Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Aug 1961

Vol. 54 No. 16

Industrial Grants (Amendment) Bill, 1961: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

The main object of the Bill is to increase the funds available to An Foras Tionscal from which grants may be made up to 31st December, 1963, for the promotion of industries both in the undeveloped areas and in the rest of the country. The Bill also provides for the increasing of the number of members of the Board of An Foras Tionscal from 3 to 5. Its remaining provisions effect comparatively minor changes in the Undeveloped Areas Acts 1952 and 1957 and in the Industrial Grants Act, 1959, arising out of the experience of An Foras Tionscal in the operation of these Acts.

The aggregate amount of the grants which may be made by An Foras Tionscal is being increased from £10 million to £15 million. This increase is necessitated by the fact that the provision of £10 million is likely to be exhausted sooner than was anticipated: as at 31st March, 1961, commitments of the order of £8 million had been entered into against the "ceiling" of £10 million. On the basis of these commitments and taking into account projects at present under examination but which have not yet reached the approval stage it is expected that the limit of £10 million may be reached before the end of the present year. Projects for which grants had been approved by An Foras Tionscal as at 31st March, 1961, involve an estimated total capital investment of over £26 million and are expected to give employment to close on 15,000 workers. For details of particular grant payments by An Foras Tionscal, I would refer Senators to the report and accounts of that body for the year ended 31st March, 1961, which were recently presented to the House.

The present legislation relating to industrial grants is due for renewal on 31st December, 1963. I believe that the time has now come to undertake a comprehensive review of the present scheme, designed to assess the extent to which it has been successful and to see whether any modifications of the system are desirable. Among the matters which will have to be brought under review are the question of whether the present concept of the undeveloped areas has outlived its usefulness and whether the time has come to adopt some alternative such as "development areas" to replace the existing "undeveloped areas" with the object of enabling other parts of the country to qualify for the more favourable grants at present applicable to projects sited in the undeveloped areas. The reaching of decisions on these matters must await the outcome of the review to which I have referred. As a preliminary to the undertaking of the review, An Foras Tionscal has in hands a detailed study of grant aided projects, designed to assess the measure of success achieved by the existing grants scheme. Pending the outcome of the review and the enactment of any consequential amending legislation I intend to continue to implement the policy laid down when the Undeveloped Areas Act 1952 was before the House of confining the scheduling of areas outside the undeveloped areas proper to "fringe areas" which are contiguous to the undeveloped areas.

Senators will be aware that the Industrial Grants Act 1959 specified that the maximum grant which may be given by An Foras Tionscal in respect of an industrial project proposed for establishment outside the undeveloped areas may not exceed £250,000 unless the Government, having regard to the amount of employment likely to be afforded by an undertaking, approve of the making of a grant in excess of that figure. When the Industrial Grants Act 1959 was in course of enactment, it was stated that the Government would not be disposed to avail of this special provision unless in the case of a project offering prospects for the employment of 2,000 workers or more. I intend that this requirement should stand pending the outcome of the review to which I have referred and the implementation of any ensuing amending legislation. Nevertheless, I foresee that an exceptional case might arise which would warrant An Foras Tionscal in recommending to the Government the making of a grant in excess of £250,000 for a project which might not have a minimum employment content of 2,000 workers. The type of project which I have in mind as possibly warranting such an exceptional recommendation by An Foras Tionscal would be one of major importance to the general wellbeing and economy of the State and involving an exceptionally large capital investment. A possible example of such a project might be a timber pulp mill or a chemical industry.

The reason for augmenting the board of An Foras Tionscal is that since the passing of the Undeveloped Areas Act 1952 which limited the Board to 3 members, the responsibilities of the Board have been very considerably widened due to the extension of their activities to the whole of the country instead of to the undeveloped areas, as previously and due to the very substantial increase in the number and size of projects which has come forward as a result of the programme undertaken by the Industrial Development Authority for the attraction of external investment.

The object in providing that An Foras Tionscal may make grants towards the provision of plant (e.g. items such as cranes, roof tanks, electric transformers for general use as distinct from one for use in a particular process) is that legal advice recently received by An Foras Tionscal raised doubt as to whether they were entitled to make grants for plant, as distinct from machinery and equipment, as they had been doing.

The provision relating to restrictions on the sale of assets or shares in a grant-aided concern does not introduce any new concept: it is intended to remove any doubts which may exist as to the legality of the present practice of An Foras Tionscal of writing into the agreements entered into with the promoters, a clause that they will not sell the assets or their shares in the concern, without the previous consent of An Foras Tionscal, for a stipulated period.

Finally, I wish to avail of the opportunity of again stating categorically that the facilities under the industrial grants scheme are available to Irish promoters on exactly the same basis as to foreigners.

I confidently recommend this Bill to the House and I should be glad if it could be given an early passage.

This is a very interesting Bill, which involves quite a large sum of money, as well as a very important aspect of our national life, namely, industrial expansion. Up to now, the consideration in this legislation was to put industries into undeveloped areas and I think it is true to say that in going into undeveloped areas, there was, first of all, a social rather than an industrial ideal. First of all, the aim was more to employ people than to create industrial expansion. I suppose the two went together but primarily the aim was to bring employment to the undeveloped areas.

It seems to me that the thinking behind this legislation will have to be changed. It is in fact being changed in one way but for a different reason from that which I have in mind. The reason I have in mind is the advent of the Common Market. Our Taoiseach told us yesterday that we were about to seek admission, when certain conditions are fulfilled. It would seem, therefore, that in future any industries that will be set up, whether in the undeveloped areas or in the new areas envisaged under this Bill to which the grants may be extended, will have to be approached from this point of view. There is, first, the matter of placing isolated industries in out of the way places. That should not be done unless the industries have some special local value where price content and the price of the articles produced are not a major factor.

I welcome the extension of the grants to areas outside the undeveloped areas. It has often been said that the whole of our country is undeveloped or underdeveloped—call it what you will—including Dublin itself. Although there is here the biggest concentration of industry, it is by no means overdeveloped. That being so, I feel that in future the important thing to ensure is that if industries are to be established in underdeveloped areas, the idea of putting in single industries should be got away from and a concentrated effort should be made to put groups of industries in pockets in different parts of the country.

That is important for two reasons. It is important from an economic point of view because a labour market can be created. Instead of having isolated individuals coming to work in one factory or industry, a pool of workers can be created in the area. Secondly, the workers will be inclined to stay in the places in which they are working, where they can have a social life built round a reasonable number of industries. At present one of the difficulties is that very often when an industry is started and when the promoters have spent a lot of time and money on giving people technical training, they lost the workers. The workers went to England or Dublin. Having gained the skills, they were able to sell their skill at a high price in an area where they had a social life. These considerations should be taken into account in the new set-up of our having to establish industries which will have to compete in the open market and with industries in other countries.

I was rather interested when the Minister told us that Foras Tionscal were at present engaged in a review of the present scheme. That would be in accord with what I have been saying. I see that the Minister was asked in the Dáil what effect the funds already advanced had had in the underdeveloped areas. I was very surprised and pleased to hear the Minister say that there were only two failures out of 61 now in production. That is very good. When they are carrying out the review of the present scheme, I am sure Foras Tionscal will also inquire into how many of those 61 now in production will exist in the new arrangement towards which we are moving. Will these industries be able to survive without protection? How long will it be necessary to protect them in order to enable them to survive? Can they be brought into such a state of efficiency as to enable them to compete in the new situation? Generally speaking, the Bill is to be welcomed.

The Minister expressed the wish that this Bill would be given a quick passage. Certainly, I would not wish to delay it. This Bill, however, was initiated prior to the decision in regard to the E.E.C. and largely provides for commitments entered into before that decision was taken at all. In that situation, it is somewhat unreal to be considering the question of developed areas and undeveloped areas because we must face up to the situation that it is not simply a part of the country but the whole country which must be regarded as undeveloped.

I am glad the Minister has given some indication that this question is to be reconsidered but before that reconsideration is entered into, I think we should look carefully at what we are doing at the present time. In other words, I do not think it is very wise, in view of the decision to apply for membership of the European Economic Community, to go ahead with the setting up of industries without attempting to assess whether or not they will have a future. If we become a member of the E.E.C., it does not make sense to set up industries and a year afterwards face the possible dismemberment of them. That is no solution to our economic difficulties.

I referred to developed and undeveloped areas. I should like the Minister to consider his and my native city. I suppose it is regarded as a developed area. It is certainly not in the undeveloped areas but in the context of E.E.C., I wonder what the situation of industry will be there? What, for example, will happen Fords? Does it make sense that Fords could possibly continue to manufacture cars for this small market in the context of the European Community when they could do it at bigger centres nearer the markets and nearer the raw materials? The same situation exists in regard to the neighbouring firm of Dunlops. It is ridiculous to regard such a place as a developed area that would not need special assistance in the development of industry and in the provision of employment.

I grant that this Bill was initiated prior to the decision being taken and I grant that it largely provides for commitments entered into before the decision was taken. Before we go any further, I think the Minister and the authority concerned should take a careful look and see if we could not use our resources better in the situation we are facing and whether we would not be doing a better job for our citizens if we concentrated on the larger units, on industries that would have some possibility of a future in the European Economic Community.

I hope the Minister will not regard what I have said as a criticism of the measure or of what has been done. We should now move away from the idea of developing industry locally so as to provide employment in the undeveloped areas. In the new context, this whole country is undeveloped, not one part developed and another part undeveloped.

One could regard Senator Murphy's speech as representing a real defeatest attitude.

Or a declaration of war.

No; it is not even that. If it were, it would have something specific. It would be more positive. If Fianna Fáil adopted that attitude in 1932, we would not be in a position now to promote industry. That is my answer to Senator Murphy; that is the answer to Senator Murphy's defeatist speech. The point Senator Murphy was trying to make, that merely because the Common Market is a topical subject——

"Merely"? This is bigger than the Act of Union.

No. There is nothing new under the sun. For the Senator's information—I do not want to be dragged off the point I am trying to make—the Common Market is not new. If the Senator will study his history, he will see that there is nothing new in the Common Market.

That may be news to Senator L'Estrange. I am quite prepared to accept that that intelligence is quite new to the Senator. I am trying to make the point that the fact that there may be a grouping of countries in Europe does not warrant our ceasing our industrial activity. Far from it. We are now only at the commencement of it. Regardless of what advantages other countries may have, I think we have as good an advantage in the European market as any of them. This Bill has no relation whatsoever to the Common Market but, as the Senator sought to make the point, I should like to say that that is not our attitude.

Senator McGuire made a good point, and it was made before, when he suggested that promotional activities should tend to group industrial efforts. I dare say there is something to be said for that. This Bill deals merely with the financial angle—the Industrial Grants Act. I might say a word about Foras Tionscal: it is more or less responsible, together with the Industrial Credit Company and the Industrial Development Authority. Most reasonable people will agree that Foras Tionscal have done a good job of work in this regard. So have the Industrial Development Authority and the Industrial Credit Company.

I was looking through the last report. One might offer some little criticism on the grounds that the report is scanty in information and a bit late in issuing. But, apart from that, the activities of Foras Tionscal since the Industrial Grants Act—from the period 1956-1959 onwards—are a fairly creditable performance. We are glad, I think, that the Minister has accepted the principle of including marginal areas as ranking for grants under the Act.

I disagree with Senator Murphy that this whole country is an undeveloped country. The Senator has a bad dose of an inferiority complex when he says that. On the contrary, this is a well-developed country. There is nothing undeveloped about it.

For Singer and company.

I am trying to make a serious point. The Senator will have his soapbox in Mullingar very soon and he can get away with that on the market square when there will be nobody to take him up.

This is when the mess has been cleared up?

I assume all Parties subscribed to the industrial effort. I said I was glad the Minister had included marginal areas and that he is prepared to sanction comparable grants for areas near the undeveloped areas. We all know that our efforts in this regard will be governed by the size of our purse and the amount of money which can be devoted to promoting industrial activity of this description.

I think most people—chambers of commerce and those interested in promoting industry—can obtain all the information they require from the various bodies set up to deal with this matter. Speaking on my own behalf, I found the Industrial Development Authority, the Industrial Credit Company and Foras Tionscal which, incidentally, is not a State body, very helpful any time I sought information regarding the location of an industry, the financing of an industry or any smaller details regarding preliminaries.

There is nothing good but can be better. While I do not agree with lengthy reports, it might be useful if it were possible to have this report with a little more padding and to have it issued a little earlier. One notes from the report that, of the 100 or so manufacturing projects proposed over the past five years, roughly one-third have British interests involved. It is understandable enough that this type of industrial activity should appeal to the British businessman for reasons which are obvious and into which I need not go now.

There are also some Continental firms interested here and many firms have made contacts with this country over the past few years. I think many of them are anxious—and perhaps in the light of recent events will be more anxious to set up industries here. The reasons are obvious enough—low rates, low taxes, political stability, a good supply of labour and a good potential for industrial technicians. We have upwards of 255 technical schools in this country quite capable of turning out smart young students who are anxious to become, later on, willing workers.

There are many other facilities available to outside industrialists in this legislation. Income tax and corporation profits tax, over a period of ten to 15 years, will be remitted. Any industrialist will realise that this will enable a company to build up a reserve and further to expand from there.

One point I should like to mention is in regard to the wording of the Act where it says that 100 per cent. of the cost of the building and 50 per cent. of the cost of the plant respectively can be paid. I think the wording could be a little more specific. Continental promoters when they see that wording are inclined to look for the full 100 per cent. and 50 per cent., as the case may be. I am quite sure there is available to them sufficient information to let them know that they may not get a grant of that description. I assume that when it comes to legislating on this point, it is hard to be positive. Since the Programme for Industrial Expansion was formulated, there has been more or less steady progress. If we continue that into the next five or ten year period, I am quite sure we shall be in a stronger position than ever to group our industries, if necessary, and to make an assault on whatever market may be available.

I had intended to say a few words on the Minister's brief but the debate has been widened very considerably. I believe in reasonable planning arrangements. Certainly in recent weeks in this House we have had some examples—and we have two more today—of very inadequate planning arrangements, if we are to take the Bills at their face value. Of course we could take the Bills as just pieces of election literature. I am going to develop that point about this Bill.

The Chair hopes not.

I hope the Senator does.

I want to demonstrate clearly that there is no necessity for this Bill. I will come back to this business of commitments. We know about the Land Commission's commitments. They have £8 million worth of commitments for land each year and what is the amount that is spent?

The Senator is only echoing Deputy McGilligan.

I am not echoing Deputy McGilligan. It is my own view and I am not echoing anybody. I had not intended saying this but since the Minister takes that line, I may say that when I read this brief, I said to myself: "His master's voice".

I am very glad to follow that example.

Let the cap fit. Two years ago, we had a Bill in this House to provide for grants under these pieces of legislation with a limit of £10 million. Two years later, it has to be increased by another £5 million. Does that suggest reasonable planning? We had the same thing last week when we had the Air Navigation and Transport Bill. The amount in relation to that legislation was increased from £8 million to £10 million two years ago and now it is being made £13 million.

Nothing succeeds like success.

It does not suggest that people can see very far ahead. My main point is that there is no necessity whatever for this piece of legislation at this time. It will probably be two or three years before the sum of £10 million is exceeded in grants under this legislation, that is, moneys paid out.

We are planning ahead.

This is like the Fianna Fáil Deputies in the Dublin Corporation who would not make any grants until the money was in the till; the game worked by two Fianna Fáil Deputies on the Housing Committee. This is the obverse of the coin. It takes years sometimes for commitments to go through a system and I am not talking about the word "debts" which became "commitments" in certain political events in the past.

There is one other matter in the Minister's brief. He states that a possible example of a large project is a timber pulp mill. Am I to take it from this statement that the Government have decided to develop the timber products industry through private industry? If they have, it is a very serious decision to announce in this way.

The Senator should not be talking through his hat. I gave a possible example and the Senator should not be reading things into it.

I shall accept the Minister's word on that score. I shall not develop the point. Either the chemical industry or the pulp industry would be a big thing. They are not really relevant to this Bill, I take it.

The third point I should like to make about this Bill is that apparently over the next couple of years we shall be paying seven per cent. for money. I remember when the Bills dealing with international financial associations, to which we were subscribing, were going through this House, on all sides of the House, we said that it was very unlikely that we would ever want to borrow money from them because they were charging seven per cent. I can see we might easily be going for money to these international bodies for these purposes because apparently we would get it cheaper there than in the particular climate that is building up here at the moment.

In regard to the last few paragraphs of the Minister's brief, it may be again that the same approach of mind applies to this as the Minister pleaded a moment ago. He says that he wishes to avail of the opportunity to state categorically that the facillities under the industrial grant scheme are available to Irish promoters on exactly the same basis as to foreign promoters. This is a remarkable piece of literature. I take it that it was written in the Minister's Department.

What is wrong with it?

I am going to tell the Minister.

The Minister is responsible for the text.

I understand that, but I think that sometimes the exact emphasis of the wording may come from somewhere else. Could I ask this: Why has the Minister to come into this House and assure us that the facilities under the industrial grants scheme are available to Irish promoters on exactly the same basis as to foreigners?

I will tell you why. Deputy Dillon specifically appealed to me on the final stage of this Bill last week to make that point on every occasion I could.

All I can say is that Deputy Dillon, the leader of the Party to which I have the honour to belong, must have the Minister's interests at heart, because it suggests to me that there must be throughout the country a strong feeling that a German can get money which an Irishman cannot from an Irish Government.

That is precisely what Fine Gael were saying.

Quite frankly, I was astonished—and I want to be quite straight about it——

Take it up with Deputy Dillon then.

—that the Minister in his brief concluded: "I confidently recommend the Bill to the House and should be glad if it could be given an early passage." It will be given an early passage all right, but, so far as I am concerned, it could wait two years without the slightest fear of harm being done to any project, to any institution or to any person's livelihood in this country.

Now I want to come to a matter that was introduced in a major way in the discussion, that is, that we find a climate growing up here in relation to the Common Market, that the idea of our joining it has been sold in this country over the past two years by people who have little connection with industry and by a few people who have some connection with agriculture, with the result that the policy of Fianna Fail in relation to industry, which the Fine Gael Party sometimes felt was pressed too hard, but which has on the whole proved successful in relation to the main articles needed by our people—clothing and shelter and many small articles—is to be reversed. Take electric light bulbs. When they were first made in this country, they were terrible. They were not even straight. But now I believe that, in general, we have as good electric bulbs as anywhere in the world. Are we to jettison all these and, at the same time, as Senator Murphy suggested, give away our political freedom as a side wind on it? I am not interested in the people who put their money into those factories, because they have already made at least as much out of them as they put into them, but I am interested in the ordinary people who accepted bad boots and poor quality clothing and badly made delph for many years.

The Senator is now going very far outside the field.

With respect, Senator Carter spoke about what they did in 1932 and I did not hear you call him to order.

Fine Gael were telling us then that we were crackpots.

The nature of the grants to be made and of the industries to which they are to be made clearly come under this Bill. I believe that on the whole the development of our small industries is now completed. Are we to jettison them and throw overboard something that has been paid for in toil and sweat for the past 40 years—industries the best of which are the ones set up by the first Government here, which was enfiladed on the grounds that it had not given enough protection?

Give us a few examples.

The furniture industry and the boot and shoe industry.

Grattan's Parliament you are referring to now.

The Minister has to go back to Grattan's Parliament!

(Interruptions.)

The discussion of individual industries is not appropriate on this Bill.

The spokesmen for some of these small industries are now talking to the people who are concerned about employment in them and it is being said: "You will be compensated if you are wiped out." That is all right. The people who run the industries will be compensated in cash, but what about the workers who will be unemployed as a result?

The Senator is trying to create a scare.

I am not trying to create a scare. I am just speaking what is in my mind and I am not concerned about what other people say. It was not I who raised this matter on this Bill. If we are to have political economy discussed on this Bill, let us have it. It is quite fair. I am glad to say again that I have on occasions held rather strong views but I find them stated in public by few people. They may state them behind their hands in private all right. On this question of our joining the Common Market in a particular way, I am not alone in my view that we are jettisoning at one stroke of the pen a policy into which so much effort has been put. If there is to be an election on this issue, let us have the election.

I do not know what the issue is. Why do you not make it clear?

You are going to throw the small industries down the drain.

That is a new one.

I welcome the Minister's statement on this Bill. The most significant figure he gave was that £26 million is the capital investment in industries providing employment for about 15,000 workers. That is a very comforting fact because it means capital investment of about £2,000 per worker, and as long as we can keep our average capital investment anywhere in that region, we should have no real difficulties with capital supply.

When we are looking at that, it would be well if the Minister and the Government used these same figures to evaluate what the present flight from the land is costing us. There are 7,000 or 8,000 people leaving the land each year. Capital to absorb these into industry would run from £13 million to £15 million a year. I make this suggestion to the Minister in passing from this point, that it would be well to consider that perhaps £13 million or £15 million, if properly invested in the land, might achieve that same objective; in other words, it might accomplish the turning of the tide and keep those 7,000 or 8,000 people on the land. If they are held there, you will have a much sturdier and healthier national community than one where you have this flight from the land.

There is a lot of theory in that.

The Minister has promised a review, and it is quite timely. We all look forward to its findings, especially in the complex situation we find ourselves in at present, as stressed so much by Senator Murphy, that is, the impact of this unknown development on our industries. The next two or three years will be critical and I hope that we shall have full scale and independent reviews of many of our activities, especially a review of what we have achieved up to date in our liberal scheme of grants for industrial development and how these might be regulated to give maximum effect in future.

The Minister said that Foras Tionscal have in hands a detailed study of grant-aided projects, designed to assess the measure of success achieved by the existing grants scheme. That, to my mind, seems to encompass the whole field of the promised review of the present scheme. I must pay the highest possible tribute to Foras Tionscal and their fine staff for what they have done. In this instance, I regard them as the body who have put the policy into operation. They made many of the decisions, and they had a hand in shaping and orientating that policy.

I do not think it is wise that the same body should undertake the major share of the review. A commission or a committee should be set up on which Foras Tionscal would have some representatives, but on which there would also be outside representation. In that way only can we look forward to an impartial and scientific examination of our progress. It is only on such a sound basis that we can chart our course for the future.

The second point which emerged clearly in this debate, and in the Dáil, is the question of the undeveloped areas. The coming of the European Common Market has been seized on by many to belabour the help that has been given to undeveloped areas. That help was of vital importance to the development of the country, and to the creation of small industries in our towns and villages. That, to my mind, was far more important than the creation of the same amount of total employment in Cork or Dublin. It is through the country and its small towns that a nation breathes, and lives, and has its being.

That will be of even greater importance in the future if we join the Common Market, because we will be exposed to all the ramifications of the Treaty of Rome, and we will find that if we are to preserve our nationality, it will be preserved only in so far as we are successful in building up and strengthening our towns, villages and farms. That nationality will not be preserved by having mammoth factories in Cork, Dublin or Galway. I appeal to the Minister, as one who has come from an undeveloped part of the country himself, knows the conditions there, and knows what industries mean to towns and villages, not to fall for the line of reasoning that the workings of the Common Market would aggravate further the flight from the towns and villages in rural Ireland into the cities. I hope that will be resisted by every possible means.

It has been stated that the country as a whole is undeveloped. Of course, that is just one of those extravagant statements. Undeveloped compared with what? Undeveloped compared with London, yes. Undeveloped compared with England, yes. But we have to count our blessings here, and realise that our stage of development is on a par with the stage of development of 20 per cent. of the population of the world, at least. We have nothing to be ashamed of in the use we have made of the few years we have had to develop. I feel confident that if we play our part in the European Economic Community in the spirit of that Community, and if we see, above all, that everything we prize in our national heritage is preserved and strengthened, we can look forward to the coming decades with confidence. Far too much has been made of the effect of joint industries on our industries.

The question of the Common Market does not arise on this Bill.

The Senator will remember the matter was debated on a motion last week. In any case, it is not in order on this Bill. Passing reference may be made to it.

I am making a passing reference to the points raised by Senator Murphy and Senator O'Donovan on that question. I have no intention of developing it at length, but so far as it impacts on the grants for which we are voting money, I want to raise these few caveats. I want to caution people against the idea that it is only the chain store or the enormous industrial unit that can survive, and that, by inference, our small industries should be got rid of as quickly as possible.

Such a policy of monopoly is in many ways totally foreign to the spirit that motivates the Common Market. That spirit is shown in the insistence on family farms, and on their part in developing the morale and nationality of the people concerned. Is not the small industry in a town or village the counterpart of a small family farm? When ranches and 1,000 acre units are taboo on the agricultural side, I do not see why we should not be able to resist strongly a great flight to mammoth industries. I have every confidence that our small industries will go from strength to strength, and will play their part in the future, just as they did in the past.

Of this £26 million which the Minister mentioned has been contributed by way of capital, we as a nation have contributed £8 million by way of grant. That is a substantial contribution by the taxpayers, but the contribution I am looking for and cannot find is a contribution by the workers themselves, that is, a contribution by way of worker participation and worker share capital. The savings of the workers, even though small individually, globally can be quite large and play quite a large part in the contribution to the financing of our industries. I wonder whether in designing the grant scheme, Foras Tionscal have made any effort to encourage that type of capitalisation on a par with the more orthodox type of share capital.

This Bill is concerned with the making of grants.

I know. Surely in making grants, and in making an additional £5 million available, we are at liberty to express views as to how those grants may be used for the best fulfilment of our industrial development. That is all I am endeavouring to do.

The Minister has stressed the fact that the terms and inducements are as readily available to Irish promoters as to foreign promoters. I think he was quite right to stress that very strongly. We have heard it stated in the country that if you speak with a German accent, you get far more than a mere ordinary Irishman. I am glad that has been contradicted by the Minister. I feel that if these Irish promoters included worker participation and the local savings of the credit unions, it would be much more securely tied in to the nation as a whole.

Again, in giving grants to small units, the idea is held that when the small units begin to enlarge, you may have to go to the expense of putting up dwellings, and so on, for the workers involved, as in the case of the Shannon Industrial Estate which we have been discussing. I hold in this context that there is no need whatever for that. We are getting too soft in our thinking. In large industrial countries, like England or America, what is half an hour's travel to or from work? Anyone in the city of New York who has only half an hour or an hour's travel considers he is living on the doorstep of the job. Certainly if any worker or any community of workers is within 12 or 15 miles of the plant in an adjacent town or village, there is no reason why our industrial development should have to face the burden of rehousing them within half a mile of the plant.

With regard to the survival of units in our undeveloped areas, if those areas are classed as undeveloped, I do not see why there cannot be a wage differential between them and large cities. This would be just a realistic appraisal of facts, of what it means to be able to live convenient to work and, at the same time, have all the facilities of the Irish countryside. That is worth a considerable amount. I note that the rate paid in Italy to labour is 2/5d. per hour, while here I think it is 4/2d. There will be inequalities in pay between units in the Common Market and I do not see any reason why such inequalities should not prevail in a free market if it is the only means of ensuring that our small industries will remain in our towns and villages.

I look forward to this review to be carried out by the Minister and appeal to him to ensure that it will be conducted neither by his Department nor by Foras Tionscal but will be as independent as any review can be made as it is the most important undertaking at present.

Senator Murphy should be congratulated on the statement he has made today. He asked us to face realities, not to bury our heads in the sand. I think he is quite correct in the facts he stated and I do not agree at all with Senator Carter who regarded Senator Murphy's speech as defeatist. That is all wrong. It would be better if more politicians in the Government and outside told the people the truth. We are concerned here with £8,000,000 of the taxpayers' money and even if we are on the eve of a general election we should be very careful about the spending of that money. The Minister in this Bill is getting permission to increase expenditure from £10 to £15 millions. Seven million pounds roughly have already been spent so we are dealing with expenditure of roughly £8 millions of the taxpayers' money.

Listening to Senator Carter and some Fianna Fáil Senators one would think that talk about increased production was in some way a substitute for a policy of increased production. I should like to tell them that all the exhortations in the world will not prevent production from declining or even factories from closing with an inefficient administration and a wrongly conceived policy. That is the danger facing us today. That is all Senator Murphy has pointed out to the Minister. He asked the Minister to face realities because the situation today is definitely changing and has changed from what it was a year or two ago. Many Continental firms have come here in the last few years and used Ireland as a back door to the British market. If Ireland joins the Common Market along with Britain—and we have stated we will—a danger faces us that those German or French factories with subsidiary factories here can as easily export to the British market from their own countries as from Ireland and may close their factories here.

That is defeatist.

That is not defeatist. That is all Senator Murphy was saying.

That is not defeatist; it is sabotage.

It was not sabotage for Fianna Fáil to say the Shannon scheme was a white elephant and that the first of our beet factories was a white elephant. We had a man coming along telling us that he had an interest in those from the very beginning, though the same man told us they were white elephants.

Get back to the industrial grants.

I want to agree with Senator Murphy that we must be very particular about the taxpayers' hard-earned money and make sure that those industries will be able to stand on their own feet, export when the tariffs are taken down in a few years as they very well may be and face the difficulties that will undoubtedly confront them from abroad. The circumstances will be very different in the future from what they were in the past 15, 20 or 30 years. These industries may not even have their own home market.

It is, I think, an awful pity that the Government when appeals were made to them four years ago did not set up a committee to go into the pros and cons of the Common Market and how it would affect our industries. If the Government had done that in 1958 and 1959—instead of trying to abolish proportional representation—instead of a fortnight or three weeks ago, they would have the information now and be in a better position to allocate this money having the full facts before them. We all admit that certain Irish industries can compete, are competing and will in the future compete, with industries from abroad. Others who have got the taxpayers' money and protection for long years have made no effort, good, bad or indifferent, to put themselves in a position to compete, if and when we enter the Common Market.

Will the Senator give some examples?

The Minister knows more about them than I do. He might not like to mention them perhaps at the present time, when the country is facing a general election, but he is in a better position to give those examples as he knows all about them.

The Senator makes a wild charge and runs away from it.

It has been stated by the Taoiseach.

Let the Senator give the reference, then.

The Minister has more time to look up those things than I have.

Might I remind the Senator that on one occasion he was very insistent that the reference for every statement be given. If he is to be allowed to proceed with these innuendoes, he should be compelled to give the references.

I am telling the truth; I am saying what is known by all industrialists in the country. We all like to believe in our heart and soul that every industry set up in Ireland during the past 30 years could weather the storm but we know that many cannot. The Government have stated they will give compensation and that workers will have to be compensated or other employment found for them. There must have been some necessity for stating that. In spending this £8 million, the Government should be very careful. They should see to it that none of these factories will close down within the next two, three, four or five years when we enter the Common Market. It is admitted that this Bill is a continuation of the Industrial Grants Act introduced by Deputy Sweetman in 1956, an Act which was much condemned at the time.

The first Act was in 1952.

The 1959 Act enlarged the provisions and now we have this 1961 Bill which again enlarges the provisions. It is only another example of Fianna Fáil swallowing Fine Gael policy, a policy which they condemned in the past.

The first such Act was passed in 1952 and not in 1956.

That was for the undeveloped areas. Who passed the Control of Manufactures Act? Fianna Fáil would not allow any money to come in. They said it would be better if every British ship were sent to the bottom of the sea and that we could do without Britain. They wanted to live in an isolated camp of their own. Now we want to export to Britain and the world. At one time, Fianna Fáil said that the British market was gone forever and thanks be to God—it was a damn good business.

What about the calves now?

You cut their throats, too, but you will not cut ours.

Why was the Control of Manufactures Act not repealed?

It was repealed.

You had two terms of office.

It was repealed.

It is still on the Statute Book.

We allowed the money in for the mines at Avoca and we brought in the three oil companies.

Who repealed the Control of Manufactures Act?

You did not. It is still on the Statute Book.

Senator L'Estrange, to continue on the Bill.

In another section the number of directors is increased from three to two—I mean from three to five. That is an increase of two.

The Senator cannot even add now.

I can add. If you subtract the position created for Deputy Haughey, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Justice, from the 100,000 new jobs which were promised a few years ago, you will find that there are only 99,999 new jobs to be provided.

If you want a competition in dirt, you can have it.

The only dirt there was was in regard to the promises made and never fulfilled.

I am surprised at the turn some of this debate has taken. It appears that on the Government benches any criticism is considered to be sabotage of the nation.

I shall prove that interjection of mine when I get up to speak.

That type of exclusive arrogance has been adopted by that political Party for too long. Personally, I am not going to allow anyone to get away with it here. It is obvious to anyone reading history that the development in industry which took place here in the 1930s was largely a matter of pure expedience rendered necessary by the destruction of the agricultural industry—the industry which has not yet recovered from the ravages of that period. The figures produced in the Budget show that that reduction is still taking place to the continuing disadvantage of the economy.

We will never build up a sound industry of any sort in this country until agriculture is first put on a proper basis and until industry becomes something that will consider agriculture in its proper context. To my mind, the criteria by which industry can best be judged in this country are: Is it an export success? Do the products it produces give good value for money and has it a good employment content?

Many of the reasons why those criteria cannot be applied to many industries here is the siting of industries in disadvantageous positions. Great Britain is a very successful country industrially but there are not many industries sited in the Highlands of Scotland. They would not long survive there. If heavy and suitable industry is to be sited in Ireland when the Common Market comes in and when we will be forced to be competitive, they will probably have to be sited in the portal areas—in places like Waterford, Cork, and possibly Limerick. I doubt if western Donegal, Sligo or such areas will be nearly as suitable. The freight and other charges would be far too great a burden.

Undoubtedly, there will be great opportunities for this country, if only we use them to the best advantage. One thing I have noticed very much in recent years in the enormous development of the economies of northwestern Europe, particularly Britain, northern France, the Low Countries and Western Germany, is the difficulty of finding portal facilities. The portal facilities and the large water areas available in Waterford and Cork are capable of enormous development and expansion. The large ships that trade in the Seven Seas will find it convenient to break down the cargoes and, perhaps, manufacture the raw materials which they will bring in at these portal areas where they can be cleared quickly rather than having to wait days and perhaps weeks, as they do outside Rotterdam, Liverpool and such ports which are fog-bound and bar-bound and so are unsuitable places. These are the sorts of things that ought to be exploited rather than have items manufactured here that have no change of an export potential and that will never give self-sustaining or increasing employment in this little country.

We have too many disadvantages here to think we shall have the money or the wealth to bolster up industries which cannot have a chance of standing on their own two feet. If we do, what happens in the final analysis is that we shall make our agricultural industry uneconomic by the fact that the costs will rise too high on that industry.

I am surprised these points are not borne in mind when the Government are framing their policy. Many of the industries which have been sited in the west could, with advantage to themselves, be sited elsewhere. With a prospective competitive advantage from entering the Common Market, which most people foresaw, they would have been better sited in the south and the south-east than in the west, where they are less likely to be a success because they will carry the increased costs of freight inwards and outwards.

I do not cavil at the Government for making this extra money available for these purposes. It shows that they are interested in promoting this aspect of our economy. We shall not have enough money in this country to promote anything unless we do so in the best and most efficient way. We shall not be allowed to trade in the Common Market because there are shamrocks on our goods but because the goods that bear the shamrock are the best and most competitive goods entering that Market.

Like other Senators, I wish to support this Bill. I do not intend to say a great deal about it because the necessity for having a sufficient sum available for grants for the establishment of industry is clear to all of us. The point raised by Senator Murphy as to whether at this stage we ought to hand out grants lavishly in view of impending developments is well worthy of consideration. It surprises me that a point of that kind, made in a thoughtful and constructive way, should have engendered such heat on the part of Senator Carter and indeed on the part of the Minister himself.

Be a bit accurate now, please. I did not comment on Senator Murphy.

The Minister got into bad humour.

I did, with Senator L'Estrange. If Senator O'Quigley would say what I said in respect of Senator Murphy's speech, I should be interested to hear it.

I shall talk about the Minister's general attitude towards what Senator O'Donovan had to say. I merely want to point out that there are some grounds for feeling that money of this kind, which might more wisely be invested in other ways, may be ill spent. That is a justifiable fear. It is a danger against which the Minister, the Industrial Development Authority and Foras Tionscal will take every possible precaution.

The Minister has challenged Senator L'Estrange as to who introduced, and for what purpose, the 1956 Industrial Grants Act. He talked about the 1952 Act. We all know the 1952 Act was introduced at a time when the Parliamentary Secretary, if my recollection is right, was Secretary of Bord na gCeanntair gCúng.

The Senator is getting mixed up in his titles now.

That is my recollection: perhaps it is at fault. However, the Parliamentary Secretary held some such post.

Who was the Parliamentary Secretary to whom the Senator is referring?

The present Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Now I know the line the Senator is travelling on.

Senator O'Quigley is getting bogged down now.

Six weeks absence did not do Senator O'Quigley any good.

The Minister is trying to pin this Bill to the 1952 Undeveloped Areas Act. This Bill is an amendment and extension of the 1956 Act. The 1956 Act was designed to enable grants to be made for the establishment of industries outside the areas scheduled in the Undeveloped Areas Act, 1952.

I do not want to interrupt the Senator but he is not quite right.

There was provision in the 1952 Act for extending the areas of operation of Foras Tionscal by Ministerial Order. At the time the 1956 Act was introduced, the Taoiseach, then Deputy Lemass, opened the debate for the Opposition. He is reported as follows at column 1944 of Volume 160 of the Official Debates:

The first question that arises on this Bill is why it is considered necessary at all.

Then, at column 1946, he is reported as saying:

Why is it considered necessary at this stage that State aid to new industries should be given in the form of free grants. One would have thought that the Minister himself would have felt obliged to give some explanation of his own change of attitude in that regard.

The Taoiseach, in 1956, had no great regard for the Bill which was being introduced and of which this Bill is an amendment. He had no great regard for the policy of providing free grants for the establishment of industry outside the undeveloped areas. That is the only point I wish to make—that this Act helped to lay the foundations for the successful industrial development that we have witnessed over the past few years.

I want to point out that industries are not like mushrooms. They do not grow up overnight. One does not get in the short space of one or two years an increase in industrial output simply because there happens to be a change of Government. The increase in industrial output and export stems from the Industrial Grants Act, 1956, and an Act passed towards the end of that year, the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, which provided for tax concessions on all profits on goods exported from the country.

These are points which, unfortunately are not sufficiently well known to the public for one reason—that the Opposition Parties lack an Irish Press, an Evening Press and a Sunday Press.

Goodness gracious me!

I regret I was not here for the commencement of the debate on this Bill, which is designed to extend the financial provisions for the industrialisation of this country. However, when I did come in and when I listened to the speeches of Senators opposite, I came to the conclusion that they were opposed to the Bill. The conclusion which anybody with a detached mind would reach is that Senators on the opposite side are hostile to the objects this Bill is designed to promote. It would be as well at this or some stage that we should get a clear statement from the members opposite on whether they are for or against this Bill.

That is the impression Senator Ó Cíosáin tries to convey.

Anybody listening to the speeches of Senators opposite would come to the conclusion——

Senator Ó Cíosáin cannot understand what we said.

You cannot have it both ways. The objects of this Bill are twofold. It is a Bill to extend the Undeveloped Areas Acts and to extend the Industrial Grants Act. One would imagine from the speeches we have heard from those on the opposite benches that the enactment of the original Undeveloped Areas Act was due to the Coalition Government. It was, of course, the Fianna Fáil Government which enacted the Undeveloped Areas Act in 1952. There is no doubt about that and, if I remember rightly, there was no opposition to it in this House at the time, but it appears there is opposition now——

——judging from the speeches we have heard. Some Senators blow hot and cold on measures like this. We have also heard reference to foreign industrialists coming in here and it seems to me that there is opposition to that from the Opposition benches, that they do not want foreign industrialists to come in.

We want good ones and not "chancers".

It is in violent conflict with a statement made by the Leader of the Fine Gael Party in the Dáil, a report of which I read. He said that his Party were out to encourage foreign industrialists to come in and set up industries. Where do we stand?

Where we always stood.

I was interested to hear Senator L'Estrange talking about the taxpayers' money and how careful we should be of it. One would think that we on this side of the House had no respect for the taxpayers' money. We certainly have and we can tell Senator L'Estrange and some of the people opposite that taxation at the present time is lower than it was when the Coalition Government left office.

We know where you stand now.

There is no doubt that taxation is lower now than when the Coalition left office.

It is £40 million higher.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I doubt if it is relevant.

Income tax is 6/4 in the £ now. That is one example.

What about the price of bread and butter and cigarettes?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

This discussion is not in order.

We have to be for or against this policy of setting up industries here. It is as simple as that.

It is not.

It will not be possible to have industries set up here without the expenditure of a certain amount of money. There is no doubt about that. I am in favour of this Bill and I think it is a step in the right direction. Those who talk about the flight from the land and who say we are not investing money in the land are not stating facts because there is more money being invested in the land today than there has been invested for a number of years.

By foreigners, unfortunately.

There is no doubt that there is more money being spent on the development of agriculture——

And more people leaving it.

——than the people opposite ever dreamed of.

Why do the people not stay on the land?

I should like to give an example of that but I do not want to widen the scope of the debate. As I said before, when we hear speeches such as we heard today from the Opposition benches, we want to know whether these Senators are in favour of extending the industrial policy of the country or not.

They do not know.

They will want to make up their minds.

I do not like to chase all of the hares started during this debate but unfortunately there are some I cannot ignore. However, I shall come first to the more constructive contributions that were made. First of all, I can take Senator McGuire's suggestion that we might begin to contemplate grouping industries in different parts of the country. It would be a good idea but we must realise that the siting of an industry must be, and always will be, a matter for those investing in it, for those carrying the equity. I have always maintained that neither Foras Tionscal nor I should influence any industrialist to site his undertaking in any part of the country. This is something that must remain peculiarly a matter for the industrialist himself. There are many technicalities that operate in relation to the siting of an industry and these must be left to the promoter himself.

In relation to the criticism that the Bill was not necessary—I never know how to address the Chair when the occupant has made a contribution on the floor of the House and then resumes the Chair——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister may act with elasticity in the matter.

You said, Sir, that the Bill was not necessary and was only a piece of election propaganda. We have in the Industrial Development Authority and in Foras Tionscal two bodies which carry the confidence of the community and certainly carry the confidence of members of both Houses of the Oireachtas who have had any contact with them. Many months ago, they represented to me that the moneys available for grants were being committed and that they foresaw, before the end of this year, the possibility that all the money they were authorised by the Oireachtas to commit would have been committed. Therefore they asked me if I would introduce an amending Bill to ensure that no project presented to them would be refused grant assistance, or held up in any way for want of money.

It was on the basis of that request, and having examined the situation as I saw it, that I decided to introduce this Bill. I do not know whether the chairmen or members of these bodies have any interest in the election propaganda of Fianna Fáil. I doubt if they have, but I can assure the House that it is only on the basis of what was suggested to me that this Bill appears before the Seanad and not as a piece of Fianna Fáil propaganda. In any event, the performance of the Government over the past four and a half years has been such as to make it unnecessary to rush in pieces of election propaganda at this stage. There is no Bill before the House that is not essential.

There is nothing like being optimistic.

Senator Murphy did pose the question, whether in the event of our being admitted a member of the European Economic Community, we should not think twice about this policy of giving grants to industry. I do not want to accuse him of defeatism but perhaps I misunderstood the Senator. He is shaking his head.

Giving grants to industry in underdeveloped areas which might not stand up and survive.

The implication was clearly that industries are now being set up with the aid of grants given by Foras Tionscal without studying the effect which European Economic Community conditions will have on them. I take it that that is what he meant. Again, I should like to assure the Senator that every industry to which a grant commitment is made is examined very closely by the Industrial Development Authority, in the first place, and, secondly, by Foras Tionscal, and unless it is seen to be a viable industry and unless it is established to Foras Tionscal that it has a reasonable prospect of surviving, a grant will not be given.

I should like to add that in most cases the bulk of the output of these new industries is designed for export, and already many of them are engaged in successful exporting operations in many parts of the world, which indicates that, even as of now, they are prepared to withstand world competition. I am not going to suggest that that is applicable to all cases, but by and large, I do not think the Senator need have any fears about a very careful appraisal being made of the soundness of an industry before any grant is given to it.

The suggestion was made that the Bill was introduced before our decision to make application to become a member of E.E.C. and that therefore we might have second thoughts even about going ahead with the Bill. I can only repeat that our possible accession to E.E.C. was envisaged many months ago and certainly before this Bill was introduced.

Senator Quinlan made the point that while £26 million represented the total capital investment in these industries, £8 million was a quite substantial amount to be paid by way of grants by the Exchequer. That is true. He also suggested that the workers in those factories might be induced by Foras Tionscal to make contributions to the capital of those industries. As the Senator knows, moneys provided for grants are taken out of the capital account, and that account includes such savings by the ordinary workers as the Post Office Savings Bank, small contributions to national loans, and the like, so that in that fashion the workers who are being given good employment are enabled to contribute to our savings and in that fashion, indirectly though it might be, to contribute to the capital structure of our industrial undertakings.

Senator Carter made some mild complaint about the delay in the printing of the report of Foras Tionscal. I think the House ought to be aware that that report was in the hands of the members in June, that is, the report for the year ended 31st March, 1961, and I think it could almost be fairly claimed that it was probably the first report of a State-sponsored body that was in the hands of members of the Oireachtas.

He also complained that the wording of the Act or of the literature of Foras Tionscal might be vague enough to be considered by foreigners as indicating that full 100 per cent. grants would be given for factory buildings and 50 per cent. grants for machinery in the undeveloped areas. I have here a copy of the "handout" of Foras Tionscal in this connection. It clearly says "grants not exceeding the full cost of factory and grants not exceeding half the cost of machinery and equipment." It may be that the Act might not be as specific as that, but as far as foreigners coming into this country are concerned, they will be told at a very early stage that the grants of 100 per cent. for factory and 50 per cent. for machinery are maximum grants and are not available in all cases—in fact, are available only in very few, because it is only reasonable to assume that Foras Tionscal will look to the promoter of the industry for his own contribution to show his confidence in his undertaking.

As Senator Quinlan pointed out, £26 million total investment against £8 million grants committed, is a fair indication that quite a substantial contribution is required from these promoters before a grant of the taxpayers' money is forthcoming. I think that, too, will answer the suggestion of Senator L'Estrange that as soon as Common Market conditions come into operation for us, these people are going to abandon their factories. They are hardly likely to abandon contributions of that order of the balance of £26 million when £8 million grant money is taken from it. Of course, these people are interested in their investment and in the return this investment will give to them. They come here, not, as Senator L'Estrange suggested, to get a back door entrance into the British market. In that respect, I stand over my interjection that statements like that are nothing but sabotage. They come here because in these places they have an intelligent and adaptable labour force, a labour force capable of producing goods of a quality equal, if not superior, to the quality of goods produced in any other countries.

As far as the suggestion is concerned that some of them are using locations in Ireland to enable goods to get into the British market by the back door, I should like to remind the House that the conditions under which Irish goods are given preferential treatment on the British market come under the trade agreements made between this country and Great Britain, and the relationships between the two countries in this respect to ensure that the terms of these agreements are properly carried out and adhered to are very close and cordial. On any occasion when there is the slightest doubt—I do not think there has been any suggestion that these trade agreements are being availed of in that way —there is the closest degree of cooperation possible between the authorities on both sides to ensure that there is no such evasion. That is why I suggest that to make wild, unsustainable and unsustained charges in this House that foreign industrialists have come here and have done so to defeat the terms of these agreements is sabotage. These charges should not be made unless they can be supported.

Senator O'Quigley suggested, and supported Senator L'Estrange in this respect, that this is only an extension of the 1956 Industrial Grants Act. He is right, but only very partially right. To ignore the 1952 Act is completely wrong. The Undeveloped Areas Act, 1952, was passed for the purpose of inducing the establishment of industries in the undeveloped areas which corresponded mainly with what were known as the congested districts. The phrase congested districts was a handy statutory definition imported into the Undeveloped Areas Act, 1952. Under that Act power was vested in the Minister of Industry and Commerce to schedule contiguous areas and say that grants should be given to industries located in those contiguous areas. In 1956, the Coalition Government brought in a Bill bringing the grants available to new industrial undertakings outside the undeveloped areas up to a maximum of £50 million.

In 1959, the Undeveloped Areas Act, and the Industrial Grants Act, 1956, were taken together for amendment purposes primarily for the purpose of the increasing of the ceiling of grants applicable to both areas. In the 1956 Act, the ceiling was brought to £10 million. Therefore, this Bill is not only an extension of the 1956 Act but also of the 1952 Act and the 1959 Act. Its primary purpose, as I have said, is to raise the ceiling from the £10 million fixed in 1959, to £15 million. That appears to be necessary even at present, or will be necessary in the course of some months.

I should like to assure the Senator that grants are not handed out lavishly. The closest possible examination is made of each and every proposition. Grants are not given out willy-nilly, but are given as the undertaking develops, as the factory is built and the machinery installed. The closest possible scrutiny is made of the expenditure of the grants. Not only that, but there is in the agreement the condition that the promoters are not entitled to part with the factory premises, or their shares, unless within a specified time. That has always been part of the agreements made between Foras Tionscal and the people who sought and got grants.

In this Bill, we are removing a doubt which arose that those conditions were enforceable and we are including a provision to make them statutorily enforceable. There can be no suggestion whatever that grants are given lavishly without any regard for their effect or without any regard for the taxpayer who is providing the moneys.

Those, I think, are some of the main points which were raised. I want to say that while negotiations will soon be in hand for our accession to the Common Market, we must, in no circumstances, in the meantime sit down to see what is going to happen. Unless we have confidence in ourselves and in the future, we will get nowhere.

Exactly.

We will have to proceed on the basis that we have a viable economy and that our people are able and prepared to work as hard and as efficiently as people in other parts of Europe. I am not suggesting that we will not have our difficulties. We certainly will, but so far as the Government are concerned, they have taken full account of those difficulties.

The suggestion was made during the course of the debate that we are ill-prepared for our advent into the Common Market. It is well known that all of our industries have been alerted and that the Committee of Industrial Organisation has been set up to examine closely—with the help of economists and with technical help —what the effects of our accession to the Common Market are likely to be. Therefore, when the time comes, we shall be properly prepared.

There should be no illusions about our accession to the Common Market from the point of view of time. In the case of Britain, it will take several months and possibly years before she ultimately becomes a member. It is inevitable, in any event, that there will be long and protracted negotiations in the case of each country's application for admission. We propose to use those months to ensure that industry will be prepared to the fullest possible extent for any changes that will be brought about by our accession to the Common Market. We shall be well able, in most cases, to face up to the obligations of the Rome Treaty in so far as industry is concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Next stage?

In view of the general approval of this Bill, we might get the remaining Stages today.

We are anxious to co-operate.

Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.

Bill considered in Committee.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Apropos a remark by Senator Quinlan, I should not like it to be thought that I had stated or suggested in my speech on Second Reading that the small units of industry will not survive in the future. In fact, I have no doubt that the small Irish industries can survive, and will survive, provided they produce a commodity, with perhaps an Irish character, that is well and efficiently made.

I want to make a few observations on this, the most important section of the Bill. The Minister has taken us through the various developments of the Undeveloped Areas Act, 1952, and the amending Acts of 1956 and 1959. The Minister did not say anything with which I would substantially disagree. In fact, I do not think he said anything that was not in accord with what I stated myself.

I want to make the point that the 1956 Act was responsible for the extension of the free grants for industry to areas outside the undeveloped areas. When the 1956 Act was introduced it was the expressed view of the Taoiseach that that should have been done by way of order rather than by way of special enactment. This section very properly provides an increase of £5 million in the amount which may be paid by way of grants. That is something which in 1956 was completely anathema to the Taoiseach. He is on record as saying he did not agree with free loans at all. That is a remarkable thing to hear from the Taoiseach.

Would the Senator give the quotation?

I will quote it.

In its full context.

I will quote it in extenso. Then there can be no two ways about it and no doubt that this was the attitude of Deputy Lemass in 1956. At column 1947, Volume 160 of the Dáil Debates, he said:

I have urged already here that, in present circumstances, having regard to the policy being pursued by the commercial banks, the general tightness of money now existing, it is desirable that the resources and, perhaps, the powers of the Industrial Credit Company should be extended, that that undertaking should be enabled to provide money for industrial expansion through investment in the shares of private undertakings, shares which it might not be desirable to market at the present time, or to deal with smaller concerns by way of repayable loans or the purchase of debentures.

It is harmless so far. He went on:

I think that is necessary but I think that is all that is necessary and, indeed, I am quite certain that, if that were done, it could be said that no industrial concern with any prospect of development, any prospect of making a profit, would not be able to proceed because of shortage of money.

That is the background. Of course I cannot speak with the same conviction while reading, as did the Taoiseach when making that statement. He went on:

What is the danger we are facing because of this proposal? The Minister is taking power for the Industrial Development Authority to give grants to any new industrial enterprise anywhere. The danger is that no industrial enterprise will ever start again without getting this free grant from public funds.

That would be national sabotage, if I said it.

He went on:

We have a provision in this Bill which obliges the Industrial Development Authority to take certain things into account and a section which also gives them power to impose conditions. These are provisions which I think are likely to be far more effective——

The House should take note of this.

——in retarding industrial development than helping it.

Hear, hear!

He goes on:

I believe that over the main part of the industrial field private enterprise is the best force on which to rely.

In another paragraph, he deals with private enterprise and I want to come to that, but afterwards he says:

If it could be shown that any single industrial proposition that would not otherwise proceed was likely to go ahead quickly because of the provisions of this Bill I would say that is an argument in its favour. We have not been told that. Indeed no reason has been advanced for the Bill at all. There is an implied assumption that industrial development has been held up by the absence of free grants. That is not true. Industrial development has been held up to some extent by inability to get capital.

There was a credit squeeze; the Senator forgets that we were in the middle of a credit squeeze.

To be fair, he went over what Deputy Lemass said about that.

It was "Tighten your belts. There is no money. Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow but never jam today."

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator must be allowed to finish his quotation of Deputy Lemass anyway. He must not be interrupted.

The Minister said he would like to reassert what had been said. I will continue my quotation:

Meet that by making it possible to get capital. You do not have to meet it by going into the pockets of the taxpayer to hand out grants of this kind when by doing so you are creating a situation in which concerns that might otherwise develop will not develop unless that grant is given to them and where the policy of western development is negative at the same time.

I must confess that I have a very considerable dislike of most of these proposals for money for nothing——

At that time, yes.

——and in the past whenever I had as Minister to bring propositions here involving Government grants of any kind, I felt obliged to defend the proposal in full——

The Bill had to be defended. You had to defend giving grants to an industrial enterprise——

——and the absence of any attempt to defend this Bill by the Minister in introducing it, the unwarranted assumption upon which he based his remarks, indicate to me that no very great thought has been given to this proposition at all.

Now I conclude the Second Reading speech:

The Minister can have this Bill as far as I am concerned but I want to make it clear that in my view—and I may at some time in the future be empowered to influence Government policy—I think it has no importance whatever in relation to our national development and it represents a completely wrong approach to the problems of Irish industry as they exist today.

That is very different from the Senator's paraphrase of it.

Is there anybody on that side of the House or the Minister who can say that the Taoiseach was not altogether opposed to the extension of these grants outside the undeveloped areas? If they do, they do not understand him or else I have read his speech very badly.

Very badly.

It was a question of getting the money.

It was that Act which a previous Minister for Industry and Commerce introduced for industrial development which led to the increase in our industrial exports about which we hear so much—and very properly—at the present time.

Senator O'Quigley missed the point of my review of the Undeveloped Areas Act and the Industrial Grants Act and their integration for certain purposes. I wanted to make the point during my reply on the Second Reading that the increasing of the ceiling from £10 million to £15 million for the purpose of covering grants was applicable both to the Undeveloped Areas Act, as it originally was, and to the Industrial Development Act and this integration, this Bill, is consequent more on the 1952 Act then on the 1956 Act.

Consequent, yes.

I listened to that speech by the Taoiseach. I know its import and it is this: capital was then the biggest difficulty in the establishment of industries in this country and he advocated at that time that if instead of giving grants limited to £50,000 under the Industrial Grants Act of 1956, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Norton, could contrive some system of making capital more freely available, it would serve more the industrialisation of the country than that Act with its limited provisions. Limited provisions they were because grants were not given— still are not given—outside the undeveloped areas, if it can be shown that the industries could be established within the undeveloped areas. The thinking behind that speech was quite clear: that the starting of an industry should not fail for want of capital, whether that capital was a grant or ordinary investment carrying interest rates for the lenders or investors, as the case may be.

He said that grants should not be given.

It ill becomes anybody on that side of the House to criticise the Taoiseach for his approach to industrial problems because he is, and is widely accepted as being, the chief architect of industrial expansion in this country.

I want to make one thing certain: the Minister for Industry and Commerce has tried now to retrieve a situation irretrievable since the days of 1956——

I was there and I know what it was.

——when Deputy Lemass came out flat-footed against the Industrial Grants Bill of 1956. There are no two ways about it:

I must confess that I have a very considerable dislike of most of these proposals for money for nothing.

That was on the previous Bill.

The Senator is repeating his quotation.

These are provisions which I think are likely to be far more effective in retarding industrial development than in helping it.

Then he put the coping stone on it when he promised that if he could ever influence a Government, he would in effect repeal this Act. That was on capital. Let there be no two ways about it.

Is that the exact quotation?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has summarised the quotation in three sentences.

A serious statement has been made. Is that accurate?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

He summarised in three sentences a long quotation. It was too long perhaps, but nevertheless he did summarise it.

He should give us the last paragraph.

I have made my speech, given my quotation and will stand on the summary I have read.

O.K. It is setting a precedent, though.

This is the same approach to industry as the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party towards grasslands. At one time, they said that people were ranchers.

Come back to the factory floor and keep off the grass.

You would not like to hear it.

Is industry likely to go ahead if the boardroom spend as much time discussing what was said in 1956 or 1930 or what Daniel O'Connell said in 1830? It is regrettable that in this House so many hours have been spent discussing promises and broken promises.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that a point of order?

It is a point of information.

It is as well for Senator Stanford to see the masters of inaction in this House.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Quigley.

It is as well that he should know who can be trusted for ideals.

In order to establish that you have accurate versions and political and economic Damascuses, we have to refer to these kinds of records.

It can be trusted to the people in a few months' time.

Does Senator O'Quigley remember the back-lane factories which Fine Gael were so fond of sneering at? Does he remember the little girls who got employment in them?

Every small farm is a factory and they are closing in their thousands to-day.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It would be better if the Senator were allowed to speak.

Certainly, if he keeps to the point. If he asks for trouble and trails his coat, he is going to get it.

I am speaking to a point which is very sharp and is hurting the Senator very much.

I want to repeat, notwithstanding the feelings of Senator Stanford for whom I have considerable regard, that in 1956 the Taoiseach was opposed to the idea of giving grants outside the undeveloped areas.

Senator O'Quigley has misinterpreted to a certain extent what the Taoiseach said as Deputy Lemass in 1956. The Deputy, of course, was well aware of the financial position of the country then. He knew that unless it was possible to provide capital, the provisions of the then Bill would be meaningless. We know very well that capital was not available because the only way to get capital is through national loans. An attempt was made to get capital in that way and we know it was not a great success. We could leave it at that.

I should like to ask the Minister a question about the review he has promised. When making such a considerable increase in the total capital of £10 million to £15 million, many of us would have wished that we had the results of this review before us. I accept the Minister's case as to why he has to do it now but I asked him a question in my Second Reading speech whether he would ensure that this review would be carried out in the most independent manner for us.

I happen to have been reading the Industrial Grants Acts. If you turn to the enactments repealed at the end of the Industrial Grants Act, 1959, you find that they include the Industrial Grants Act, 1956. If you look at the Industrial Grants Act, 1956, you find it is a facsimile of the Industrial Grants Act, 1959, except that, in 1959, the Fianna Fáil Government were expanding the scope and increasing the amount of money. There is no doubt that this policy is the policy of the previous Government—the policy of Deputy Sweetman. People may say that politicians spend hours arguing about this. What are they sent here for but to decide policy, but when one policy is adopted by one group, having been initiated by another, why should this group suddenly decide that they were the people who first did this? They were not. Their particular line of industry was one which to a certain measure succeeded. It was Sinn Féin industrial policy.

The Senator will be saying next that the Hibs supported it.

I am not referring to the Sinn Féin political idea. What I mean is the idea of going at it ourselves alone—behind tariff walls, we will produce the goods for our people here and the enticement to do so will be tariff walls. Two things were clearly expounded by Deputy Sweetman at the time. One was the granting of relief from income on new exports and the other, industrial grants, whereby grants would be made available for the propagation of industry. These two things are absolutely clear and it is quite stupid politically for anybody to say that we spend three hours discussing what happened in 1956. It is absolutely important as to which side everybody is on. If one political group is converted to the other, that is very important as far as policy is concerned. It is the sort of thing that will decide who will be the next Government. The idea is clear to anybody who sat in the Dáil at that time. It was the previous Government who initiated these things which have been expanded by the present Government. They were voted against by them at that time.

We do not come here to get a lecture from anybody, even though he is a professor. It is a good idea that we discuss all legislation that comes before us, even if we have to spend three or four hours in doing so. It is equally a good idea for any Government to continue the policy of a previous Government, if that policy has proved right and even if that particular Government were against the introduction of it.

It is only right to offer proof to the House, as I think it has been offered by Senator O'Quigley, when he quoted the extracts from the speech by Deputy Lemass, as he then was, in 1956. I think nobody can go behind the remarks he made at that time because he was definitely against this Bill. He was definitely against giving grants outside the undeveloped areas. Perhaps the House would like me to read the remarks.

We read them already.

There are certain points that should definitely be read. Let me quote:

You do not have to meet it by going into the pockets of the taxpayers to hand out grants of this kind...

He further stated:

I must confess that I have a very considerable dislike of most of these proposals for money for nothing...

If I said that, it would be national sabotage but it is all right for Deputy Lemass to say that.

He further stated:

The implication is that this Finance Bill gives some enormous financial aid to industry. I have calculated that the maximum amount of money that it could possibly cost the Government, even if we assume that we will get a 10 per cent. increase in industrial exports and a 10 per cent. increase in coal production, is less than £10,000.

He was very far out in his estimate at that time. We are all delighted that he was so far out in his estimate and that he was so wrong. He also stated:

These are provisions which I think are likely to be far more effective in retarding industrial development than in helping it.

If I said that today, it would be regarded as national sabotage. I would be told that I was trying to sabotage industry in the country but it is all right for Deputy Lemass to say it. It is only right that we should let the people know where Deputy Lemass stood and where Fianna Fáil stood as regards industrial grants in 1956.

Then he continued:—

I believe that over the main part of the industrial field private enterprise is the best course on which to rely.

He wanted private enterprise then; he did not want any grants, good, bad or indifferent.

in conclusion, and to put the coping stone on it—

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I hope this is the last quotation.

I want to put on record where the Taoiseach stood in 1956 as regards the grants that have brought industries to this country and that have been responsible for the huge exports of industrial production over the past few years. It is only right that we should know where the Taoiseach stood at that time. He finished off by saying:

I think it has no importance——

—he was speaking of the Bill——

—whatever in relation to our industrial development and it represents a completely wrong approach to the problems of Irish industry as they exist to-day.

That was Deputy Lemass. How wrong he was in 1956! We are all glad to see he was wrong, but, at the same time, I want to say we are delighted that the Minister realises this is a good Bill and that it has done good work for Irish industry and for the economy of the country.

Balderdash.

Sílim gur Alt a 3 de'n Bhille seo atá fé díospóireacht againn anois. Sílim nach í an tárna Céim de'n Bhille a ba chóir a bheith ar siúil anois, fe mar atá. Ba mhaith liom go gcuirfí deire leis an díospoíreacht seo i dtreo is gur feídir linn dul ar ais ar cheist an cóir £10,000,000 nó £15,000,000 a cheadú. Sin í an cheist.

Senator L'Estrange accused me of giving a lecture. He has spoken for approximately 20 minutes in the most dogmatic tone of voice I have heard in the past few years. I spoke for one minute and I propose to speak for just another minute. This is an exhibition of the futility of Party politics at its worst. We have before us a sensible Bill, doing a good job, as everyone has admitted. We have spent the best part of 2½ hours arguing about who deserves credit for this policy. Whether or not it is a good Bill, it has nothing to do with past ordering of industry in this country. It simply has to do with a few votes at the next election —and it will get no votes. Senator L'Estrange is only deceiving himself. The people of Ireland are intelligent enough to think for the present and the future.

They were not, in the last——

It will not make the slightest difference.

Exactly.

I admire Party politics very often but this is one of the afternoons when it has shown itself at its very worst.

I was about to make the observation which Senator Stanford has made.

Surely not. Surely the Minister is in a different frame of mind from that?

Suppose we leave Fine Gael happy in the delusion that they have been responsible for our industrial advancement, for having more people in industry now in the country than ever before, for having our industrial exports at a record level for the past two years. Suppose we just leave it at that and leave it to the people to decide in a couple of months' time, and pass on——

You will pass on.

——pass on from there. If we decide that we will abide by their decision——

You did not abide by their decision in 1922 and in 1948.

I want to come to the point specifically raised by Senator Quinlan that, in order to make it as objective as possible, the review should be done by some outside agency. I think that is what he meant. The review will have to be done in a very close way—to the point, perhaps, that the details of some firms will have to be examined. It would be impossible to expect individual firms to disclose details of their business to outsiders in any way. Foras Tionscal are intimate, in so far as they can be, with the details of some industries. I want to assure the Senator that this will be an objective review. While I cannot accept, for the reason I have stated, that one can give outside people access to details of the business of firms, the Senator need be under no illusion that the review will not be as objective as possible and any defects in the scheme, as now administered, will be repaired.

It seems to me that in the Minister's concluding statement he was referring more to the work envisaged by the C.I.O.——

——than to forms existing at the moment and to see how they would stand in the context of the European Economic Community. I think what Senator Quinlan was referring to was the statement in the Minister's Second Reading speech which I gather was the review of the policy— whether it was correct policy to differentiate between areas in regard to grants for industrial establishments.

That would be part of the review.

I do not think that, involved in that, would be the finances of existing industries of firms and seeing how they are doing at the moment but rather the principle as to whether it is good policy to continue what we have been doing in that direction.

The other matters could arise, too.

The Minister, in his Second Reading speech, which is substantially the same as that made by him in the Dáil, said:

I do feel, however, that the time has come to undertake a comprehensive review of the present scheme. The objects of such review would be to assess the extent to which the existing system has been successful and to see whether any modifications of the system are desirable. In particular, I feel we will have to give careful consideration to the question of whether the present concept of the undeveloped areas has outlived its usefulness.

I feel it would be wrong that this review should be totally entrusted to the body which, over the years, has been charged with carrying out this policy.

I paid the highest tribute possible to this body. I feel that the time has come for some body other than this to have a look at it. If there are reasons such as the Minister has advanced, why could we not have a completely independent review? I appeal to him at least to see to it that independent, outside experts will be included in whatever team will carry out this review— whether that team be a joint team from his Department, Foras Tionscal, or a more widely placed team—so as to try to ensure that it will be as objective and scientific as possible.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments.
Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
Top
Share