out these investigations which are made obligatory on them under sub-sections (5), (6) and (7).

In the matter of advising the Minister on the steps necessary or advisable for the establishment of new industries or the expansion or modernisation of existing industries, they do not seem to have much function. These industries can be set up in the ordinary way by persons wishing to put their money into them and therefore it would seem as if this body is going to be given authority to meddle, and, as it were, act as an inquiry into the working of every industry in the land where the Minister has requested them to hold investigations and they may even carry out investigations on their own. I think that except where an individual or particular industry has made an application for assistance of one kind or another and it may be necessary to have some kind of inquiry, this organisation should not be asked to interfere or inquire too much into the workings of private firms or individuals or organisations.

Now, as I said, this is a Bill that I suppose can be dealt with much better on the Committee Stage. The House, I am sure, will agree that of the very nature of the presentation of the Bill itself, of the fact that the persons already are being appointed, and while I do not for one moment wish to go into the personnel of the board appointed, I do not agree or accept the statement from the Minister that the persons appointed to this board are persons with that wide wisdom, experience and knowledge that he has put before us. If the board had not been appointed I am sure that I and every other Senator would put views before the Minister as to the type of persons that should be appointed. The fact is that they are now there. Not alone are they there but a contract has been entered into by the Minister on behalf of the State to guarantee them their term of office and certain remuneration. It is all very fine for the Minister to say that this is a free and independent organisation. They can choose their own mode of procedure, they can carry out their own inquiries. As a matter of fact, it goes so far as to say that they can determine what their expenses will be during the year. That might be very fine if it had not other consequences. After all, they can carry out all these inquiries and do all these things but they can do nothing practical in the way of helping industry except to advise the Minister on certain aspects. While it might be necessary to have some organisation set up that might inquire from time to time into the effects of protection and into its workings in general, I hold that this is not the type of work that this organisation is not going to do the things that the Minister has put before us to-day it is expected to do. And above all, the wrong approach has been made.

I think it is asking too much of this House to come at the end of 18 months and ask for its approval to something that has already been accomplished 18 months previously.

Mr. Baxter

I would have imagined and I would like to think that a measure like this would be approached in a completely non-Party spirit. This is a piece of machinery which has been created for the purposes set out in the measure which, in the main, are to advise the Minister and, indeed, to advise potential industrialists how better they can provide for our own requirements by the building of industries here in the country which do not already exist. I thought that this would be something so commendable coming from any Government in the country that it would receive the wholehearted backing of everybody interested in Irish industry; that the principle would be accepted, and that having accepted the principle we would then apply our minds to the measure in Committee to see what its shortcomings were, and try to provide against these.

A speaker from the opposite side appears to be critical. I do not know whether he is critical of the Minister for delaying so long his introduction of the Bill or critical of the policy, because he feels what is proposed to be done under this measure could be done if it were not introduced at all. That may be entirely a matter of opinion. He put a query to the Minister, I think something to this effect: "What has this authority done since its establishment to create an industry which would not have been brought into existence if the authority itself did not exist?" Who could answer that? I do not think anybody could answer that question. If this authority were successful in bringing to the notice of the people interested in industrial development an idea that has not heretofore been exploited, and that around that idea those people have erected buildings and provided machinery, who knows but inside the next five or ten years that idea would not have entered the mind of somebody else and the industry created.

I am sure nobody in this House, nor outside the House either, wants to speak in very critical terms of Irish industry or Irish industrialists. There is cause for criticism. There is cause for criticism of Irish farmers and Irish farming, and it would be a queer Ireland when we have ceased to criticise even ourselves. It would be still queerer if we had not the liberty to criticise. All praise to the people who have engaged in industrial development in the past and who have built something that is a credit to themselves and to the country. Let it not be forgotten, however, that industrial development up to the present has received from one Government after another a considerable degree of protection and behind these supports a number of industries have been created. The end is not yet. It would be very disastrous indeed if there was a body of opinion in this country that we had exploited to the full the possibilities of industrial development. I do not think so, and I hoped this measure would receive the welcome approval of every good citizen, whether a member of the Oireachtas or outside, who wants to see industry grow apace here. The sooner we reach the point when we can measure reasonably accurately what are our requirements which our own people can provide for us the better it will be for the nation as a whole. We could have some fantastic schemes and ideas about industries that would be so absurd that it would be unwise to encourage anybody, in fact, to give any support whatever towards their creation here. There are a great many lines of development yet which have been given very little attention—and that is not condemning anything or what has been done. A certain amount of exploration has gone on, we have exploited certain lines, but there is much we can do. In my judgment, we need such an impartial authority as this. I know it has been argued that you can go to the Department of Industry and Commerce and they will do all this. Perhaps they would; perhaps they would do it in such a way as to make it unsatisfactory. I think the approach in the Bill is the perfectly correct approach.

No doubt, the Bill will receive much discussion in Committee and it may be that certain sections in it, that are unsatisfactory or disagreeable to certain people in the House and outside, will require examination. There is one aspect of our industrial development which ought to take first place with this authority and with all of us. If we start from the angle of thinking that our task is to try to provide ourselves with those needs which everyday consumption demand, we think of the possibilities of employing more of our own people in producing those necessities than have been engaged in the work in the past. I am convinced that a most important consideration for this authority to keep before its mind is the location of these new industries. In his statement to the House, the Minister indicated that no powers are being taken under this measure to determine the location of industry in the future. That may be going just too far, but from the point of view of the national well-being, if there is not an authority in control to determine the location of industry in the future, I am convinced that this industrial development body should have some power to influence the places that are to be the centres of these new industries.

Whether the citizens of Dublin like it or not, the truth is that Dublin has become top heavy. Any of us coming up from the country here week after week feel almost terrified going down through the city at certain hours of the day. It has grown much worse in the last 12 months, and it will go on growing like that; and the net result of this sort of development, as far as Ireland is concerned, is that Dublin, from every point or view and no matter how you consider the problem, is year after year going to suck more of the good, more of the life blood, from the nation and impoverish the nation away beyond. Inevitably, that will be disastrous for the nation. I know there are citizens of Dublin in this House, and some of them outside the House, who would declare against a policy that might prevent the establishment in Dublin of any industry that had certain potentialities here. However, if we try to look a little bit further into the future, we will see that every time something new is established in Dublin it will take somebody from the country who might be kept in the country if the development had been attempted away from Dublin. It means building a new home in Dublin, where it is very difficult to find a house to found a home. It means more people setting up homes in the city and adding to the population, so that the demand will grow and grow for further industrial development in Dublin to provide employment for the rising generations. That is a thoroughly unsound approach from the point of view of the nation. I hope the Seanad as a whole will address its mind to this angle of the problem.

The great necessity of the day is to keep our people in the country and I think the aim should be to keep them in the parts of the country where they still reside. I would like a slant to be given to the policy of this authority in regard to the development of industry, that would make it possible for industries to be created at points in Ireland the furthest possible distance from Dublin. Every industry, whether great or small, that is built up in Connaught, in Ulster, or in Munster, will help to create small industrialised communities with their roots both in the land and in industry; and the joined interest of these two small communities in that particular part of Ireland will help it to grow and develop with the years. The industrial community will have their needs supplied from the hinterland and there will be that sort of urban life near the homes of the people in the west, the northwest and the southwest, that will make life sufficiently attractive for them to keep them living where they are. I believe that is absolutely essential, and for that reason I regret that this authority has not had placed at its disposal such an amount of money as would enable it to give encouragement to industrial development at places remote from the capital of the country, at places which may not at first sight be attractive to industrialists as suitable for new organisations, but which eventually would prove to be the right place for development from the point of view of our national well-being.

I know that the whole objective to day is to get near the large centres of consumption, in the case of industrial development. That is understandable. There is an attraction from the point of view of transporting goods, when they are produced, to the points where they are to be consumed and where the distance of transport is short. One can understand that the ports, too, are an attraction. I cannot see why it should not be possible for us to approach this problem with the idea of industrial development where there are dense populations, giving encouragement to those industrialists, through this Industrial Development Authority having at its disposal funds which, at the moment, anyhow, it does not possess.

I think we must do something like that. It may be that by going back to the west you would find the output of workers better than you would get in the City of Dublin. I am quite convinced that the fellows in the west, the people in my county, will work harder than some of the people in the east. I do not know whether some of the new controls which are exercised with regard to output would eventually influence the output of men in an industry in a backward part of the country, so as to place it at a disadvantage with people engaged in an industry close to the point where those goods are being consumed; but my information to-day is that, if you put an industry in a remote part of Ireland and a similar one in a big urban centre or in the city here, there are possibilities that after a little while you will get a better output per unit of labour engaged in the backward area than you will get in the city. That should be an encouragement towards industrialisation in some of the remote regions. If that is not sufficient, my view is that this authority should have funds which will enable it, if needs be, to go in as an authority and create an industry there, or alternatively that they would be able to subsidise to some extent the initial costs or the initial capital expenditure in the creation of an industry in a more remote region. My view is that we must approach industrialisation from some angle such as that; otherwise, those who come from the more remote region will see a continuous decline in population, a continuous drift, as it has been now for a great many years, from the west to the east. The Irish nation cannot live if that drift continues.

I know that what I am urging must be tackled very carefully. I know, for instance, that in the Six Counties the Government there, in the last few years—in fact, even more recently— have gone out on a plan to build industries, or at least large factories, and rent them to would-be industrialists. But the problem was not very well studied, and there was not the proper linking up between the potential industrialist and the Government. In a number of instances, some of these factories, magnificent modern buildings, were rented for a short period and an effort was made and the industrialists came in; but after a year or two things were not going to their satisfaction or in accordance with their anticipations, and they have pulled out. That is obviously a thoroughly unsound approach.

In my view, this Bill and what it enshrines is essential to our further industrial development, but I believe the Bill is incomplete, and the powers that these people have got are not sufficient to enable them to do their job in the way I would like to see them do it.

I know that, from the other angle, Senator Hawkins suggests that these people have unlimited power to spend what money is placed at their disposal. I do not know anybody here in any authority, functioning in an organisation or institution which is partly governmental, who can go on spending money as he likes without somebody hauling him over the coals. That, however, is not my complaint. This measure is necessary, and it is the sort of measure that we should all happily welcome because, if the country is to get anywhere, the sooner we can bridge the differences that exist between us in regard to industrial policy, agricultural policy and educational policy, the better it will be for the country, and, on this, there is no reason for differences as between one side of the House and the other. What we should aim at is the stating of our views about industrial policy and the methods to be adopted to attain our objectives more quickly and more successfully, and sitting down to plan the kind of machinery necessary for the implementation of such a policy. I have stated my view broadly on this matter, I have attacked the defect in the Bill from one angle, and I hope the Minister and his colleagues will consider that aspect and have something more to say about it on another occasion.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Is deacair morán a rá i dtaobh an Bhille nach bhfuil ráite cheana, ach ba mhaith liom, ar an gcéad dul síos, a rá go bhfuil súil agam nach fada go mbeidh biseach ar an Aire Tionscail agus Tráchtála. Tá súil agam freisin nach fada go dtiocfaidh biseach ar an Aire Cosanta ón slaghdán atá air. Mura mbeadh an slaghdán atá air inniu, b'fhéidir go labhródh sé nios bríomhaire ar an mBille agus ar an scéim a bhí sé a chur os ar gcomhair.

Ná bíodh aon amhras ar aon duine —is maith linne gach iarracht dá ndéanfar le tionscail nua a bhunú sa tír. Ná bíodh amhras ar aon duine faoin tuairim atá againn ar an mBille seo—is dóigh linn nach é seo an bealach is fearr. Ní hionann sin agus a rá nach mian linn go rachaidh forbairt tionscail chun cinn, agus ní hionann sin is a rá nár mhaith linn go n-éiróidh thar cionn amach leis an gcoiste seo. Má éiríonn leo, beimid sásta. Dá fheabhas dá n-éireoidh leo, ní éireoidh leo leath chomh maith agus ba mhaith linn. Níl aon amhras nach bhfuil dul ar aghaidh mór déanta againn sna blianta atá caite. Mura mbeadh an dul ar aghaidh atá déanta, ba dona an bhail a bheadh ar an tír seo sna blíanta gairide atá caite agus ba dona an bhail a bheadh uirthi inniu.

Ní hé nach ndearnadh a lán, mar bhí an tuaírím ag cuid mhór daoine go rabhmar ag déanamh an iomarca agus is í caint a chloisfeá ar gach taobh, sa Dáil, sa tSeanad agus taobh amuigh, ag daoine, go raibh an iomarca á dhéanamh le tionscail nua do chur ar aghaidh sa tír agus go mba dochar don tír é sin sa deire. Níor aontaigh mise leis an tuairim sín ná níor aontaigh an Peartaí a bhfuil mé ag taobhú leis leis an tuairim sin agus chruthaigh an aimsir go raibh an ceart againn. Is maith liom go bhfuil an oiread sin daoine a bhí i gcoinne na forbairte sin tagtha ar an tuairim chéanna linne ina thaobh. Tá súil agam go bhfuil siad dáríre amach is amach, ar a laghad chomh dáríre is a bhíomar i dtaobh an chuspóra sin, tionscail nua a chur chun cinn.

The Bill before us is a very short one, but it is nevertheless a very important one. Senator Hawkins has expressed the view that we would rather that this Bill had not come before us. I subscribe to that view, but to say that I regret this Bill has come before us is not to say that I oppose in any way industrial development. My view has always been that we should push ahead with industrial development, and, if I ever had any complaint, my complaint was that we did not push ahead more quickly. Nevertheless, it would be unreasonable not to acknowledge the enormous strides that have been made since 1932 in securing industrial development and it would be unfair not to pay tribute to the man who was at the helm in the Department, Mr. Lemass, who did so much to ensure that development and had to bear, as he had, such an amount of unwarranted criticism for his labours.

Senator Hawkins has paid tribute to the people for the confidence they showed in Irish industry. Whether the capital came directly out of the pockets of the people or whether it was provided through other channels, it is a tribute to the people that so few proposals for the establishment of industry failed, for want of the necessary capital. To that extent, I think the people who were in a position to put up money for industries are entitled to some word of commendation for their share in what has been achieved.

In the same way, I think it is an occasion when we might pay tribute to the workers who have entered into these industries. Many of these men and women have not very much tradition behind them. They proved what many of us had contended for a long time: that among the races of the world there are few more adaptable than our own. Give our own people a reasonable chance in any industry no matter how highly technical and they will certainly hold their own with other peoples. I think that factory managers, whether they be native or from abroad, will bear me out in saying that it would be difficult to find a more adaptable body of workers than Irish workers. On this occasion, therefore, we might very well pay a tribute to all these forces.

To what extent is this Bill to be a new departure? Merely to set up this body and give it the name "Industrial Development Authority" does not, to me at any rate, convey very much. If the idea is that we are to have something in the nature of an economic council then this Bill falls far short of that ideal. For one thing we should have to be much more careful in the selection of the personnel; for another thing, the membership would have to be very much wider than it is. If that is its object, then the Bill falls far short of what I would wish it to be.

I should like to know whether this is in reality a new departure or whether it is simply that the Department of Industry and Commerce as we have known is going to shed certain duties and responsibilities which are being passed over to another body and no more. It seems to me that the tendency is to reduce the Department of Industry and Commerce to such a position that we can wind it up.

Mr. M. Hayes

To reduce the Department of Industry and Commerce?

Liam Ó Buachalla

To reduce the Department of Industry and Commerce to such a position and such a condition that we might very well wind it up.

Mr. M. Hayes

It has a long distance to go before it is wound up.

Liam Ó Buachalla

It may have a long distance to go but it seems to me that we are on the way and might well gain momentum. We have had experience in this House of legislation, part of which ensured that the responsible Minister of that Department would not be answerable for certain matters for which he was heretofore answerable in the Dáil or Seanad. It is clear to me at any rate that these gentlemen who form the new body are men who will be utterly incapable of carrying out the duties and functions which the Minister mentioned to-day. He mentioned all the work they were going to do in the compilation of reports and statistics related to capital and the various types of capital in industry at present and he talked of their responsibility regarding the location of industry, the location of resources and so on. These people—it is no reflection on them to say it—will not be able to do this work.

They are not trained for it. If they do all the things they have to do, where are they going to find the time? Will this statistical work be done by the Central Statistics Office? Will much of this work be done in the office of the Controller of Companies. Reports are sent in there every day by companies, and every registered company must file a return of its capital, of changes in capital, of its directors and must file its balance sheet. Will much of the information that this authority will present to the country be obtainable from the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies? If this authority is going to work through offices and departments such as I have mentioned what very great difference will there be except that instead of having one Secretary for the Department of Industry and Commerce, we will now in effect have five, the present secretary and four other secretaries? If there is to be any very great difference in the procedure regarding the compilation and collection of statistics, I should like the Minister to indicate to us how it is going to be done. If it is to be done in some other way, will there be duplication? What functions, what work, what aspects of organisation are to be shed by the Central Statistics Office and other offices?

With regard to the promotion of schemes for new industries and the expansion of present industries, how exactly is this body going to work? Clearly it will have to fall back on bodies which have been engaging in research. This authority of four men will be utterly incapable of carrying out the research necessary. We have already officially established an authority charged with industrial research, the Institute for Industrial Research. Is it now going to become an appendage of this authority? I do not want to go into all the bodies that might be affected, but I think that much work of that kind, much research as to capital needs, is done by authorities like the Industrial Credit Corporation. Not alone is it continually watching the necessity for new capital but I imagine that that authority must itself engage very considerably in the investigation of propositions for the establishment of new industries and the expansion of existing industries, because I think it must realise that very often it will be approached to provide the capital, or if not to provide it, at least to underwrite the capital. Is this new authority going to set up an industrial body which will engage in research of the kind I have mentioned? Will it go to the trouble of organising a special department and provide the finance to run such a department or is it simply to be some kind of co-ordinating organisation, nothing more and nothing less?

Mr. M. Hayes

Does the Senator seriously suggest that the Industrial Credit Corporation carries out research?

Mr. Hearne

In the sense you mean it, yes—investigating the possibilities of financing an industry.

Mr. M. Hayes

But surely it investigates specific applications made to it? It does not indulge in research. Research means investigation of a problem.

Liam Ó Buachalla

I do not want to enter into a discussion on the procedure and organisation of the particular corporation I have mentioned. It seems to me that if the corporation is approached or is likely to be approached for the finances required for an industry, it itself must carry out some kind of investigation of the conditions of industry at the particular time.

Mr. M. Hayes

Only investigate— not general research.

Mr. Hearne

I think it is a difference between the use of the word "research" and "investigation."

Mr. M. Hayes

I know what "research" means.

Liam Ó Buachalla

If somebody comes along and has a proposition for, say, a lace industry in Ireland and, from the conditions of the lace industry in Ireland, there is no very great hope, say, of the public's subscribing capital —and still the people proposing it think that their proposition is sound— it would be their duty to go to the corporation and put up proposals and make whatever information they may have available. Surely the corporation will itself investigate these proposals? The corporation will consider the world market for lace. It will consider the conditions in all the various countries in which lace is being produced and in which there is a tradition. It will consider the possibilities of the Irish industry's finding some of that market. It must even consider the question of tariffs and the possible effect of tariffs on the industry and on the country as a whole. It must consider the likely views of the Government in regard to it. If Senator Hayes thinks that that kind of investigation should not be described as research, then we can only leave the matter at that. As far as I am concerned, I think it ought to be described as research.

I think they must do a great deal of valuable work in that way. I think the Dublin Chamber of Commerce carries out a good deal of research in regard to financial matters, in regard to industrial trends, in regard to commercial conditions and commercial trends, and that it issues very valuable statements and reports from time to time. Should work of that kind be described as research work or not? I also think that if the Federation of Industries is functioning, as I think it is and as I hope it is, it also would have a research Department. The only thing about it is that I hope it would be well endowed and that it would be able to carry out its research to the extent I think it is necessary to do so, and to the extent to which I should like to see is carry out such work. However, these are matters on which the Minister may be able to give us some information.

I am anxious to find out to what extent this is going to be an entirely new body, deserving of all the words of particular praise uttered this afternoon by the Minister. I should like to know to what extent there is going to be a difference, not just a nominal difference but a real and marked difference, between the procedure that has existed heretofore and the procedure that we will experience in the future when people want to establish industries. I have not been in the Department of Industry and Commerce very often—I suppose not more than half a dozen times in my life. I suppose the time I spent there would not have been very great. My business there would have been very simple and it would have taken no time to get through it. I hope all Departments are as courteous and efficient as I found the officers of that Department on whatever occasions I had to go there. I visualise the procedure was something like this. Somebody had an idea with regard to an industry.

If he wanted Government assistance, which he might get in two ways—(1) by means of a tariff, or (2) by means of a trade loan, to the extent that that aspect of the Department's work was continued—then he would have to go to the Department. If he did not want any facility of that kind, then, on condition that the industry was within the law, there was nothing to prevent his proceeding to establish the industry. However, if he wanted help in some way, he came to the Department. I do not think that the Secretary of the Department said to the first man he met in the corridor: "Will you look after this man and see if you can fix him up?" As far as I know, the Department is divided into well-defined sections and each section specialises in some aspect of industry and commerce. The proposition comes and is sent to the appropriate section. The people in that section investigate the proposition. They consider it in all its aspects. They then make some kind of a report which may go, perhaps directly or perhaps through some council, to the Minister. Eventually, however, it will reach the Minister. Now, what is going to be the difference between the procedure that has existed hertofore and the procedure that we shall experience in the future, except this—that when you went to the Department you felt that you were going to the Minister because with everybody you met in the Department you knew that, in effect, you were meeting the Minister in that person. If this body is going to be as autonomous as it is claimed it will be, then we shall feel that we are not meeting the Minister in the sense that we have met him in the past. Whether that is good or not is open to debate. For my part, I should prefer to keep the Minister responsible, and fully responsible, for these things rather than allow him to shed any of his duties or any of his responsibilities.

The question of the use of the term "industry" is something on which we might get some information. For instance, will this authority have power to investigate the turf industry? I should like that this authority, among its very earliest activities, would investigate the problem of the Gaeltacht and the congested areas, in particular. Will they investigate, for instance, the tomato industry? Does the growing of tomatoes come within the term "industry"? I do not know. We want to get some idea of all these matters. In the West of Ireland three industries went, one after the other, and got the knock. I instance the turf industry and the tomato-growing industry. One that might be taken as properly coming within the term "industry"—and which also got the knock—was the toy industry and the metal industries of Connemara. The growing of tomatoes, for instance, is not an academic matter. It is a very important industry. Will this authority have power to consider it, or will it not? I should be sorry to think that the Minister would not have all the power that I think he should have. I should be sorry to think that this body would be autonomous to the extent that it could snap its fingers at the Minister and say: "We have not time to consider this suggestion of yours: we are engaged on something else." I like to feel that, for these areas, in particular, that I have mentioned, the most urgent attention would be given to their needs.

Senator Baxter referred to the need for industrial expansion and I am glad that he has at last wakened up to the urgency of it. It was urgent in the past and is still more urgent to-day. It is urgent from the economic point of view on social grounds and on national grounds. National security will depend finally on the extent to which we can develop industry and make ourselves independent of outside supplies. People with a knowledge of rural Ireland know the urgency of this problem. Many people have left the country and we cannot hope to bring them back without special inducement. There are two aspects of the whole situation. The policy has been, by and large, to cut down on tillage and there is a greater tendency to mechanisation on the land. While that policy of mechanisation was desirable, we must remember that as a result of it fewer men will be required to work the land. I cannot foresee within a reasonable time a development of tillage which in those circumstances would result in increased employment of labour on the land. The two instances which I have given of a decline in tillage and at the same time increased mechanisation of such tillage as remains mean in effect that more men will have to get out of the country. We will be sorry to see them go and if some insist on going that is their business. They have freedom to do that and I do not think we should compel them to stay if they do not like to stay. We would like to keep them and if we are to do so, it is essential that we provide the things that are necessary if they are to remain here. That is why this matter of industrial development and expansion is urgent and that is why I am glad that people of Senator Baxter's mentality have wakened up to it.

Mr. M. Hayes

Senator Baxter was awake to the matter long before the Senator came along and there is no doubt about that.

Liam Ó Buachalla

There is, I expect, at the moment something in the nature of a rush to investigate the possibilities of new industries and some rush to get the facilities to start new industries. We know that many proposals had been taking shape before the war. We know that during the war, experience showed the necessity for still greater industrial development.

We know that result or the period of investigation before the war and the difficulties of finding equipment and so on during the war, has left a good deal of leeway to be made up. If the industrial authority, as the Minister has indicated, has received many applications for consideration, to what extent are those applications the result of a new feeling of approach to this matter on the part of company promoters or to what extent is it the result of the slack pre-war leeway that has to be made up?

I am sorry that the Minister was not here when I was speaking, but I have made it clear to the House that I am anxious to get information with regard to the method by which this authority is going to function. I am anxious to get an idea of the extent of what change there is going to be in the procedure in the matter of approach to and in the achievement of the ideals we have in regard to industrial development. Other than that, I do not see that there is much more I have to see in this regard. It is clear from Section 6 of the Bill that the authority can ask for officers and servants, that will be general staff, and with the consent of the Minister for Finance that they may be given such assistance. Will these members of the staff be civil servants or is it merely that certain work of the Department of Industry and Commerce is going to be taken away and passed over to this authority? It is clear also from Section 6 that the authority may, under sub-section (3), call for the assistance of technical advisers. When this authority looks for technical advisers will it get men from outside the Department or will the technical advisers of the Department be at their disposal? I can understand that occasions may arise that they may want special technical advice when they may be dealing with some industries, advice from technicians either in Great Britain or on the Continent. As I understand it, there are technical advisers in the Department itself and that the Department itself has had occasion to need highly specialised advice. What I am anxious to find out is whether there is going to be duplication in these fields or whether we are just having a reorganisation of the Department of Industry and Commerce with four new people of the status of secretaries to the Department.

As far as the Bill is concerned, I would wish that it were a different Bill or that it were not there at all. But, since it is there and since this Department is functioning, then I wish it every success. As I said in Irish, no matter how well it may succeed, it cannot succeed half as well as I would wish it to succeed. In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity of joining with my colleague, Senator Hawkins, and other speakers to the Bill in protesting against the procedure adopted in regard to the establishment of this authority. It is very unfair and indeed improper that it should have been set up in the way that it has been set up. The authority has been set up. A contract has been entered into, considerable sums of money are involved for their salaries, for office employment and so on without the prior sanction of the Dáil. It is no answer to say that the matter has been mentioned, and some provision made in the Estimates. That is not a reasonable answer I maintain to my objection. I would wish it were otherwise but since the thing has been done I want to join with those who have protested against it. Once more if this body is to function, the Minister expressed the hope that it would get the fullest co-operation of everybody; I hope that if it is to function it will get the fullest co-operation and achieve good for the country.

Mr. Douglas

Senator Hawkins in a very moderate and fair criticism of the Bill, although I do not agree with what he said, referred to the undoubted fact that if a person or a group of persons so desire they can get together, raise capital, and start an industry without any reference to the Government, the industrial authority or anybody else. That is completely correct, but in my opinion they would be complete fools if they did so. The whole circumstances—which may be good or bad, and I am afraid that, with the international situation as we see it, there is no hope for a substantial change— mean that to a very considerable extent supplies and conditions will have to be governed to a greater or lesser degree by the State. It is common sense that there should be some definite contact and consultation and as little control and interference as possible but as much co-operation as possible, in the case of any industries that may be developed and which we hope to see succeed.

On a previous occasion, some years ago, speaking on this general question of industrial development through the Civil Service, I expressed a view, after some thought and some consideration, that the normal training of civil servants meant that only a very small number would reach the top fitted to deal with specifically industrial problems. Nobody in this House will accuse me of making an attack on civil servants because I say their training makes them more suitable for one thing than another. It does not prevent a certain number of them taking part in this kind of work, where they prove adaptable to it; but I did say, without any expectation of this Bill being introduced, that some way would have to be found by which you could bring into consultation with the Civil Service in some form or another persons who had outside training and experience. I think the proper way is to view this Industrial Development Authority as an experiment with the aim of expediting the whole problem of getting matters dealt with more promptly and efficiently and certainly more promptly than they could be done through ordinary Civil Service machinery, and thus enable the Government and the Minister, where action is required to be taken as quickly as possible, to have an official report and to bring into that not just merely the views of long trained civil servants.

Senator Ó Buachalla is afraid that this body as set up under the Bill could snap its fingers at the Minister, and that there was the serious danger of its becoming completely independent. There may be something in what he said, but it certainly will not happen in the near future, and there will have to be a very big change in the Department of Finance before anybody that is controlled by it can turn round and snap its fingers at the Minister. It will not happen just because members of the Authority have not got to put in a requisition to make a journey down to visit a district. Expenses are dealt with by the over-all Vote. This does not mean that there is no control from the Ministry of Finance.

There is not the slightest danger to my mind of such a degree of independence as to enable the development authority to do that. There is not the slightest danger of it growing independent of the Government. I find a certain amount of difficulty in following the line of Senator Ó Buachalla's argument. He produced a list of almost all the conceivable mistakes that could be made by this authority. He thought of almost every form of overlapping. He pictured an almost possible "Alice in Wonderland" with all the Government bodies doing the same work. I do not expect him to have much faith in the present Government, but I can assure him they are not as bad as that. There is not the slightest danger that they are going to set up a new Statistics Department that will not co-operate with the central authority.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Well, it set up a Statistics Department.

Mr. Douglas

As far as the authority is concerned, it must deal with certain statistics of its own. I would not call that a Statistics Department. I would like to point out that he said that every company must hand its balance sheet into the office. That only refers to a public company. Registered private companies do not file balance sheets.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Public registered companies.

Mr. Douglas

In that case there is no difference between us. Public companies submit their balance sheets, private companies do not. In order to get the statistics there will have to be some co-operative method, without disclosing balance sheets. I would very much like an examination of industry—I am not referring to any particular industry at the moment, though I could suggest one or two— where all the factories would be grouped together, their total turnover stated either in square yards or in weight or whatever it is, and the combined profits and reserves shown, so as to find out how much of the cost was actually distributed profit, and how much was placed to reserve. That would be something extremely valuable, but it would not be misleading. I do not think the Statistics Office at the moment can deal with anything except statistics which are made available from returns made under the law, under some provision or other, but there is a lot of additional information which could be provided.

One point on which I am quite satisfied is that there is no intention, and, I think, very little danger at present, of the Statistics Office which works through the Department of the Taoiseach overlapping with the Industrial Development Authority. I would have thought that the two together would have been able to help to obtain more valuable statistics with regard to industry.

Liam Ó Buachalla

I mentioned the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies' Office as a source of statistics.

Mr. Douglas

I am trying to indicate that the statistics available in the Joint Stock Companies' Office are of very little value at all, except in relation to public companies, and that does not affect the problem as we have it to-day. We may disagree about that. I know something about it and I am afraid that the value of those statistics —which are there for a different purpose, to protect shareholders—would not be of very great importance in the examination of industry.

On the question of research, I am not now a member of the Council of the Federation of Irish Industries, but when I was there they certainly did not have a research department, and I think a body representing all industries would be extremely unsuitable to deal with national research. One may or may not agree with me but that seems to me to be exactly the way in which it should not be done, whether they would put up the money or not. I have no intimate knowledge of the Industrial Credit Company, but Senator Ó Buachalla's picture of their work and my picture of it would completely disagree. I believe they are bankers and that their function is to consider carefully proposals put forward, either for the advancing of moneys, or, more generally, for the purpose of floating capital; and in doing so they have to investigate carefully the information given to them by the promoters and may ask for that further information which a banker would seek. Senator Ó Buachalla pictures them sending abroad to ask for particulars about lace in order to see where lace is sold. I do not think that is a function of a bank or of the Industrial Credit Company.

Liam Ó Buachalla

I do not think I put it just like that. That is not a fair paraphrase.

Mr. Douglas

Nothing is further from my mind than to misrepresent the Senator. He gave me the impression that he thought they did the investigation and research. My suggestion is that they consider information, which has to be obtained for them by the promoters, and they may ask for more or ask for proof or ask where statistics came from. They are not in any sense a research body but an examining body to examine into the merits of any proposition that comes before them. As far as I know, it is not their function to say to Senator Ó Buachalla and me: "We want you to set up a certain industry and we will find all the money." I think it is the other way round. If Senator Ó Buachalla and I had a plan and went to them, we would be asked a great many questions and many points would be considered—the prospect of success, the question whether the capital could be found, whether the public would subscribe, whether it is good in general. Then there is the question as to how far it would obtain Government approval. It is at that stage that the work of the authority should come in and they should be able to tell the Industrial Credit Company what knowledge they have of the position and they should co-operate. It may not always be so, but it is a very safe guess to say that the chairman of the authority has a very good knowledge of the Industrial Credit Company and that there will be co-operation between the two, certainly at present; and if they have started now it is likely to continue.

Senator Hawkins and Ó Buachalla criticised the method in which this Bill was introduced. It is not my job to defend that, but I think that in their criticism they created a rather false impression. The method adopted was to bring in a Vote and get a sum of money voted for the authority and to tell the Dáil what it was proposed to do. It was discussed at considerable length on the Vote, and, if my memory serves me right, it was discussed here to a lesser degree on an Appropriation Bill. It is quite fair to say that that is a bad way to deal with it—that is a matter of opinion—but it is not correct to say that it could not have been discussed here or to imply, as Senator Hawkins did, that there was no opportunity to discuss it. I suggest that there was an opportunity of discussing it in this House, but it is quite fair to say that the Bill should have been brought in sooner. That is fair criticism.

Mr. Hawkins

I would like the House to bear in mind that even though there was provision made in the Estimates and discussion on the Appropriation Bill here, prior to that the authority was appointed. They were appointed first.

Mr. Douglas

How far the Government was entitled to do that as a matter of administration, I am not competent to say. I think they had the power to deal with it in that way, and that is perfectly fair criticism on the part of Senator Hawkins. I am not disputing it, I am simply saying that in criticising he gave the wrong impression.

Senator Ó Buachalla produced an interesting idea, that with the development of this authority it may be possible to wind up the Department of Industry and Commerce. I was amazed at that, until I found that he had been in that Department only six times. Then I was able to understand how he could think that this authority could take over the enormous multiplicity of functions of the Department. If his idea was that they might be able to do it, I would like to hear further from him on the point; but if it was a fear he had, that the authority might do that, I can assure him that the danger is extremely small. He also assured us that the members of the authority were not supermen. He did not tell us whether he thought they should be or not, but he rather implied that he thought they should be. If that is so, I may say I do not want supermen, but ordinary common-sense men who know their limitations and whose limited experience combined together makes them capable of considering information, judging it, collecting it, and listening to the case put before them in a fair and co-operative spirit. That is all I want. I do not believe this or any other Government ever got together a perfect body and I am not going to be led into a discussion as to personnel, except to say that, generally, I think they were fortunate to get as good an industrial authority as they have got.

I have a certain amount of experience and I can assure the Seanad they are not supermen, that they are not infallible but capable of making mistakes. I think they have made some mistakes, but I feel they are a body which will act co-operatively and painstakingly, listening patiently to what comes before them, asking intelligent questions and being, in general, a body with which you will not get away with anything too easily, but will find a genuine effort to consider every problem carefully. If I had any criticism, it would be that, while they are decidedly more speedy than Civil Service methods in Industry and Commerce, they are still not quick enough, particularly in dealing with urgent problems such as the question whether, with a sudden rise in prices, it may be possible to import a certain amount of goods free of duty. That should be decided in a week and it loses its advantages in three or four weeks. I would rather see such cases decided sooner, decided within a week, and decided wrongly, than have them left for a longer period and decided rightly. That is a matter in which they are not as fast as they ought to be.

Liam Ó Buachalla

The Senator is tying himself up in his own knot.

Mr. Douglas

I would be sorry to vie with the Senator in tying myself up in a knot but, as the Senator has done so, it may be that it is infectious. However, I will blame him for it if I tie myself inextricably. I wish to conclude by saying that although there have been suggestions that, in a change of Government, this authority would be abolished, I would like to suggest to all Parties that this body should be given, as Senator Ó Buachalla said himself, every conceivable assistance from every side during its period of life. Let us make it the greatest possible success we can. If it fails, we can abolish it, by all means, but let it be abolished not as a result of any change of Government or any electoral decision, but fairly and on its merits. Do not let us decide those merits to-day, but in a few years' time. The authority will have many problems to deal with, and many difficulties to solve as envisaged by the Minister. I cannot agree with Senator Ó Buachalla that, on top of all those things, it could deal with tomatoes and various other agricultural problems, such as tillage, which he mentioned. That would only be adding to what I think is, if anything, too large a burden.

Mr. Summerfield

It would be idle to suggest that there was any great enthusiasm in industrial circles when this authority was first mooted, but the most practical thing we can do to-day is to accept the authority as a fact, give it our blessing and give it a chance to prove itself. That, I am happy to tell the House, is the attitude of most of those industrialists with whom I am in constant contact. It has been said by previous speakers that the obvious thing for us to do is to support anything that is calculated—and I use the word deliberately—to improve the industrial strength and efficiency of the country and because the authority has been set up for that purpose industrialists generally now show it goodwill and are anxious and willing to give it co-operation.

As Senator Douglas has said, it is not perfect. Nothing is. If the Bill had been introduced before the personnel of the body were named, we could indulge in criticism in much wider terms than those in which we speak to-day, but I think it would be unfair to the men who have been given a very tough job to indulge now in anything that would weaken in any way the authority which has been set up. It has been in existence for 18 months. I happen to know personally of many of the things it is trying to do, but the creation of big business is not a matter of waving a magic wand. Not the least of the handicaps—and this is a funny thing I am about to say—facing the Industrial Development Authority is our own Control of Manufactures Act. One of the most important jobs this authority has is to see that, in any expansion of industry that takes place, we will retain control of these industries in the hands of Irish people, so that the industries cannot be folded up over night and taken back to the countries of origin of people who are only too anxious to exploit us for as long as it suits them to do so.

Mention was made by Senator Baxter of locations. With all respect to the Senator, I think he has not got a practical approach to this matter. This authority cannot tell any body of people about to put their own money into a speculation that they must go here, there or the other place; but I can tell the Senator that I myself know of quite ambitious schemes at present under consideration, which, if they do fructify—and I sincerely hope they will—will mean the creation of worthwhile industries very much west of this City of Dublin. As a Dublin man, a native Dublin man, with many activities in and around Dublin and outside it, I join with Senator Baxter in expressing the hope that, where it is possible to place new industries outside Dublin, it will be done. Dublin is top heavy, which is not good for Dublin or the country as a whole.

I am hoping sincerely that this unfortunate quartet—because they are unfortunate in many ways—who have been saddled with a wide range of responsibilities—the responsibility of initiating and encouraging new industries is alone a man-sized job for all of them—will not be expected to perform half the duties enumerated here by the Minister. They could not do it; no four human beings could do it. I think that at this stage, in fairness to these men, we should go on record, as I am glad to say Senator Douglas did, as saying that they are not supermen, but that they are trained men, men picked for certain qualifications and abilities and common sense. If they perform the job reasonably well, let them come before us with a report of their activities, and, if they have succeeded in doing what they were set up to do, I hope they will not have over them a threat that the sentence of death which it is suggested has been passed upon them will be executed. It is no way to get men to give the best work in them to tell them that at a given point, whether they have been successful or otherwise, their period of office will terminate.

If that were to be the case, if we were to assume that that is possible, in all equity, the ordinary members of this authority should not only have pensions provided for them, as is done in the case of the chairman, but a compensation clause should be inserted in respect of them. Some of them are relatively young men on the thresholds of their careers, and I have a rather intimate knowledge of the size of the job which has been put upon them. It is because of that I urge that it is the duty of us all, now that they are there —we could, as I say, have indulged in criticism of the manner in which this Bill was put before us, but I am a realist and that is so much water under the bridge—to help them so far as we can to do the job which they have been called upon to do. I am happy, as are those associated with me, to say that we are actively doing it at present. Detailed criticism may not be constructive, and I have no wish to say anything which could be regarded in any way as being destructive of a Bill which sets out to do something which is dear to the hearts of all of us, to increase the prosperity of the country.

Mr. O'Farrell

Senator Douglas has discovered a new infectious disease— tying oneself in a knot—so I had better speak with great caution to-day, lest I also contract it. There is little one can say about this Bill because there is little use in saying it. As has been pointed out, the Industrial Development Authority has already been 18 months in existence and in that respect I think the very long Title of the Bill —an Act to establish an industrial development authority ...—is misleading. It is already established and we must accept it as it is. It is not a Bill to set up and establish an industrial development authority. It is, if you like, a Bill for its legal adoption and we must assume parentage of it now. If I am asked to assume the parentage of this child, and its father is not even here to recommend it because he is sick, I will look at it with a critical eye. However, on the whole, I think I am prepared to act as sponsor for it and to make the best of it.

The Bill has its defects and it has its merits, but the greatest defect in the Bill has not been referred to by any other speaker. It is in Section 3. The functions of this authority are set out in eight separate paragraphs, and seven of these say that they must report to the Minister. In only one case do they give, on request, advice to somebody who asks for it. In every other case, whatever they have to say, whatever they think, whatever they have to recommend, is confided to the Minister and whispered only into his ear. I wonder what is going to happen to it?

The Minister piloting this Bill through told us the many things this body is expected to do. It could not, as Senator after Senator has pointed out, do a fraction of these things, but he did say that it was not to be an ordinary Civil Service Department. It has freedom which ordinary civil servants have not got, but yet I think it is destined, not to supersede any existing Department of the Civil Service, but to become a new Department, as big as any of them, if it attempts to tackle half the things mentioned here to-day. The four men could not possibly do in four men's lifetimes all the things they are asked to do, but whatever they do, whether it is little or much, I think the public have the right to know what their recommendations may be and what the information is that they have discovered. The fact of merely whispering it to the Minister makes it fall back into the rut of a Civil Service Department. It may have freedom to ask questions, it may have freedom to investigate, it may have freedom to do a great many things, but when it must go up the backstairs and whisper to the Minister it becomes a Civil Service Department and loses much of the efficiency it might have. If it published an annual report, not giving details of people's businesses, but outlining what industries could be established, where best they could be established and where the labour force might be, people starting industries would then probably make use of the information.

I will not go into any details of the Bill at the moment. I do not think there would be any use in doing that at all because the Dáil has passed it and we must accept it as it is and any amendments we could make would only be minor amendments, but with regard to the personnel of the authority itself although many of us are critical it is doubtful that we, if we had the choice, could have chosen better. We might think that we could, but only time could show that.

I have been in twice like Senator Douglas—I do not know how many times he has been in—when people were looking for information and advice and on each occasion I was surprised by the facility with which they were given advice and by the valuable advice they were given. Though I was prejudiced to some extent against the people who had been appointed, from the little experience I have of the position I will say that they are trying to do the job as efficiently and as effectively as human beings could do it.

There is one other point which I have in mind. I am in league with the people who say that one of the things to which they should pay attention is the possibility of getting new industries started outside Dublin. Throughout the provinces industries are required and there are a great many derelict or semi-derelict buildings throughout Ireland which could be adopted and put into use as factories if only the industries were there or if the people thinking of starting industries knew where they were. The information that in such-and-such a place a building of such-and-such an area was available with water supply, electric power and a potential labour force, that that place had certain raw material and that there was a tradition there of knitting, spinning or weaving, should not be kept specially for the Minister and put into a pigeon-hole by him, because if, as I think, the authority is destined to grow and get a bigger staff and does nothing but collect information for the Minister to pigeon-hole then he will need another building as big as the Custom House to hold all that information. If we can influence the Minister while the Bill is going through the House to see at least that the information and advice of the authority is made available to the public in the form of an annual report we will have done something.

It might be assumed by people who knew nothing about the history of this country that nothing was ever done to encourage and establish Irish industries until this body was set up. There are Irish industries in existence which were started by people who had confidence in the country, who realised the needs of the country, who were prepared to take a risk and who risked their capital in it. In the early days, 45 years ago, when none of them had capital and none of them had control of this country, an organisation was set up to ask people to buy whatever little was made in the country because it was Irish. For 45 years that voluntary organisation has campaigned for Irish industry, and many of the people who set up factories and now control the industry of this country got their inspiration from that body, risked their capital and formed the industries. When the Government did undertake to set up a body of this kind I was sorry that they did not at least consult people who, for 45 years, campaigned for Irish industries, to know whether they would suggest anybody who might go on this new body, but the people who have given a lifetime of voluntary service to this country were passed over as if they were not worth asking.

Miss Butler

I support and welcome this measure because I think it fulfils a very real need in the country. As I see it, the Department of Industry and Commerce as it at present exists, like other Government Departments— speaking generally—implements Government policy, encourages industry and administers the laws in relation to industry. The wide programme and activities envisaged by the Minister in introducing this measure could not possibly be given to a Government Department, so we should once and for all free our minds of the idea that there is no need for this authority.

I think we seldom realise that we in this country have been mercifully spared the results of the industrial revolution of the 19th century in Britain. We have been spared most of the social evils and in particular we have been spared the ruination of our countryside and our towns. We should be happy that we have not blots upon our landscape and upon our personal conscience such as the towns of the black country in Britain with their appalling standard of housing and their whole mentality regarding what is good enough for workers which resulted from that period. We are now at the beginning of an industrial revolution in our own country, however. We are still at the exploratory stage and are at the point in industrial development where we need very careful planning, so-ordination and, above all, vision.

I wish to refer merely to two aspects of the functions of this authority upon which other speakers have already touched. The first is the question of the distribution of industry. One of the things for which the whole country should be grateful to the previous Government is, that its general industrial policy—and there is no denying that in its time a very considerable measure of industrial development was undertaken—was the excellent one of doing their very best to distribute industries throughout the country. As Senator Summerfield has pointed out, neither the authority nor anyone else has, at present, the power to say: "Go here, go there or go anywhere." I think it is a very heartening thing that we are now to have a statutory body which has envisaged a very wide programme and which has at the same time certain statutory powers. I should like to urge that the new authority should be charged with the task of investigating with the Department of Local Government the extent of town and regional powers necessary to provide for the co-ordination, siting and development of industry. I think that this country would do well to refer to the report of the Barlow Commission in Britain which dealt with the question of industry and population and the question of achieving a balance of population between rural and urban areas.

Other Senators have referred already to the position of Dublin, where almost one-fourth of the total population of the country is centred. I do not think the evils that have resulted from that fact can be stressed too often—the extreme shortage of houses and the fact that the burden of housing, unemployment benefits, health benefits and so on which should on the whole be a national responsibility has come to be a local responsibility. Because of the inflow of people into the city a very unfair burden of responsibility for certain services such as housing and health is borne by the capital city. It is all due to lack of planning and lack of co-ordination. That is why I welcome the Minister's opening remarks about the general co-ordinating powers of this authority regarding the distribution of industry.

I hope that they will take up this question of extended planning powers so that their policy will not be the merely negative one of saying: "You cannot build your factory in this area. You must go somewhere else," but the constructive one of saying: "You must go to such an area and build your new industry. We are in a position to provide the necessary sites and the necessary services." In other words, give them the incentive to go to such an area as you may have in mind. If you have not the power to say these things it is unfair to dictate where an industry should go. There are many things which make Dublin practically the only economic area for industry in this country—transport, services, sites, labour, housing for labour and so forth. Therefore, there is a very real need for co-ordination between industrial development and planning. In that way we may adjust the question of the balance of population and build up employment in our rural areas. We hear a lot of about the decline in the population: the whole of the decline in the population in the past 60 years has been borne by the rural areas. If an authority such as that which is now envisaged had been in existence in Britain in the 19th century—and if they had the same planning powers as Britain now has to-day—then a very different state of affairs and history of their country might have been expected.

I should like to dwell for a moment on the powers which the authority has of recommending, and so forth, the granting of the continuation of tariffs and protection. I feel very strongly that it should be stressed that the granting and continuation of protection should be used in such a way as to ensure that the people of this country will get a standard of goods which are as good in their general design and quality as those which can be imported. I am sorry to say—again speaking generally and not particularly —that we in this country have very little sense of quality. There is a tendency in this country to think that anything is good enough. The tenth rate industrial designs in this country, which were imported in the cheaper kinds of goods, are being continued and carried on in respect of the goods which are being manufactured and produced here. I have spoken myself, personally, with directors of certain English firms.

In view of the fact that they had adequate capital for their industry, I asked them why it was that they produced such a low standard of design. They assured me that it was what the people wanted. So the vicious circle goes on. People buy these designs because they can get nothing else and the manufacturers can reply, when questioned about the matter, that they are producing what the people like. They can even produce statistics to show that, however badly designed, the tenth rate article is bought—as if that were sufficient justification for producing a poor design. Many of the Irish industries are sufficiently well established—as is evidenced by the great demand for their shares when new companies are promoted—to be able amply to afford to employ good industrial designers. The art schools and colleges of art in this country are producing many young people who are extremely brilliant and competent and who have an extremely good sense of design. Many of these students are producing works of very high merit and individual character such as only this country can produce. Yet these people, who are trained for this specific purpose, find great difficulty in being absorbed in the industry to-day. I wish it were possible that the granting of a tariff or protection for an industry of a reasonable size would entail an undertaking on the part of that industry that they would provide good designs, produced by their own industrial designer, a trained competent artist. That would ensure for this country something quite above the level of what we have been used to importing in the past. This point cannot be too strongly stressed, because for too long we have had to put up with tenth rate design. If this authority does nothing else but that one task of taking up the whole question of industrial design, I feel it will have done something that the whole country will be grateful for in the years to come. Other countries judge us by the goods we produce, by the houses we live in— in other words, it is the design of things that counts.

I was talking to a manufacturer of textiles in Britain who exports certain lines of goods to this country. I asked him why the general range of designs which he sends to the Scandinavian countries was good while the general range of designs which he sends to our country is so bad. He explained that they were graded from one to five, according to design. Grades one and two go to the Scandinavian countries— that is first and second class designs in textiles go to the Scandinavian countries. The third-class design is good enough for Britain—and the fifth for us.

Mr. Douglas

What kind of textiles?

Miss Butler

I should prefer not to mention that. I merely want to point to the general low level of taste and design accepted in this country. It is bad enough that we should import them at that low level.

Mr. Loughman

Would it be that in Ireland we produce the first, second, third and fourth grades and that we only buy the fifth?

Miss Butler

It is bad enough to import goods of that low level of design, but when our own industries produce articles of an equally low grade I feel that there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever. I am glad that this authority is being given the powers which it is getting and that it is set up as a statutory body. I wish it every success. I feel that the nation will be grateful to it if it can once more introduce some sort of quality of living in this country by insisting on an ample standard of production and design in everything made in this country—and that goes for such things as the advertising of commodities, and so forth. There is no reason why labels, cartons and other means of advertising should not be up to a standard of reasonably good design in this country and produced by our own artists so as to give some individual character to them.

Mr. Colgan

On my own behalf and I am sure, on behalf of many of the Senators in this House, I should like to repudiate what has been said by the last speaker, namely, that Irish manufacturers produce shoddy articles. Irish manufacturers have had many difficulties to contend with. Despite what the last Senator has said in a rather sweeping way, and what Senator Baxter said in a general way, the industrial revolution has not started to-day—or else I have been dreaming for the past 15 or 16 years. Our Irish manufacturers, generally speaking— Senator Miss Butler spoke generally— are doing a good job and they are doing what they can in face of very difficult circumstances.

With regard to the Bill itself, I think it would not be unfair to say that, in the circumstances, its introduction is rather peculiar. In fact, it is somewhat unique. An authority has been in existence for the past 18 months and obviously money has been paid in respect of it, without having been voted by this House. We are now asked to approve of what was done 18 months ago. I would point out that we have no option but to say "Yes." As Senator Hawkins said, if this Bill had been introduced previous to the actual setting up of this body, we would have had an opportunity of making suggestions as to how the authority would be developed.

It is rather annoying to hear people on the other side of the House implying that we are starting industrial development in this country and that we have not done anything about it heretofore. Senator Baxter spoke about the decentralisation of industry. I ask the House if here is any fairly average-sized town in this country in which an industry, big or small, has not been established by the last Government.

What we are doing in effect is that we are passing the buck, to use a Yankee expression. We are taking from the authority of the Department of Industry and Commerce a job that should be done by them and passing it on to an outside body. I blame both Governments in this matter. There seems to be an all-wise solution for all problems and that is to pass them on to somebody else. We had several difficult problems over the years—emigration, youth unemployment and vocational training—and we have always passed them over to commissions and I suggest that this body is something in the nature of a commission to which we are passing this problem.

I do not want to be taken as using this Bill in any critical way when I say that I do not know that any of the four people concerned in the Bill have any real experience of industry. I believe that there might have been some representation of the operative side of labour but there is none. I think the contribution from the employers' side is negligible just as it is from the labour aspect. There are people put up there and what knowledge they have on the matters concerned I do not know. The Minister has said that they are men of wide and practical experience but I do not know in what field they have that experience. I think it is only fair to this House when it is asked to pay substantial salaries to the people named in the Bill that it ought to be told the particular qualifications which these men have that fit them for the job. Be that as it may we are all anxious now that the authority is there to see that it is a success no matter what its personnel. We realise much can be done to improve industry in this country. Much has been done since 1932 when the industrial revolution started. I am talking as a man of practical experience when I say that was achieved through the Department of Industry and Commerce through the last Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass. A lot of people talk about the industrial revolution. It started in 1932 and we have made much progress in industry in this country and what we want to do is to help this authority to further develop industry. My main objection to this Bill is that this work could easily have been as efficiently done by the Department of Industry and Commerce as was the case under the previous Government.

Mr. McGee

I think, in view of all the talk there has been about this organisation, that I should express my personal appreciation of what this body has done. There had been a lot of talk about when the industrial revolution started and in that we could go back a long way. We then came to the time of Mr. McGilligan and the Shannon scheme and then a little town with a population of something like 2,500 in Ardee did something for itself in 1925. From 1932 to 1940 it was constantly rapping at the door of the Department of Industry and Commerce to get a chance to do something more. However, from the moment I got in touch with my late colleague, Senator Duffy, we were encouraged in every way in our plans. We have got every encouragement from this body that a man could get and I was disappointed to hear Senator Ó Buachalla describing them as inexperienced men.

Liam Ó Buachalla

I did not say anything of the sort. I said they were not supermen.

Mr. McGee

You did not say they were incapable?

Liam Ó Buachalla

I did not say they were incapable. I said they were not supermen.

Mr. McGee

These men started into their job at once and took a serious interest in their work and if they continue in that way they will succeed and we will succeed with them. They will not, however, succeed if responsible authorities in Ireland or members of the Oireachtas particularly indulge in unnecessary criticism of every job they undertake. It is a mistake for some of us to be too critical of things just for our own purposes because such criticisms tend to affect the businessmen and create headaches where men might be found to subscribe to a public association or company only to find that responsible authorities and others, particularly in the Oireachtas, are indulging in criticisms of the entire project.

We have in my district worked very hard on a number of projects which are the first since the chair factory was established about 25 years ago. Inquiries are being made into rural areas towards Meath and Cavan and we can see that every sympathy has been given in these inquiries by Dr. Beddy, Mr. Luke Duffy, Mr. McCourt and Mr. Walsh. They have persisted in the matters and have given excellent help. The rush to schemes like that without gaining the necessary local capital is difficult. There is no question of the extent of the inquiries that that body will receive. No one political Party is going to make oil. It must be the common object of all Parties. While a Senator may want to get a slight blow in, at the same time he knows that we are well protected and that no one wants to make political capital out of the situation. This is a well worked out idea. I would appeal to the House to pass the Bill. As far as I am concerned, I have personal experience of this body and the members are most helpful. I am not an expert, but it has been proved to me that they are going on the right road to success. Everything has been truly explained and we have the greatest confidence that we will have good results. I wonder how long those peaceful pursuits may be employed in world history, looking for many of the raw materials for certain articles that must be imported. I am perfectly satisfied that there is an earnestness and enthusiasm in this body. Senator Duffy in this House was well known to be a practical man. He frequently worried me in the House with the fluency with which he debated subjects, but he is a man in whom I have every confidence. As a man who has been looking for an industry for 20 years, I have succeeded in getting one which I think is worth while and I think he will be doing as excellent a job there as he did here. We have many difficulties to meet, but so long as you have a painstaking authority, not too closely associated with the Minister, all is well. To my mind, it will mean more support coming from the various authorities. I hope this House will pass this Bill without any undue criticism and I wish it all the best of luck.

Professor O'Brien

It is a pleasure to speak on a Bill of this kind, as I think it is true to say that all Parties in the House are in favour of industrial development, although there may be a detailed criticism regarding the manner, time and possibly the personnel. On that point, I think it is only fair to say that I know the various members of the Industrial Development Authority; one or two of them, the younger ones, I possibly know better than most people in the House. I can certainly say that I cannot think of any four people better qualified to enjoy confidence than the four gentlemen whom the Government have chosen for this very critical task.

We are all agreed, and everybody has always been agreed, since the passing of the Treaty 30 years ago that a policy of industrialisation for this country is a desirable thing. There have been differences of opinion regarding methods and regarding the pace at which they should go.

Senator Miss Butler has said, very wisely, I think, that we have gained something by starting late in the day, and the very fact that we had not gone at too fast a pace meant that by doing so at least we avoided other people's mistakes. An industrial body to-day can possibly have big advantages in the way of new processes and new plans. They have not to write off a great deal of capital that the older countries may have to do. At the same time, of course, one must realise the reason why this country has not advanced more in the industrial field is because there are certain disadvantages and difficulties in the way. They were illustrated very forcibly in the Dáil. The lack of certain raw materials, the lack of a very large market. The very difficulty of the problem enforces the necessity of having it intelligently faced. The very difficulty of industrialisation in this country is the excuse and justification for setting up an expert authority such as this body. I think everybody will agree that if industrialisation is to be successfully achieved it will have to be carefully planned in the circumstances of the time. I think also that it must be agreed that if the process goes further it becomes more difficult as the more obvious openings are taken.

The more is invested, the more difficult it becomes to find suitable investments. It is one of these problems which become increasingly difficult with the passage of time. The most obvious openings have been exploited. The obvious ones were the earliest to be exploited in the policy of industrialisation which both Governments followed. In little ways, in different ways, their methods have stood, but I do not wish to make any Party debating points in a debate which has not been carried on on Party lines. As a matter of history, I do not think it is fair to assume that the industrialisation policy began in 1932. It may have been accelerated, pushed forward. It is only fair to the first Government of this country to say that a considerable number of the more successful industries which we have to-day were obtained between the Treaty and 1932. I do not think one can really say that industrialisation in this country started at any particular point, but there has been a continuous industrialisation policy since the passing of the Treaty.

On this question of the location of industries, there is a necessity for the very conscious type of planning. There is something in what Senator Miss Butler has said, that we have to face the fact whether we like it or not, a progressive type of agriculture will not absorb more labour. The capacity for absorbing labour in agriculture is of necessity limited. It might stem the tide of emigration, by artificially planting people on the land or artificially keeping people on the land. But this is really setting the clock back. It is more realistic to face the facts that progressive agriculture involves less employment and increases the necessity to try to absorb population in rural industries, such as have been discussed this evening, under the Industrial Development Authority.

As I said, the very difficulty of the problem, the fact that we have started so late in the day, the fact that our natural resources are not particularly adapted to industrial development, the fact that other countries have got ahead of us in the race, are considerations which make it more necessary rather than less necessary that some authority of this kind should be set up.

I think we are forced to admit, in the exigencies of the present situation, that private enterprise unaided cannot be expected to put through a scheme of industrialisation in the circumstances in this country to-day. At the same time, I do not think anyone wishes to see an entirely nationalised industrial structure here and one of the advantages of this Industrial Development Authority seems to me to be that it provides some sort of co-ordination between private enterprise and public planning. If it works well it may possibly bridge the gap between State planning and private enterprise. The success of this venture depends on the utmost co-operation and goodwill between the Government Departments concerned, private enterprise and capital. Finally, I think it is only fair to mention labour, the trade unionists and the various labour organisations, whose co-operation is necessary to the success of this policy.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Professor O'Brien

There are one or two more or less detailed observations about the authority which I would like to make at this stage. What I have to say is, perhaps, more appropriate to the Committee Stage, but there are two or three points of a general nature we can approach on the Second Reading. The duties of the authority seem to be twofold. I am just wondering how far the two duties are quite consistent with each other. In the first place, the authority is asked to administer the work which has been done hitherto by the Trade and Industries Branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce.

That, as far as I understand, involves a great deal of detail and day to day administration investigation of applications for licences, the working of tariffs, quite small matters which take a great deal of time in relation to the magnitude of the issues involved. It has been suggested in the debate in the Dáil—and I would draw the Minister's attention to the point—that the members of the authority may find a disproportionate amount of their time absorbed in these routine day to day duties. That may not leave them time for their more characteristic duties of investigating and initiating new industrial enterprises. That is a matter which deserves attention. I have already heard it suggested that even up to the present time the members of the authority have had to devote a good deal of attention to details of administration which have taken away time from their more important function of planning new industrial development.

Another point arising out of that is related to the staffing. As far as I can make out from the Bill, the staff of the authority will be civil servants, although the members of the authority themselves are not. I take it, therefore, that they will be appointed through the ordinary machinery of Civil Service appointments. The point has already been made in the course of this debate, and I simply want to repeat what Senator Douglas has said, that you may require two different kinds of staff for this authority. Whereas civil servants may be the most appropriate type for the purely administrative side, you will require for the more imaginative or productive side a different type of official. The whole question of the recruitment of staff is worthy of consideration.

Civil servants, as everyone knows, are excellent inside their limitations, but the particular type of ability and research which may be called for by the more progressive part of the development may require a different type of mind. I do not wish to give the impression of being an interested party, or to use this debate in order to advance the interest of any class of people with whom I am associated, but I think it is the fair thing to say that there might be room for the employment of university graduates for the second function of the authority.

The Anglo-American productivity inquiries in recent years have stressed that in American industry the proportion of graduates employed is very much higher than it is in Great Britain. The suggestion is very definitely made by these productivity inquiries that the employment of graduates has had good results. One of the reasons always put forward for reducing or limiting the financial subventions to the Irish universities is that so many of our graduates have to emigrate to seek employment. I believe that the difficulty could be surmounted to some extent if the authority could find employment for specialised research workers from the ranks of university graduates. The point I am making is more or less the same as that made by Senator Butler, regarding the people who are trained in the applied arts, that there must be employment in Ireland not only for people engaged in industrial production and so on, but for people with university degrees who are capable of the more imaginative and less routine type of research for which the Industrial Development Authority is primarily set up. I think that this distinction between the two functions should be borne in mind and perhaps might be accentuated to a greater degree than it is in the text of the Bill.

There are four minor points which are of sufficient general interest to raise on the Second Reading. There is one important fuction which I suggest might be added to those already endowed on the Industrial Development Authority, that is, the power to include restrictive practices and monopolies. There has been a great deal of discussion recently about the effect of restrictive practices in this country on raising prices, restricting entry to trade and generally operating in restraint of trade, injuring consumers, competition and so on. How far these complaints are justified it is not for me to say and this is not the place to debate it, but I suggest that some powers analogous to those possessed by the monopolies commission in England might be added to those in the Bill for the Industrial Development Authority. The authority seems to possess the sort of personnel competent to make this type of inquiry and I suggest that it is worth consideration whether some powers of investigation of this kind in addition to those already contained in the Bill might be added.

There is another point which I have previously raised in this House in connection with other Bills. It is a point of general interest and I mention it in order that it may not be overlooked. I do not expect to make any impression, but at the same time, I wish to register a protest. I refer to the provision in the Bill that members of this authority shall be ineligible to sit in either the Dáil or the Seanad. I do not propose to express an opinion on whether that is an appropriate exclusion or not in this case, but I suggest, and have suggested before, that this divorce between business administration and practical politics may go too far. In respect of every public board set up here—the Central Bank, the Electricity Supply Board, Córas Iompair Éireann and now this board—a clause is put in automatically by the Parliamentary Draftsman providing that members of these boards cannot be members of the Dáil or Seanad. I am not saying that there is not something to be debated, but I say that the exclusion is not self-evident.

As I said before when dealing with the railway company, I have always read and heard that one of the great strengths of the British House of Commons was that it was not confined to professional politicians, but was composed very largely of people who had commercial, financial and industrial experience during the rest of their time, and I cannot help feeling that if ambitious and able people in this country are not allowed to take part in the administration of the big public services and in politics, both the public services and politics may suffer as a result. I cannot help feeling that membership of some of these boards might be a positive help to a member of the Dáil or Seanad. I also suggest, although perhaps it may sound strange coming from a member of the Seanad, that it is worthy of consideration whether membership of some of these bodies might exclude from the Dáil but not from the Seanad, because the Dáil is the body where money is voted, the body through which the Estimates go.

If what I say is true, that there should not be a divorce between administration of the big services and practical politics, a very good compromise between the present exclusion and having too great an association would be that members of these boards should be eligible to sit in this House but not in the other. There is a precedent for that in England to-day. I understand that members of various boards such as the National Coal Board can be members of the House of Lords but are excluded from the House of Commons. That seems to be a compromise to enable people with practical experience of the administration of these great nationalised industries to take part in debates in Parliament where the policies of these industries are discussed. It might even contribute something to a solution of the problem which we discussed here on the occasion of Senator Orpen's motion earlier this year, as to how far it is possible to have some sort of link between parliamentary control and Government-sponsored bodies. If every person appointed to a board is automatically excluded from Parliament, it either means that we are deprived of a great deal of business ability, or that a business may be deprived of a certain type of ability of which it might very well make good use.

There is another point which is of a somewhat similar nature—the extreme powers conferred on the Industrial Development Authority of a quasi-judicial character under which the authority has power to summon witnesses, to administer oaths and almost to constitute itself a court of law. I cannot help feeling, from the point of view of the Constitution, that the conferring of these judicial powers on any body outside the public courts of justice is a dangerous precedent. I think the onus is on the Minister to prove that those powers are required. Personally, I do not believe they are, and I certainly will always regard with great suspicion and a very jealous eye the conferring of judicial powers of commitment, prosecution for perjury, administration of oaths, and compulsory attendance of witnesses on subordinate tribunals, however worthy they may be for the performance of administrative functions. The setting up of judicial tribunals other than the public courts of law established under the Constitution is, to my mind, a danger, something which should be very carefully watched and something which should not be tolerated, unless a very strong case is made for its necessity by the Minister proposing to confer these powers.

The final point I want to make, although it may appear to deal with individuals, is also one of public importance, the point referred to by Senator Summerfield. If one reads the debate on this Bill in the Dáil one thing appears very clear. I am not criticising in the least the Opposition Party for their attitude; it is one they are perfectly entitled to adopt. They themselves have made it perfectly clear beyond all question of doubt that if they come back into power as a Government they intend to abolish this machinery, this Industrial Development Authority, and they hold out no hope of continuous office, reappointment or compensation to the gentlemen who constitute this authority. They have made their position perfectly clear and I do not blame them as they are perfectly entitled to take that line if they wish. What I suggest, however, is that, in view of the declared attitude of the Opposition in this matter, it is the duty of the Government in some way or another to make sure that the gentlemen who have sacrificed their business careers to carry out their policy should be made safe from the consequences of a summary or capricious change of policy. It is not a matter affecting all these gentlemen as one is provided for in the Schedule to the Bill. The others have simply been given four years' tenure of office without any provision for compensation. I am not concerned with the individual gentlemen who are all, I am sure, quite well able to look after themselves but a constitutional point is involved. The country will not get men of the right sort with business experience and business ability to abandon their own businesses or their own professions in order to take their place on public boards if they do not get some sort of guarantee either of continual employment or of compensation for loss of office.

That is linked up with an earlier point of the personnel of these boards. Each is appointed under a separate Act without sufficient attention being paid to the larger—I might almost say the constitutional—issues involved. One constitutional issue which is involved is the exclusion from the Dáil and Seanad of members of these boards. That certainly requires investigation. Another constitutional issue is, I think, involved here. People are asked to contribute their services to the public service, as in this case, and are told quite clearly that in certain eventualities they may find themselves thrown out of a job. You are not going to get people of the type needed for the public service unless the people rendering it who must give up their own businesses or professions are given some guarantee of security of tenure, or at least some compensation for loss of office.

Those points can be gone into more fully on the Committee Stage, but a general outline of them is not out of place on this stage. Subject to these reservations, I welcome the introduction of the Bill and hope it will be passed by the House.

Mrs. Concannon

I think that the Minister should be pleased by the reception given to this Bill because all the criticism was constructive, given with the object of making it a better Bill and helping him to obtain the objective which people must have before them if they have the interests of Ireland at heart, that is the development of our industries. It is not a new thing to realise the necessity to develop our industries. My mind goes back more than 50 years to the time when the Gaelic League in season and out of season was preaching the necessity of supporting Irish industry. At that time some brave industrialists faced the risk and established industries, among them men like Senator Gibbons who was in Clery's at the time. A tableau of Irish industry manned by these young men had a prominent place in a Gaelic League procession, I remember. D.P. Moran of The Leader preached 50 years ago the doctrine of Irish industry and we had Arthur Griffith, nomen præclorum et venerabile, telling us in season and out of season that we should develop another arm; that England kept us with one arm tied and prevented us from developing our Irish industries. Brave people set before themselves to develop Irish industry, but of course we had no control over tariffs and we needed freedom to develop it completely.

With the measure of freedom we got from the Treaty an attempt was made which was strengthened under Fianna Fáil. Both Governments did develop Irish industry, so it is no new thing, but to get support for it is another thing. We must remember that it is a part of our patriotism and we must not run down the efficiency of Irish industries without any proof at all as Senator Butler did. We have no proof of that at all. In the school in which I was reared we almost thought it a sin to wear anything but Irish manufacture. Sometimes one has to do it, but I always think it is against my conscience. To help Irish industries is an effort which must be made and every effort—and the establishment of this authority is meant as an effort to develop them—should be welcomed.

The criticism to this Bill was helpful and was given in a good-natured way. The most damaging speech was that of Senator McGee. He suggested that if you knew one of the members of the authority you would get an industry. I know that particular member very well myself. I wish I had got that tip and I would have got an industry for Galway. I must act on it. When this authority comes to deal with Galway one thing it must realise is that the success of industry in Galway, as anywhere else, depends on transport. The future of Galway is linked with the development of its harbour. If there is to be any development of industry in the West, Galway Harbour and the other harbours along the western and southern coast must be developed and I hope that when the authority gets into its stride it will bear that in mind.

Like Senator Hawkins and Senator O'Farrell, I want to know what the authority is to do. We have heard no provision for a report and, like Senator O'Farrell, I think that there should be. The Irish people should know what it is doing, as they are underwriting a cheque which is a blank cheque, to a large extent, because we have no figures except the salaries of the members. We would like to know if we are getting value and—a thing we need badly—it would stimulate interest in Irish industry if they did tell us some of their experiences. They need not give us particulars, but they should give us an over-all picture.

I agree, too, with Senator O'Farrell in regretting that no place was made on the authority for the men of the Dublin Industrial Development Association who, for 45 years, fought the battle for Irish industry like that great woman, Miss Somers, who almost gave her life for it. There has been no mention of them and no provision for them and that is greatly to be regretted. If we knew what the Industrial Development Authority were going to do it would stimulate interest in their work and get the whole people behind them and if we get the whole people behind them there is no objective at which we cannot aim.

I should like to suggest to the authority that there should be a development, now that the spirit of rural electrification is here, of home industry. I wish some of the members came here and heard Senator Hearne tell us about what he found in Czechoslovakia in the old days. There were country industries there—all due to the provision of power. There is a book called Reasons for France which shows how the prosperity of France, through all the revolutions, depended on the country industries. They got electric power from their mountain streams. Every little village specialised in home industries. Then that entails—and the Industrial Development Authority will also have to take it into consideration— a great selling organisation. I think we have much to learn from other smallish countries. We cannot keep our eyes on the big countries: they only spoil our vision. I expect that all the members of the authority were chosen for their energy and ability. I hope they will learn as much as they can from countries which are in a somewhat similar position to that of our own, and bring home the results of what they have learned and let us know something about them. As Senator O'Farrell stated, it would be a pity that it should all be whispered in the Minister's ear and that the country would not know anything about what the authority are doing or what they are aiming at.

Dr. O'Connell

In its essence, this is really a simple Bill. Under Section 2 the authority is set up and Section 3 sets out its functions. The rest of the measure deals with the manner in which these functions are to be carried out. In so far as the Bill is intended to encourage and develop Irish industry, I do not think there can be any question of not giving it full and enthusiastic support.

I agree with Senator Mrs. Concannon and Senator George O'Brien that, as was implied earlier in the debate, industrial development as we know it now did not begin in 1932. In fact, it did not begin in 1922, as Senator Mrs. Concannon pointed out. It was part and parcel of the Irish Ireland movement to encourage in every way the development and growth of Irish industry and to support Irish manufactured goods.

The Government which operated from 1922 to 1932 encouraged industry, and, as has been said, some of the most important industries we have in this country were set up at that time. Undoubtedly, the rate was very much accelerated in 1932. Some people were inclined to question the wisdom of the policy of increased acceleration, at least to the extent to which there was acceleration.

While I join with those who pay tribute to the Irish manufacturers and industrialists who set up their industries here, I do so with certain reservations. Undoubtedly, during that period so-called industries were set up in backyards, stables and cellars in this country—industries that nobody in this country could afford to be proud of. That happened as a result of the failure to give the full examination and investigation that ought to be given before permission is granted to set up an industry. Under the previous Government there was tariff commission—a very much-criticised commission at the time. That commission had the effect, however, of giving very careful examination before a measure of protection was accorded to a particular industry. That was good. I think Senator Colgan, and other Senators also, criticised the action of this Government, and possibly of previous Governments, in regard to the setting up of commissions—that whenever a problem cropped up that required to be investigated, they appointed a commission. It is quite fashionable to criticise commissions, but what about the opposite extreme? It would, simply, be dictatorship. Joseph Stalin does not set up a commission when he wants anything done; neither did Hitler in the old days. Commissions are an outward and visible sign of our democracy. The Government go to some people who, they believe, are in a position to give them good and sound advice. Senator Ó Buachalla said that the former Minister for Industry and Commerce let himself in for unwarranted criticism because he did all these things on his own and without setting up an authority or commission to give him advice.

From the very beginning, since our Parliament was set up, a demand was made, and emphasised on many occasions, particularly by the Labour Party, for the establishment of some outside authority that would plan the setting up of industrial development on a long-term basis—that would look ahead, not dealing immediately with the applications from various interested parties but as to how far industries would affect the whole economic situation. The authority now being set up meets that demand to some extent. I understood Senator Ó Buachalla, while agreeing with the principle in this Bill, to say that it was not the best way of putting it into effect. I am not quite sure that he suggested any better way except that of leaving it in the hands of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He mentioned that the various bodies he specified—the Industrial Credit Corporation, the Federation of Industries and the Dublin Chamber of Commerce—carried out investigation. However, they investigated for their own interest and profit. No matter how much they may protest to the contrary, I do not believe they had the good of the nation as their first and main object. Most of the criticism we can have at this stage as to the success or failure of this authority would, I think, be in the nature of prophecy—and, of course, one cannot argue with prophets, as has been said on more than one occasion.

I agree with Senator Mrs. Concannon and, I think, with Senator O'Farrell, that it would be advisable to have some sort of report from this body. Evidently, some Senators who have spoken here have had contact, because it is part of their business, with this authority. It was not part of my business nor, I am sure, that of many other Senators, to meet these people, but, at the same time, it would be very interesting to know what they are doing. I have not had the slightest idea of what they have been doing in the past 18 months. I think they should make some form of a report, not necessarily a detailed report, as to what they are doing, what they propose to do and what they intend to do, and that the scope of their operations ought to be made known annually. It might take the form of a report to the Minister, say, as to what has been done—the same as other similar bodies do. I thoroughly agree that at least there ought to be some form of report. It is well that they should not be working entirely in the dark in so far as the vast majority of the people are concerned—people who have not any immediate business with them.

With regard to the point raised by Senator George O'Brien, as to whether this body should have authority to deal with restrictive practices, I imagine that the question of prices should be the concern of another body which I understand is in contemplation, namely the Prices Tribunal. That body should deal with that aspect of our economic condition. There is not very much to be said at this stage of the Bill beyond that we welcome it and in so far as it will do what it is expected to do we will give it all the support we can and will co-operate with it in every way we can.

Mr. Loughman

If I could feel that this authority was going to improve the position in regard to the development of Irish industry I would be for it 100 per cent., but my experience since 1932 has been that the Minister with the staff available to him in the Department of Industry and Commerce was able to develop industry as fast as this country needed it. I believe, therefore, that the appointment of this body is to a great extent extending bureaucracy in this country. I remember when I was a member of the Government Party in the Dáil, one of the charges constantly levelled at Fianna Fáil at that time was that it was a system of government through bureaucracy. If this is not delegating to a group of men powers invested by the people in the Minister and the Government, then I do not know what it is. I feel that when a group of people or a person wishes to start an industry in this country, if there is to be any governmental interference it should be interference by the Minister and the Civil Service. In his speech to-day the Minister told us that these four people appointed were not civil servants. They may not be in name, but in my opinion they are simply a new group of civil servants who have been appointed. In the strict sense I suppose we could not call the judges in the courts civil servants, but these four men are in a somewhat similar position. I cannot see any reason for the appointment of this board except that the present Minister when he was a private Deputy made, on many occasions, statements in which he suggested that he had remedies for everything in the industrial development of this country, and then when he was himself faced with the task before him, he found he needed help from outside. That is my reckoning of the reasons why this Bill was necessary.

I come from a county in which there was much industrial development. I know what has been said of the back-lane factories and child labour. In Clonmel there is a factory which pays wages to the extent of £52,000 per year and that factory was referred to by a supporter of the present Government as a place in which slave wages were paid to the workers and that child labour was employed. We hear quite too much talk in this country about back-lane factories and stables. I resent very much a statement made by Senator Miss Butler, by suggestion, that the industries in this country were turning out inferior quality goods and that the people had to be satisfied with anything because of the system of tariffs and protection; that the standard of goods here was tenth-rate and that the people in England, because of the low standard of production here, were only sending to this country fifth quality goods. I remember the time when members of the Dáil brought into the House articles made by Irish firms and started tearing them up in order to show that the goods were of inferior quality and that the factories were prepared to give the people any kind of thing because they were protected. We can and are producing here, goods, the quality of which is equal to similar goods produced in any part of the world. We are paying in those factories wages equal to those paid to operatives in other parts of the world. When comparisons are made of the difference in the price between goods produced here and in England it must be borne in mind that certain factors operate. If coal, for instance, is being used in the factories here, that coal has to be imported and yet the factories are competing with firms in England which can get that fuel locally and thus effect a considerable saving in their constings. It is not unreasonable that we should pay a little more for the goods produced here in view of that. Further, the factories in Ireland are not operated on the same large scale as they are in an industrial country like England.

A factory which in England might employ 5,000 people would only employ 300 operatives here. That again meant increased overhead charges. Again in this country there is only a limited market and therefore not the same great necessity for variety of design. What we make here is well made and we have designs sufficient for the needs of our people. While I have always recommended that our people should get good value for their money and that the factories should ensure that the goods will be made only of the best quality and at reasonable price, I do not think the question of variety of design is such an important one and it is not as important as the fact that we are producing here for ourselves the goods which we need, and we are employing Irish labour in producing those goods. I think that is of greater importance by far than getting cheaper goods and a greater variety of design.

In regard to the Bill itself, I will just say that I dislike the idea of this authority being established. I suppose I can do nothing about it. I think we have already available facilities for doing the work which it has to do. While saying that, I would add that I feel that if £20,000 instead of the £8,000 which this Bill provides for could be usefully used in extending Irish industry I would be happy to see it spent. I believe, however, that this expenditure on these four men is a feast of extravagance on the part of the Government. I have heard nothing of the work of this authority during the past year and a half except that it has been established but we know nothing whatever of the work it is doing. Anything we know that it has done could quite well have been done as it was by the officers of the Department before this authority was established. I cannot see that it will serve any useful purpose. I feel that it is purely a bureaucratic group and I dislike the fact that the development of industry will be to a great extent in the hands of a group of people who will take their lead from instructions given by the Minister.

There is one thing I would like to say, I am very glad of the fact that this authority is being set up. It is a clear indication that the present Government, like the last Government, is satisfied that the development of the industries in this country is for the benefit of the country and that it is a sign also, I hope, that they intend to proceed more speedily than in the past with the complete industrialisation of our country.

Captain Orpen

Some Senators during this afternoon have claimed that they see no reason why this industrial authority should be set up. They claim that the Trade and Industries branch of Industry and Commerce could and did do all that was necessary for the promotion and the establishment of new industries.

It is worthy of note, however, that other countries over the past 20 or 30 years have found it very desirable, in exceptional circumstances, to set up an organisation to meet a particular ill other than an organisation run on civil service lines. One could instance many, but two instances may be enough.

Following the World War of 1914-1918, the British Government decided to set up a Department of State run, if you like, like an "Alice in Wonderland" Department. They were charged with certain duties. They were given a lump sum of money and told to get on with the job. That was more or less the method of the Development Commission. They, having done the job, were accountable for the way they spent the money. In that way, the day to day control by finance was removed, it being found by experience that that day to day control of the Department of Finance has sometimes a stultifying effect on progress.

An outstanding example of an authority with very considerable powers and large resources which did make very marked progress in a short term of years, is the Tennessee Valley Authority. Now I do not say that we are in the position of countries like the backwood countries with which the Tennessee Valley Authority had to do, but, as far as industry is concerned, our industrial development has not, so far, reached the stage of employing, we will say, half our occupied persons.

We, I think, in industry use about one-fifth of our occupied persons. It is quite clear that to have a satisfactory balance of occupation in modern times will require at least one-third of the occupied people to be engaged in an industry, probably more. It should be our aim, I think, to reach that figure.

Now, I suggest that industrially compared with many other countries of Europe for various causes over which we had little or no control, we may be said to be comparatively backward and it is for that very reason that I think it is more necessary to have a planned approach. When you are highly developed, it is quite possible that haphazard ventures will fill in the gaps just as well as the planned approach. In a relatively undeveloped phase of activity such as that in which our industry is, I rather think that the planned approach may be the most satisfactory, because as everyone is agreed, it would be more advantageous if we could bring about decentralisation of industry.

Now, I think that the Minister, in his opening statement, said something to the effect that no Government had any power to control the location of industry. It is true that they have no statutory powers, but they can, I think, use or exert a certain amount of pressure. I do not see why if an essential part of the development of some new industrial venture is the granting of a tariff or some form of protection why the Government cannot get a quid pro quo for that.

This location of industry, if taken by itself, must have regard to the available labour force, and that is one of the reasons why you tend to get the greater development in the capital. You get an ease of movement and a shift of labour force, but I do not see why it is not possible to stimulate a certain amount of decentralisation in country towns and elsewhere provided housing accommodation is available, so that, with the establishment and subsequent growth of some industry, you have the requisite labour force available to operate it.

Labour to-day is not fluid—fluid in the economic sense—and especially at a time when housing is scarce labour will stay put where it has houses for it. There is not that fluidity that is so desirable between economists now. I feel that the advantage of a body such as this proposed authority over the Civil Service is fairly obvious in that one of the essential things that this authority is charged with doing is initiating. It is not usual for the civil servant to initiate things. He is sometimes asked to do it, but it is not his strong point. He is far better fitted to carry on and administer things that have been initiated by somebody else. That is one of his prime functions. Where initiation of new projects is concerned, where the authority is on the look-out to fill any gaps in our industrial development, where they are charged with the duty of seeing what we lack and how the want can best be filled, who are the best people to do it and how they are to be induced to do it, it seems to me that you require a flexibility of operation in the machinery that is not always to be found within a Government Department, whose tradition is based largely on precedent. As I see it, this authority has been asked to work somewhat in the dark. It was not provided with all the information about the existing set-up of industry and therefore it has to find out statistical information not hither to available.

In other words, an industrial survey has had to be made. It is very hard to ask people to plan when they have not all the information necessary, what one night call the raw materials regarding the industry they are to plan. It is not fair to blame anybody because the information has not been available, but once the planned approach has been decided on, you cannot do it successfully without a considerable volume of information.

It is not fair to expect reports now of work done by this authority which has been in operation for less than 18 months. As set out in this Bill, it will be its duty to report to the Minister. I can understand that. At the same time, the Minister might be well-advised to give a report of what this authority has achieved already. He gave hints at various times of considerable achievements. I would suggest that it is unfair and unreasonable to ask for a report when it is quite obvious that this authority had to do a considerable amount of preliminary investigation into the problems before they could tackle any new venture.

I welcome the setting up of autonomous bodies of this sort, as I feel that they may possess vision, which is so essential for progress. One hopes they will show not only vision, but will succeed in bringing about an expansion of industry which in time will bring up the numbers engaged in industry to such an extent that there will no longer be the necessity for the drift from the country to urban areas to mean emigration. The inevitable drift that is going on and has gone on throughout the ages will then be absorbed in our own industries, in our own country towns.

If anybody is interested to see this change over the ages from primary to secondary production analysed for a good many countries, they will see a very interesting study of it in Colin Clark's Conditions of Economic Progress. We are apt to think that this migration from country to country towns and to cities is peculiar to this country. The migration to the towns is a feature to be found in almost every country in the world. It is the emigration that is characteristic of this country and that, to my mind, can be satisfactorily dealt with only if the industrial arm can succeed in employing this surplus population.

As agriculture develops, the limited amount of land will probably carry a lower number of people. We are producing to-day roughly the same volume of agricultural production as was achieved in 1938-39 with a loss of something like 50,000 persons on the land. In other words, the efficiency has increased. That tendency goes on and the only satisfactory place to absorb those people is into industry. For that reason and that reason alone, I welcome any move which will tend to augment and increase employment in our expanding industry.

Mr. Anthony

During the whole of to-day's session up to now, no Senators have made adverse comments on this Bill. From Senator Baxter down to the last speaker, mention has been made of one feature of which I took a note when the Minister was speaking on the particular section, and the words he used were, I think, when the question of authority came about, that there was no authority to name a particular place in which industry should be located. I want to emphasise and underline what has been said by all the speakers so far in that connection. If the Minister has not convinced himself that he already has these powers, he should seek to get powers of this character, even in limited form.

We hear from time to time, here and in the other House and in the public Press, a lot of lip sympathy being poured out with regard to emigration. This emigration is brought about largely by the fact that there is no employment in this country for the people who emigrate. Here we have a case in which, in my view—and I believe it is a view which is shared by those members of the Seanad who have spoken—some powers, even of a limited character, should be taken by the Minister and then delegated to this authority. We have sufficient evidence to show that industries established else where than in this city have proved successful and very many of these industries are situated many miles from the City of Dublin. In the City of Cork, for example, we have boot and shoe industries, clothing industries and we have the Sunbeam Wolsey people manufacturing nylons which are being exported to many countries in the world. They have very large customers in Britain and elsewhere, all going to show that, even in cities and towns remote from Dublin, industries can be carried on which can export their manufactured goods.

I have a feeling that in Cork, in Clare or in Mayo good and intelligent workers will be found available. As I say, the Sunbeam Wolsey people in Cork are exporting their goods across-Channel, and we have factories in Midleton and Youghal. When I say "we", I refer to the firm of Dwyers, who established these factories. All these are successful factories, as is proved by the dividends the shareholders receive.

I am very much opposed to this business of having Dublin as the locale of these factories for various reasons. The principal reason has been mentioned already. Dublin is top-heavy, economically and otherwise. It is becoming almost impossible to walk the streets or even to get to one's destination at any given time. There is also the added reason that it is not possible to house these people when they come to Dublin. I learned to-day from corporators and others that there are thousands and thousands of people awaiting houses, and if we are to establish more industries in Dublin where are the operatives to be housed? All these are questions which should be considered seriously by the Minister and those associated with him.

I cannot see why the Minister cannot take these powers. I feel that he should exercise these powers in regard to naming the local. I do not expect the Minister to answer this question, but why is it that Dublin should be named by potential factory builders as the locale of their industry? They do not come here for the good of their health; they come here to make money; and nobody is going to start a factory in this country unless he feels he is going to make money out of it. I know that the Minister is sympathetic and I hope he will bear in mind what has been said by Senator Baxter, by Senator Orpen and other Senators, all of whom, I feel, were in sympathy with the idea I have in mind, that, if and when industries are about to be established, with the benediction of this new authority, these people should be told: "There are centres in Mayo, in Donegal, in Galway and in Cork County where the necessary labour and all the other facilities are available". Perhaps the facilities are not as good as may be found in Dublin, but, at the same time, the manufacturer manufacturing a product adds something in the shape of overheads when about to sell his goods. I hope that some power, even of a limited kind, will be taken in this connection. Potential promoters of industry will be found who will accept a direction in this respect rather than miss the opportunity of getting intelligent operatives from the young people leaving our schools, the young people who at present are going, possibly to factories across-Channel, when they could get a better living at home if they got the chance.

Mr. Fitzsimons

It is not with any enthusiasm for this Bill that I rise to speak and I must say that by no means do I feel disposed to support the creation of this authority, because, since its establishment, four industries in County Meath have been refused protection on the recommendation of this authority. If that is the spirit in which it is to work and if every other county was dealt with similarly within the past year and a half, the sooner that authority is wiped out the better. An industry in the small town of Trim, Trimproof, Ltd., looked for protection and did not get it; the Navan steel-works sought protection and did not get it. The Navan foundry looked for the reimposition of the tariff and did not get it. There is one other case in abeyance for a long time—the Kells lager factory. If that is the spirit this authority is going to work in, I am afraid that so far as it is concerned the help the industrial revival will get will be very little.

That is my explanation of any opposition I have to offer to the establishment of this authority. If we had had to depend on that authority for the progress we have made over the years since before the establishment of this State and since its establishment, probably many of us would have been unable to survive the last war. We might not have had the necessary clothes to wear or food to eat. Many industries were established during both the Cumann na nGaedheal and the Fianna Fáil régimes, and we probably would not have the electricity supply we have to-day if the Government of the day had not taken the bull by the horns and quite sensibly established the Electricity Supply Board. The same applies to the beet factories. When they went out of power their successors abolished the tariff commission and, I believe, rightly so, because if it had not been abolished and if the then Minister for Industry and Commerce had not protected the country's industries, we could not have survived the last war.

Are we to be placed in the position of being unable to survive if another war takes place? If the Government are to be guided by this industrial authority, an authority which refused to give the necessary protection to Irish industries, and if they are to accept the recommendations of this authority, I do not know what will happen to the country.

In my opinion it should be a Government responsibility and the Minister with the civil servants who have handled this problem over a large number of years should know the needs of the people better and more quickly. Who should know better the needs of the people than the Government which is supported by the people? For the reasons I have outlined I cannot give any support to the establishment of this body. If we had had to depend on people who thought over the years as they think and if the Fianna Fáil régime had not taken the bull by the horns we would have been in great difficulty during the last war. Personally, I am very much opposed to the establishment of such an authority at the present time in this country.

Mr. Burke

I welcome the establishment of the Industrial Development Authority principally for the fact that it is taking industry out of the hands of the Department of Industry and Commerce and of the civil servants. I believe that civil servants are persons who, due to their training and their establishment, are not suitable to direct industry. Their approach is generally not an industrialist's approach and they tend to hamper the development of industry so it is very desirable and helpful that it should be removed. No one can tell me that it is not necessary to have this authority. There are many small towns in the country which want industries and there are many people who want to start industries. Such people can approach this authority who will tell them that they have a town with certain facilities where workers and capital are available and in that way it can act as contact between those who want to start industries and the towns that want industries started. For that reason alone it is necessary to have this authority.

I should like to suggest that there should be some representation on this authority of those engaged in industrial activity. I remember that on the Vocational Bill it was suggested that there should be a council of industry. There should be some form of consultative council representative of the chambers of commerce and the Federation of Irish Industries to advise this authority with regard to policy. I believe that the authority will after a certain time in office tend to become executive in their functions and they will want somebody outside who will have a wider and larger view to give them a little help now and again regarding the framing of their policy and to give them the businessman's approach to many of the problems that will confront them.

I do not like the conferring on this authority the powers to summon witnesses under oath and of quasi-judicial functions. I would not like to give them to any authority. If necessary, let people be brought before the properly established courts of the country and let them be tried there. This, to my mind, savours of Star Chamber justice, and I would ask the Minister to modify the section in such a way as to deal with the objections raised by Senator O'Brien. The question has been raised on many other Bills where powers of this sort were given to officials of the State.

It has been said that almost a quarter of the population of this State now resides in the City of Dublin and I suggest that one of the reasons that industries were established in Dublin is that the Electricity Supply Board gave preference in rates for light and power to industries which established themselves in the Dublin area. I was pleased, however, to read in last Sunday's Independent that the Electricity Supply Board has decided to reduce the cost of industrial lighting by something over 9 per cent. The report said that they did not know whether the cost of industrial power would be reduced. It has been shown now that it is the policy of the Government to make concessions to industries outside Dublin, but they should go the whole hog and reduce power costs outside Dublin. There is no use in giving lip service in these matters and this preference should be given in industries 25 miles outside the metropolitan area.

An industry is being established outside the city. Its fabric is growing and many articles made in that industry will be further processed in the southern capital and the railway carrying those goods to Cork will be subsidised by State revenue. No special rates should be granted to such people in order to allow them to establish industries in Dublin. That is question of blame, but I also have praise. An industry has been established in the Waterford area which is the type of decentralisation we are looking for, a cardboard mill employing 500 people, and there are two or three more which, when they are fully developed, will employ 200 or 300 hands. The authority has been active in seeing that these industries will be established. Power should be taken to see that such industries are established and one of the things which draws, an industry is cheap power, so why not give cheap power 25 miles outside the metropolitan area? There is one company for which I have no great admiration which built ships that could only come into the Port of Dublin, not Galway, Waterford or any of our other ports. They were designed to give Dublin the monopoly of the use of these larger ships. Thank God, only two were built, and I hope that no more will be built.

I welcome the Bill, and I would ask the Minister to take note of the observations I have made and see that the Government speeds up the decentralisation of industry because I think that both our Irish Governments will be blamed by future historians for the fact that they did not do something about decentralisation in this country.

Mr. McGuire

I have a lot of practical experience of dealing with the Department of Industry and Commerce over the past 30 years, and I feel and know that this Bill in its conception at least is a definite step forward in the handling of the problems with which it is designed to deal, namely, the establishment of industries and the reduction of our dependence on imports. I am very sorry that the Opposition saw fit to damn this Bill at its very birth, and almost before examining what it is all about. A statement was made that this authority would be done away with immediately the Opposition achieved power in the future. I think that was a deplorable thing because I have practical experience and I know how the Department of Industry and Commerce in the past handled this whole business of protection for Irish industry with which we all agree. For anybody outside industry, however, from the point of view of distribution and of the consumer, it was a most heartbreaking situation, because it was almost impossible to get satisfaction for any but one side. It was a purely one-sided approach and that was because of the rigid Civil Service approach. A lot has been said to-night about the Civil Service, but civil servants are completely under the control of a particular Minister. That has been held to be a very great thing, but I think it is a very great defect, because it means that unless an Order comes from the Minister, who has not time to deal with all the questions he should deal with every day, everything is wound up in the red tape machine.

The Minister has delegated, as has been stated here, his power to this authority. It must be remembered that this authority is composed of business men or, at least, that was what it was conceived as being composed of. However, they are men who have had direct contacts with business on the manufacturing, distributing and labour sides of it. I, and a lot of other people, have found that you can make immediate contact with the authority —and that means immediate contact with the Minister himself. Actually, that is not generally known and recognised. A lot of delay has been caused up to the present because people still deal with the authority on the old Civil Service basis. They are inclined to go to the Department and not to the authority. It is not generally known that the business man can go direct to the authority. You can ring up the chairman and he will answer you himself. I have had experience of it and I may say that I was getting no special treatment in that respect, because anybody can do it. As a result of being able to do that, you will get the speedy handling of problems which is absolutely essential in business and which was never present in the old method of dealing with these industrial problems.

In connection with the fostering of industry in this country I would point out that more people are concerned than the industrialist himself. Nowadays, if anybody stands up and says one word against an industrialist or protection in this country he is regarded as being an enemy of Irish industry. That is not true. I am 100 per cent. for the fostering of Irish industry and for protecting it fully and as necessary as needs be, but what we have had in the past has been a maximum of protection of Irish industry with the maximum of dislocation and disturbance to distributors and consumers alike. I have always contended that unnecessary hardship should not be inflicted on the other elements of the community in protecting industry.

Protect it by all means, but in such a way as consideration will be given to other members of the community. There is provision made in that respect in this measure. It specifically states that the functions of the authority shall be—

"to investigate the effects of protective measures with special reference to employment, prices, quality of goods, wage levels and conditions of employment...."

There are more kinds of employment in this country than that of industry. There are people employed in distribution, travellers, and so forth. As well as that, we know quite definitely that tariffs put up prices. That is all right when it is done for a good object. Quotas, also, restrict quantities. At present there is a great outcry about the cost of living, high prices, scarcities, and so on. Many of the high prices are directly due to wooden protection, if you like to put it that way. As well as that, there are scarcities in certain commodities which are due to the rigid application of quotas for years past. I know that from my own business.

At present, there is a lot of talk to the effect that woollen blankets have been put under the counter. This is not true. The blankets are just not there. The price of wool is going up and there has been an increased demand for the limited quantities available. The market is already restricted by very rigid quotas on the import of woollen blankets into this country. By all means protect the manufacturers with quotas but for years past, no draper in Ireland could get anything like the quantity of woollen blankets he required. There could have been a far freer distribution of quotas here for the importation of woollen blankets without impairing the Irish market. I know, from my experience, that I am stating facts. I have had contacts with this authority and I know that they are examining at present the quota situation as a result of representations which were made and as a result of the obvious effects in recent times of unwise application of quotas.

I understand that something has been done in the matter. That information may, in some way, answer the criticisms of Senator Loughman and Senator Fitzsimons, who stated that, as far as they knew, everything in the past was perfect, and that, in fact, they knew industries which were thoroughly satisfied with the way things were done previous to the setting up of this Industrial Development Authority. That may have been their experience in their particular industries, but that was only one section of the community which was in that happy position.

I have already mentioned that when anybody criticises protection or tariffs he is dubbed a bad Irishman. Let us be frank about the matter and admit that that is not so. A Senator criticised Irish industry in back rooms, and so forth. He was quite right. Irish industry like Irish agriculture is composed of good people and bad people. There are good and bad distributors and there are good and bad workmen. When we talk about bad industrialists we are not doing a bad day's work for Ireland: we are doing a good day's work. I happen to be president of the Federated Union of Employers and, in that capacity, I meet plenty of manufacturers and distributors. Nobody is more annoyed than the good manufacturer when unworthy people are being defended—for political purposes, very often, or because it does not pay to admit that there is a bad person in this country. There are good and bad industrialists and there are good and bad farmers. Let us protect the good industrialists in this country —the people who are a credit to the country—but not the bad people, because they are bad for our own market and because they are bad if they try to export.

Senator Anthony has said that there are factories in this country which are exporting to Britain and other countries abroad. That is very desirable, but there are other considerations, too. Some of these people—in fact, the very people he mentioned— are exporting articles to Britain, articles which are in short supply in our own country and which we are not allowed to replace. Take, for instance, stockings. We know they are exporting stockings to Northern Ireland and to Britain. Although the shopkeepers in Dublin cannot get adequate supplies and are not allowed to import from the other side, we have girls standing idle in our shops—and they are workers, too, just as the people in the nylon facories are workers. That is a question which will have to be handled by the Industrial Development Authority.

I am not happy about the powers which are given in this Bill to the Industrial Development Authority. There has been a general tendency in this country, since we got our own Parliament, to put more and more power into the hands of the State. At first, it was at the highest level, but the position now is that any committee set up under the Government is given wide powers. That is not altogether wise. We must realise that this is a sort of creeping paralysis in the community. If you are going to have investigations in business of all kinds, the position eventually will be that there will not be a person in this country who will not have his private life wide open to investigation by the State. Only a few nights ago the Minister for External Affairs pointed out that things are being done nowadays in the name of the common good. That is the excuse, in the beginning, of all dictators. Powers are now taken in this Bill: they were taken by the previous Government and they were taken by every Irish Government we have had since we got our own Parliament. The attitude has always been: "We are too good Christians in this country to abuse these powers. They will be well used," and so forth. The point is that we have no guarantee what type of government we shall have in this country in the future.

By the way people are talking at the present about the Government taking control and getting controls of all kinds, it is quite possible that there would come a time very soon when there would be no freedom left. That is a matter which we should watch and be very careful about. I am not happy about the powers given in this Bill. As Senator Professor George O'Brien said, I do not think there are any sufficient reasons for it. I think any information necessary could be got without swearing of oaths in connection with the dealings of business people. If information is not given then conclusions can be drawn from that fact. There is only one thing I would like to say about the men who have been appointed under this Bill. During discussions in the Dáil a certain Deputy, referring to the appointment of this authority, said that as soon as he came into power he would abolish this authority. Had that been said before these men were appointed I think it would have placed them in a very difficult position, and I think that the only reason the men are there is that they were appointed before that statement was made. It could easily have happened that nobody would have taken the job had that statement been made before the appointments were made, and I think it is a miracle that we got the four men we have. If anything happened to any of these men it might be found very difficult to replace them in view of that statement. I hope the people who made it will have a change of mind as well as heart and that if this authority is a success, as I believe it will be, any change of Government will not mean that it will be just wiped out.

Mr. Quirke

Like Senator Fitzsimons, I cannot raise any great enthusiasm for this Bill. My feelings are more or less the other way about but I would like to say that in so far as it is a personal tribute to Deputy Lemass, I would be inclined to welcome it. Many people thought that it would take two or three men in the Coalition group to take his place, but I never thought that they were able to go as far as getting five. In so far as that goes, I think it is a very great tribute and a particularly nice one coming from the groups who form the Coalition Government.

I think it is a little unfortunate that two or three speakers, including Senator Denis Burke, should get up and attack civil servants. I think it was an unjust attack and I think anybody who has had dealings with these officers will agree that they have always been most courteous and helpful, and that applies particularly to the officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Electricity Supply Board. I think, in all fairness, anybody who has been to those offices will agree that that is so particularly in the case of the officials of the Department of Industry and Commerce. I have been to the Department of Industry and Commerce on numerous occasions and can say that I got from the officers there every help and consideration that they could give. I do not propose to go into the various times on which I went to the Department of Industry and Commerce, but on the many occasions that I have been there in connection with the development of industry and other important matters I have found that there is a fund of knowledge in the Department in connection with practically every type of Irish industry which would surprise most people.

Senator McGuire is horrified to think that Deputy Lemass stated that if he were back again in that Department he would do away with this industrial authority. I think even the members of the Government will agree that there are very few men who know their job better than Deputy Séan Lemass, and if Deputy Séan Lemass thought when he was back in that Department that he could do his job without the industrial authority as well as he did the job there before, then he would be the man in the best position to make a decision on the industrial authority and there would be no need for anybody to be horrified. I think when this decision was made over twelve months ago when there was not a possibility of a general election and, with a general election, a change of Government for a number of years, I would be quite satisfied with the setting up of this industrial authority to give the Minister every help, but because I can see the possibility of a general election in the near future and with it a change of Government I cannot be enthusiastic about this Bill because I do not think it is necessary since the work can be done in the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Ruane

Every Senator who has spoken has been in favour of the extension of the manufacturing industry, and there has been some discussion questioning the appointment of these four men and the establishment of the authority 18 months before the passing of this Bill. I do not see any objection to the setting up of that authority and the passing of the Bill 18 months afterwards. If the Government had waited for the Act it would have meant that 18 valuable months would have been lost during which very useful work had been accomplished by the authority set up.

Mr. Hawkins

Surely it would not have taken 18 months to pass the Bill?

Mr. Ruane

There have been statements that this is divorcing this question of further industrial expansion from the Department of Industry and Commerce and setting up civil servants to handle such matters. That has been taken as an attack on the civil servants but it was no such thing. You may as well say that if I am a teacher I am not a good auctioneer and that would be an attack on me; of course it would not. I welcome this authority for, though it is not empowered to state or order definitely where industries may be located, it has the power to advise people about to establish industries, where such might best be established so that they could best thrive. I believe also that it would be in a position to advise existing industries on how it would improve their output and work more economically. I make that statement because, in an area in the West of Ireland many years ago, a certain company was set up to process a mineral and put it on the market. Because an English combine was in competition with it, the Irish company was compelled to change the name of the product it had put on the market. Many people in the locality felt that that Irish company did not give itself a chance of success and that eventually it would collapse, owing to the fact that it was taking the mineral out of the ground, sending it in to a station two miles away and paying the cost of transport from the station to Dublin to have it processed. The only processing that was necessary in Dublin was the drying of that particular product. The local town council offered buildings that were available but are now practically derelict, for a nominal rent, but the company did not see its way to accept premises that could be adapted for drying and the industry collapsed. If the authority sanctioned by this Bill were in existence it would have been able to give directions to that particular company in such a way that it would expand and be in a flourishing condition in the locality to-day.

I am hopeful that this authority may decentralise industry and give an opportunity to the rural areas of taking a practical interest in the development of manufacturing ventures. There are in several counties valuable mineral products that could be processed locally and distributed without being sent out of the district to be processed elsewhere. Articles should be put on the market in the area in which important elements are discovered.

Senator O'Brien regretted that when this Bill was going through the Dáil the deputy Leader of the Opposition stated that when and if Fianna Fáil were returned to power they would immediately dissolve that body. I feel, too, that was a most unfortunate statement. It might be put in a more qualified way, for instance, that in the event of a change of Government a commission would be set up to investigate the matter and if it were found that the authority had not justified its existence, it would be dissolved. But to say the moment Fianna Fáil got back to power that they would dissolve such a body is not an encouragement to investors.

I welcome this Bill. I think it is a very good one. It is a useful experiment. I believe the personnel of the authority to be competent for the very important work it has to do. The body is entitled to every encouragement and I am quite satisfied that when the time comes when it is asked for a report of its progress it will be able to supply a very satisfactory one.

Dr. O'Higgins

I have nothing to complain of with regard to this particular debate. It did, it is true, range over a rather extensive field, but in so far as the discussion was directly related to the Bill, the greater volume of that discussion ranged round the question of whether such a body, as is outlined here, should or should not be established. As anyone could expect, even if he had not charge of a Bill of this kind ever before, the views on that particular question were coloured absolutely by the political designation of the person expressing those views. Certainly in a House that sometimes claims it is more divorced from politics than the House I frisk around, I would have liked to have seen that particular theory borne out by some evidence of an absence of that machine-like unanimity with which his master's voice was relayed throughout this Assembly. We had, parrot-like, the views with regard to this particular board expressed by one speaker after another on that side of the House.

Mr. Loughman

And on the other side also.

Dr. O'Higgins

There could not be an honest expression of views with such slavish unanimity on any particular question. On this side of the House, in the main, there was support for the principle of the Bill. But there was a considerable amount of criticism with regard to the necessity for their powers and functions. However, be that as it may, I think this much will be conceded with a certain amount of unanimity, that no matter what Government is in power in this country, irrespective of political labels, it will be strongly in the interest of that Government, even politically, to stimulate the growth of industry in the country and to expand whatever industry is already there. They may use different instruments. They may use different methods, but the urge behind every Government, if they are to continue to exist politically, is to push the old barque further ahead. Different methods have been tried and it is nonsense, futile, to waste time arguing whether the industrial revival started in 1922, or 1942, or 1948, or 1950.

The growth of industry has been gradual. It got a sudden liveliness into it when self-government was given to a portion of this country, but in those very early days, caution was imperative if you were not to invite a reaction against Irish goods and Irish industrial growth. If tariffs had been put on too freely, too recklessly, prices went up and the goods were not up to the normal quality and there would have been a violent reaction against the desired industrial revival. In those days, caution was imperative and industrial applications for the start of tariffed industries were made via a tariff commission, which examined the applications, the incidence of the tariff on prices generally and the effect of increased prices on the community generally. At that time, as Senators will recollect, there was a serious postwar slump over Europe, affecting particularly the agricultural side of this country, and if prices were suddenly or acutely increased that big basic industry, which was going with a limp only at that time, would have had practically what amounted to a limb amputated. Caution was the order of the day then, thorough examination, full investigation and where it was decided that it was sufficiently attractive (1) with regard to its prospects; (2) from the point of view of the labour content, and (3) in that it would not press unduly on a part of the community that could not bear any increased weight, it went through.

That system was unduly slow, but it established that precedent of not hurting one section of the community in order to benefit another. The Tariff Commission was abolished, and the Government elected in 1932 went ahead without it; and they built, and built well, and built speedily, on the ground work that was there before them. Up to the time when such activities were interrupted by the war and the emergency, that was the policy of the day, to do this work through civil servants working inside the Department. It is quite possible that if that Government were there still they would have come to the conclusion that that particular system had exhausted its usefulness and that we had reached a period with regard to industrialisation, when we needed people who were not only desk men but could be field men at any given moment. The vacuum that was there, for those obvious industries where the pickings were on the surface and easily got, became saturated; and it reached the point where, if we were to go ahead with our secondary industries, we needed a machine that would do exploration and survey work out in the field and then come back and, of its own initiative, go out either in this country or outside this country to get people interested and with capital to start that particular type of industry. Those were not the obvious industries where there was easy picking and a vacuum to be filled. As far as possible, we had to get industries started where the raw materials would be native to this country. There is no one of experience here who would suggest that that could be a proper type of work for civil servants. They must be able to act with absolute freedom, with great expedition, and either stay in or go out according as they thought they could best serve their particular function. Those were some of the ideas and reasons that directed this Government towards the establishment of a tribunal of this kind.

The present Government has not been in office very long, but taking the term, such as it is, we worked for a period without this body; and worked for a period with this body; and we have found that we have got greater work and greater expedition in working with it than before it was established. After all, the civil servant, by precedent, tradition and training, is the most cautious animal in the whole world. By its very training and organisation, the Civil Service is built up to get the very highest degree of efficiency; but nobody will ever suggest that it was an organisation built up for expedition. It is an organisation which, because of its caution and its high grade of efficiency, must be thoroughly slow. In order to put more speed into the work and get more information, not from the centre but rather from the periphery, this new body was established; and all I can say to the Seanad is that we have found it very satisfactory.

There were certain references to remarks made by the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce, that he would discourage these people in their work, that he would dishearten them by stating that, if there were a change of Government and he came back, he would turf them out. I do not think they were discouraged. They work on, in the absolute conviction that every one of them will be an old-age pensioner before that takes place; so we could lose too much time in discussing that.

In the course of the debate, suggestions were made that there was something unpatriotic in discussing any tariff on any Irish industry. I was glad to hear that particular point of view challenged here in the Seanad. I think the worst service that could be extended to Irish industry is to praise it, irrespective of the type of service the people get, irrespective of the way consumers are catered for, or irrespective of the type of goods that are turned out. The people, the workers, the business men and industrialists are, I believe, second to none, but like even a good animal, they must be encouraged to give of their best. If everybody is satisfied when they give of their third best or fourth best, that is not helpful towards Irish industry. The best thing we can do is to decide that, as far as we can do it as public men, we will ensure, by our advice, by our encouragement and by our criticism, that nothing will go out of an Irish factory that is not an article that would welcome examination and criticism.

I think discussions of this kind are useful. What we have to remember is that every one of us must be spurred on. We would get a little bit fat, a little bit flabby and lazy, otherwise. There is an urge—it may be an economic urge, it may be some other kind of urge— and some kind of prodding necessary to the human being in order to get the best out of him. We have tariffed industries that have been encouraged to start in production because of tariff protection extended to them. That tariff may be, let us say, 50 per cent.; and in order to start that industry, give employment to people and produce Irish goods, rather than import them, we have asked the community as a whole to pay more for that type of goods in so far as the home market does not fill the want.

Let us assume that there is a factory with a 50 per cent. tariff, that it is supplying only 50 per cent. of the home demand and is doing nicely enough, making enough money and not anxious to work any harder. That is a crime; it is a crime against the people who have to buy the imported goods over a 50 per cent. tariff wall. If such an industry desires to continue enjoyment of that tariff and could extend so as to fill the other 50 per cent. of the home market, it should be made to do it, even under the threat of a removal or a reduction of the tariff. That is another kind of criticism that is wanted. There is no good in saying all the time: "You are doing grand; you are doing splendidly, and nobody could do any more." There are very few of our tariffed industries that could not do more and could not do better, if it were put to them to do more and to do better. There is a type of criticism that can do harm, but there is a type of criticism that can certainly do good, and, speaking more or less as a detached observer, a very rare visitor to this House, I could see nothing in the criticism here to-day which, properly interpreted, would not be helpful and stimulating to Irish industry.

The particular board being established was opposed on a number of grounds. I do not think there was a lot of foundation in any of the reasons given for the opposition. The real reason was obvious, that it was a change and some people like a change, but even the people who may like a change like to bring about that change themselves and do not like anybody else to make it. Take the objections, voiced here, to the board by different Senators and analyse them, and see how much or how little substance is in them. One Senator objected to the board because he thought more speed was wanted. Quite honestly, I put this to any Senator, no matter on what side he sits: whatever faults the board may have, it certainly is speedier than a Civil Service Department. There is no question about that. Experience has shown that, and, even if we never had the experience of such a board functioning, we would know it. Any person who has been a member of either House for any length of time will know that an independent board is essentially speedier than a Civil Service Department.

The objection of another Senator— and surely this is putting the dictionary meaning standing on its head—was that when we take this work away from the civil servants and give it to non-civil servants, we are going headlong in the direction of bureaucracy. I leave it to the judgment of the Seanad whether we are heading to or away from bureaucracy, when we take power out of the hands of civil servants and give it to others.

There was objection to this board also on the ground that it would have a kind of privileged freedom in the expenditure of money, that civil servants proper would have to go through the Department of Finance and get sanction and would have to work with all these controls, delays and vetoes. I do not think any of us need have any fear that there is going to be a tremendous waste of public money, that people of the type on that board are going to make extravagant use of public funds. Any and all of their expenditure is subject, first, to control and examination by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and, secondly, as I think has been stated more than once, the intention and desire of this Government are to bring all the State and semi-State boards and their expenditure under the machine for control, return and discussion by members of the Oireachtas.

There was a certain amount of discussion with regard to the advisability of the Government or this board taking powers to fix the location of a particular industry or industries generally. I think we are all at one in deploring the magnet which is the City of Dublin attracting so many of our population and so many of our industrialists to it. Speaking my own view, I think the country is gradually becoming a kind of super-headed monstrosity, the extremities withering while the head grows bigger and bigger. But how would you exercise power of that kind? You could take power to prevent an industry starting in Dublin, but you could not take power to say to the group of people putting up the money that they must go to any other place. It is better to have an industry in Dublin than to have none at all, and one of the works which has been carried out most diligently and persistently by this much criticised board has been to try to hand off the industries which were driving towards Dublin and get them to start elsewhere.

I know an industry, a very big industry, which, as a result of the study or survey carried out by this board, is about to be started elsewhere. Members of this board went and examined the raw material that could be got in a certain area, knew where a site was available, had explored the market possibilities and got a group of capitalists who wanted to start in Dublin to start elsewhere. There is certainly a common mind with regard to the undesirability of Dublin becoming too much of an industrial centre to the neglect of the rest of the country. On the whole I think that if Senators read the particulars powers that are given to this body, particularly the powers to go out and survey and the powers to initiate, they will see that in those two powers alone which are of immense importance it is well to have a departure from trying to extend the industrial activity of the country through a section of any given Department.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, December 13th.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 6 Dec 1950