Industrial Grants (Amendment) Bill, 1969 (Certified Money Bill): Second Stage.

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

This Bill is a measure to increase the overall statutory limit on industrial grants from £40 million to £50 million. The House will recall that on a similar Bill last year which made the overall limit £40 million, I said then that it was a necessary temporary provision until major legislation amending the Industrial Grants Acts was introduced. I thought at the time that this could be done without too much delay.

I am sorry that it has not been possible for me to bring that major legislation before the House by now, and the present interim Bill to provide more money for An Foras Tionscal has become a necessity. The present ceiling of £40 million that can be paid out by An Foras Tionscal on grants and the provision of industrial estates, authorised by the present legislation, will be reached very shortly. Approximately £38 million had been spent by 31st March, 1969.

It will be seen that an increase in the limit by £10 million will suffice only for a short period of time. It will be used up within the present financial year, but within that time, the House may expect to have before it the major legislation which I have promised revising the grant structure.

The delay in introducing this major revising legislation has been due to difficulties of preparation and drafting. There are 12 Acts relating to this matter on the statute book which have to be taken into account, and the forthcoming legislation will have to deal not merely with the various types of grant and the building of estates and factories but also with the administrative structure to handle them. As the House is aware, it is proposed to amalgamate the Industrial Development Authority and An Foras Tionscal, and these bodies have been separately established by different Acts of the Oireachtas.

I have mentioned all this simply to let An Seanad know the position about the pending legislation, but none of it arises on the present Bill. This Bill will merely enable An Foras to continue to discharge its commitments made under the present code for a short period of time.

It will be noted that in the Bill there are two separate provisions relating to the increase to £50 million. The first subsection of section 1 fixes the global limit for payments by An Foras Tionscal or by the Industrial Development Authority, which was previously a grant-giving body, at £50 million. The second subsection refers to the grants-in-aid given by the Minister to An Foras Tionscal to enable them to make such payments, and fixes this similarly at £50 million.

I recommend the Bill for the approval of An Seanad.

The Bill itself is clearly unobjectionable, but an objection does arise because of the circumstances in which the Bill is brought in. The Minister has been frank enough about the circumstances, and though he has told us plainly what the problem is he has not justified it. The fact is that many months have elapsed since the relevant recommendations were made to the Minister by the Gilmore Report and subsequently by the NIEC, whose amendments to the Gilmore Report were broadly accepted by the Government. My recollection is—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that he announced at the time of the publication of the Gilmore Report acceptance in principle of the Report and its recommendations or at least that is my recollection of it. My complaint is that that took place a very long time ago. I am becoming increasingly concerned by the way in which the tempo of the government machine is slowing down, and by that I mean the whole machine of government, not the Government in the political sense, but government in the public administration sense.

I know life is becoming more complex, that legislation is becoming more complex and there is much more to legislate about. Nevertheless, that is not an excuse for public administration and the Government not to keep up with the needs of the time. In every area of public policy we are meeting with constant frustrations because of this slowness. Anybody reading the Third Programme will see that this is illustrated very effectively throughout. Indeed the comment made by somebody, even before I commented on it, was that when you read through it and see the number of things which are not finished, the number of things in process, the number of decisions pending, the number of decisions which have yet to be taken on matters which should have come up for consideration, one is faced with the extraordinary position of a Government so slow as to fail completely to match the needs of the time. The contrast between the way in which events are speeding up in the world generally and the way in which things took generations now take decades; the things which took decades now take years and the things which took years now take months.

Everything in life is speeding up and the machinery of government is going down. This is extremely disturbing and we have here an illustration of this. The Minister has explained there are a number of Acts of the Oireachtas to be considered, 12 Acts, and a proposal to amalgamate two bodies, but this does not explain why it should take so many months to do this. I am afraid a Government in office for such a long time may become complacent in those matters. They may be used to this slow tempo of work in the public service. I can quite visualise if I were in Government for ten years I would become so used to the speed at which the Government service works as to forget the speed at which the rest of the world has to work.

I feel there has been a growing acceptance by the Government of the slow tempo of work and a failure to realise that the tempo is in fact slowing down all the time. The members of the Government have forgotten their own experience, before they were in Government, in their own walks of life, in the speed in which they are now working. Perhaps those comments are ill-directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce who before he was Minister was a solicitor, a profession which is not known perhaps for the speed in which it completes some of its work. Nevertheless I think there is a point there of very general application and I think this is a clear illustration of it.

Certainly I have found within the past two years in my contact with public affairs outside politics in this House and Party politics generally, a growing frustration with this problem among people who are concerned with public affairs and involved in public affairs, a growing frustration which is translating itself increasingly into protests by people, whether they be management, unions or farmers, with the process of government and the slow tempo of government. I think this is a case in which we should make this protest. The Minister should not have to come here with this Bill. He should have come earlier than this, indeed, with the full legislation required in the matter.

I should like the Minister to be a little more explicit as to the exact reasons for the delay. He really gave two sets of reasons. One of these is that there are 12 Acts to be brought together but this is something which a competent draftsman should be able to do in a matter of days rather than months and the other that the Department are amalgamating two bodies. There may be some problem in this latter one. Certainly in Irish life to create any kind of corporate body, to merge it maybe or modify it or modify it relating to another body, seems to be extremely difficult. Is it in this area the delay has occurred? I feel there is a little more to this.

In the other House mention was made, and I think properly, of another document relative to this Bill in its broad context, which is also held up —the Buchanan Report. The Third Programme records that the Buchanan Report was presented to the Government last September. We are now near the end of April, seven months later, and the Government have not yet published the Report other than some comments on it. I suspect the reason for this is that the Report was made to the Minister for Local Government and that the Minister has been concerning himself over a period of almost a year with two measures of particular interest to the Fianna Fáil Party but not of great advantage in fact to the country, and that Minister has not got the reputation of handling matters very quickly in his Department but rather of putting them into a bottleneck and that in fact he has been sitting on this Report.

I may be wrong. It may be that the Government are simply afraid to publish the Report and to give their decision on it before the election. There may be political reasons. Certainly there can be no excuse for this and I wonder whether the delay in publishing the full industrial development legislation is connected with this. Is it perhaps the case that the whole question of industrial grants for different parts of the country involves the question of regionalisation of the country and the development of growth centres recommended in the Buchanan Report? Is there any connection betwen those two things? Certainly the idea of regional growth centres in the Buchanan Report, and the Government sitting on them, will have very great implications on the whole development of industrial grants, and I cannot feel the delay in dealing with that and in even bringing it before the Oireachtas is anything but harmful in relation to the whole industrial grants policy.

The Minister in the Dáil dealt with this matter in a rather odd way, if I may say so, with respect to him, because he made the point, perfectly validly, that people should not simply say: "Oh, you have got a recommendation, why don't you implement it?" He also made the point: "It is for the Government to decide whether a particular recommendation should be implemented." I think that was a right assertion of the political role of a Government. It is the Government's job to do that and the Government are rightly inclined at times to reject recommendations made to them and at other times to accept them, but I do not think his assertion that the Government are right justifies the Government not simply taking a decision. It justifies them taking a decision perhaps contrary to the recommendation but it does not justify them postponing the decision indefinitely.

Indeed, I notice he used the words: "Such reports which go to the Government are considered by them but the ultimate decisions on them are Government decisions". I do not know quite what emphasis he placed on the word "ultimate" in the Dáil but in the light of what has been happening in this particular sphere he would be justified in putting pretty heavy emphasis on it because "ultimate" is the appropriate word for decisions which are so long in coming about. He said in the Dáil: "Indeed there was no certainty the Buchanan Report would be accepted by the Government". I suggest that the Government should make up their minds on it. I wonder if the Government have even received the Buchanan Report yet, as distinct from the Minister for Local Government. I know the Report may have been seen by the Government in general terms but has it even come up for decision by the Government yet or have the Government been too preoccupied with other matters.

Remember the background to this. Our whole industrial programme has been running along lines which have been condemned as long ago as 1964 by the Committee on Industrial Organisation. After prolonged discussion at the Committee on Industrial Organisation, in which the Government took part and expressed certain views, they eventually joined in the report and it was recommended our existing policies were unsuited to the needs of this country, that the policy of industrialisation everywhere, on industry in every village, was one which could not but slow down the growth of industrialisation and the growth of employment. If we are to succeed both in attracting large industries and large quantities of industries and developing industrialisation on a large scale in this country and in decentralising industry from Dublin to other parts of the country, the only possible policy to pursue is one involving concentration on growth centres. The Government reaction on this was to kick for touch by referring the matter to another committee which reported 18 months later.

An awful lot of people do not understand that phrase "Kick for touch" and perhaps the Senator would explain it.

Ask the GAA.

I am more than happy to develop the point for Senator Ó Maoláin but it might delay us too long. Certainly, if he wishes, I will do so. The position was that the recommendation was one which is obviously a political sentinel for any Government and I can quite sympathise with the Government having to cope with this particular decision and having to concentrate growth in certain growth centres. In areas outside those growth centres they might fail to appreciate that they will in turn benefit and they may feel aggrieved. Nevertheless, the Government kicked for touch by instead of taking a decision of a firm recommendation of civil servants in Finance and Industry and Commerce, of management and of trade unions speaking together in this report, they referred them to another committee. That is what I call kicking for touch. It is a well know term in certain centres of sport with which Senator Ó Maoláin is perhaps familiar.

That committee's report is again in favour of this reform. Was anything done about it? Yes, indeed, something was done. The Government took a decision in principle. That is another form of kicking for touch. It means you announce you are in favour of doing something and are not going to do anything about it at the moment. It says that of course it was in favour of growth centres in principle but it was going to see where the growth centres were to be. Those were to emerge from the process of regional planning. That is, they would wait and see what kind of proposals emerged from regional planning in different parts of the country for particular centres to be developed for industrialisation, leaving the matter to a further committee set up for this purpose. Not alone that, but they did not in fact appoint that committee for a further 15 months or thereabouts.

That is the Buchanan Group who were appointed to study this. When the Buchanan Report was received, they left it sitting for seven months without doing anything about it. Some years have been lost in delays either through kicking for touch by referring matters to a second committee or alternatively by not taking a decision or by the postponing of the decision. We now have lost two years in this whole matter, two years which could have been years of fruitful industrial expansion on a larger scale than at present. They have been lost because this Government have been putting off making a decision. I think this is inexcusable. I think it needs to be said that these are criticisms which are being made by people who have no political sides and no political desire to attack the Government as such. They are criticisms now very widespread.

I therefore press the Minister to get ahead with a decision about growth centres and to get on with the Bill and to bring the Bill in as soon as possible because we cannot afford these persistent delays. In areas of policy formulation we have been quick. Indeed the Government, in time, and their officers have been quick to see what is wrong and to see what might be done about it. However, when we do see what is wrong whether through the eyes of a joint committee or the public service or members of the Government, the time we do anything about it is so long — it is, on average, about five years—that the tempo of economic growth has been slowed down to a very serious degree. It is partly the fault of the Government individually. It is partly the fault of the public service. Delays seem to be due either through the Government not wanting to take decisions because of the danger of their being unpopular or through their being preoccupied with political activities such as the Referendum last year and the Electoral Bill, and the very slow tempo of the work in the public service has become increasingly disastrous for this country.

One quite incidental beneficial byproduct of a change of Government would be that a new Government coming in would consist of people who had been used to a tempo of work quite different from that which is now the practice in Dublin. Maybe the members of the new Government would get drugged by the process after a number of years but at the early stages they would come in with a sense of number of years but at the early stages they would come in with a sense of frustration at the delays involved and they would speed up the tempo of decision making.

Having said that, and it was justified, the Bill itself is acceptable. Not alone do we not wish to hold on the process of industrialisation by holding up money needed by An Foras Tionscal, but we are glad the process of industrialisation is so much faster than the process of Government decision-making that the Minister has had to come back here to look for more money. If the Minister is to delay legislation himself or is to have it delayed on him by other people, at least it is encouraging that the process of industrialisation will not wait on such delays and that the Minister must come back here for more money.

The Government are right in the priority they are giving to industrial grants. No matter what cuts there have been in spending at times when temporary mismanagement of the economy has led to inflation and cuts in capital spending, the Government have not cut back on industrial grants. They have been given priority and therefore the process of industrialisation has not been affected such as other services, such as housing, have been particularly in the period 1965 and 1966. For those reasons the Bill is welcome, though the strictures I have made are well deserved.

Despite expansion in the industrial sphere, the number of wage earners this year is smaller than last year. The proposal now before us is a clear indication that the Government have grown tired and lazy. Otherwise they have become confused and preoccupied. There must be some explanation for the delay in bringing in legislation which was announced 12 months ago. If we examine the Minister's statement we shall see that the average expenditure on industrialisation during the past 12 months was £750,000 per week, a total of £38 million in 52 weeks. Now the Minister is asking for £10 million. If the average rate is to continue — the Minister mentioned that it is beginning to quicken—the sum now being asked for will bring us as far as 1st August, right in the middle of the recess. It is difficult to understand why the Minister has chosen a figure of £10 million if the annual sum is £38 million.

I do not wish to interrupt the Senator, but his calculations are not correct. The £38 million is the total amount up to the date mentioned. It is not the total for 12 months.

I am sorry. That means that the expenditure is much less than £750,000 per week. It upsets my argument because I had understood that this money had been expended during the period 1968-69. The Minister indicated that £38 million had been expended up to 31st March, 1969. If this £10 million is to carry us through the summer, the argument is, of course, quite different. The question arises — it may be what is delaying the Minister—of the IDA losing their identity, becoming amalgamated with An Foras Tionscal. This will be a move towards bureaucratic control. There will be two different departments, if you like to call them departments, functioning as one and in this kind of bureaucratic machine the matter of getting decisions may be a slower process. At present one may get a quick decision from the IDA and may have to wait for An Foras Tionscal, orvice versa. When you get the two combined people will have to wait for one administrative unit to make decisions.

I agree this legislation is necessary. It is possible, however, that the Minister visualises the comprehensive legislation promised at a suitable time during the coming general election campaign. It is the only excuse I can think of for the delay in presenting such legislation up to now. Senator FitzGerald suggested the delay may have been due to electoral activities last year. Recently there has been a movement towards industrialisation, particularly towards manufacture for export, and it is desirable that the trend in this direction should be maintained and that the necessary finances should be provided as quickly as possible.

This proposal for an extra £10 million is a temporary expedient to allow things to continue until a combined piece of legislation is presented to the House. I support the proposal here because I think that whatever can be done towards increasing our exports should be done as quickly as possible.

I cannot help seeing a contrast between this Bill and the Bill we had before the House just before this Bill. The first Bill was for the purpose of raising from £20 million to £25 million the amount guaranteed to the ACC for the purpose of providing loans to assist farmers, with various exclusions such as that loans cannot be given to farmers to purchase land. That would be considered far too dangerous. There is also the proviso in general that farmers would pay an interest rate of 8½ per cent on the loans they get, though the interest rate was reduced to 6½ per cent provided that the amount of the loan to any individual farmer did not exceed £400. Here we have a Bill to give not loans but free grants, not to farmers but to industrialists, and indeed to industrialists who may well use the money to buy land outright or at least to acquire a very big working interest in land. These grants are not loans and not only do they not bear interest rates —if I am correct on that point and I think I am—but they are largely unrepayable.

There is an implication here that the Government, and perhaps we ourselves as a society, view the industry of agriculture and other industries in a very different light. Agriculture will have £25 million made available for lending to farmers at 8½ per cent. I am aware that it has been mentioned that there are grants to farmers and that apart from the grants there are subventions to farm products. Apart from the grants to industrialists there is remission of income tax. Some foreign industrialists coming in are not asked to pay income tax at all for a period extending up to ten years. There are other imponderables granted to industrialists.

There is also some remission of income tax to farmers.

There are some farmers prepared to contend that they pay more than their share. Today we have two Bills before us. In one case we are asked to enable farmers to borrow up to £25 million and to pay it all back with 8½ per cent interest. There are few bad debts because the money is largely repaid. The other Bill today is a Bill to make available twice that amount, some £50 million, to industrialists. The Minister is apologetic because he says this will be enough for the current year. The Minister will have to come back, with major legislation, like Oliver Twist, asking for more. Here we are asked to supply twice the amount for industrialists as for farmers. I feel that farmers will want to know why is it that they have to pay such a high rate of interest, and why is it that there cannot be for farmers as well as for industrialists at least a waiting period before they start paying back, and why is it that when substantial grants can be given to industrialists—and some of them industrialists about whom we know very little who come from outside — whereas for farmers to benefit from the low 6½ per cent, the amount of their loans must not exceed £400. Would the Minister venture to guess what industrialists, Irish or foreign, would say if they were to be told they would be given a maximum of £400?

Did the Senator not hear the Minister explaining the reasons for that limitation?

I listened carefully to the Minister and I have his speech before me. I am sure Senator Ó Maoláin will make a convincing speech later on, some of which may be relevant.

The Senator should be allowed to continue his speech.

I was making the point of what an industrialist would say if he was told his maximum grant was £400.

Acting Chairman

The Senator should not persist in that misrepresentation.

A grant of £400 to an industrialist would be regarded as chicken-feed but to a farmer it is supposed to be a significant loan which must be paid backin toto at a so-called reduced rate of 6½ per cent. I should like to link this also with another aspect. We are told frequently by members of the Government that this country is proud of the fact that it is run under the system of profits and private enterprise. I remember Senator Donegan in the Seanad some years ago saying we have in this country, thank God, the profit system and the system of private enterprise. I felt prompted to interject “thank Mammon”. It seemed to me he was addressing himself to the wrong deity. Mammon is largely in charge of the profit system and the system laughingly called private enterprise.

This private enterprise we are supposed to visualise is composed of businessmen and industrial tycoons bursting with energy, drive and imagination, creating industries out of nothing, competing with one another and the best man coming to the top with brilliance and talent and supplying the needs of the people who make demands on the market system, but in this country, apparently, under the present Government and under all Governments so far, we appear to be in favour of private enterprise provided that private enterprise is adequately, if not generally, State-aided. We have a system here of State aided private enterprise. I suggest that is a contradiction in terms. If the State is required to aid private enterprise the private enterprise has no longer the right to be so called.

The Minister will have to leave for a division in the Dáil.

Is the majority quite as small as all that? Could we not keep the Minister?

The Senator should keep his quips.

The majority is quite comfortable but the Minister would like to record his vote.

Acting Chairman

The Senator is entitled to continue his speech.

For the sake of the Minister I should rather wait until he comes back.

After this interval which saved the Government I should like to return to Government policy in relation to private enterprise, because it puzzles me. On the one hand we are supposed to think of private enterprise as being conducted by rugged individuals who would have nothing to do with the welfare state; who want no handouts from anybody; who through their own talent, drive and energy, and through the mechanism of free and open competition, place themselves, for profit, at the service of the community, and build up our whole industrial scheme. If that is so, what do they want these grants for? Where do the £50 million come in? Why do we have to give them a free gift from the State? Oh, horror, £50 million of dole, of a handout being given to the rugged private enterprise individualists. Is there not something paradoxical in our saying we are in favour of private enterprise provided that it is generously and adequately State-aided? This is a case, as I see it, of the welfare state supplying crutches to spavined industrialists who are incapable of walking unaided. Why are these crutches necessary? Why does not private enterprise supply the money? Why is the system based upon profit and private greed not enough to supply, through its banks and its merchants, enough money for these rugged individualists to build up what industries they want?

Alternatively, if that is not possible so to do, are we not wrong to throw this £50 million or more as a free gift to these people? Would we not be far better advised to enter into State enterprise on a wider scale than we have already? It will be recognised on all sides of the House that we have engaged in it in various spheres. Why not develop this with the £50 million, which we seem to have to spare now, instead of putting it in the pockets of exponents of so-called "private enterprise", and helping them to buy land, build factories and run industries? Would we not be better, even at this late stage, to enable building land, for instance, to be stabilised in price through municipalisation, or even through nationalisation, thereby refusing to allow private speculators in land to take profits added to the land not by their efforts, but by the efforts of the community surrounding them? Should we not long ago have decided to municipalise the land around our large towns and cities and prevent the mechanism which, by the fantastic increase in the price of land, produces higher prices in all the products of these industrialists and is, perhaps, a factor in their now requiring from us this dole, represented by the £50 million the Minister is now asking for. He has also assured us that this will only be enough for the current year, telling us at the same time that he is going to come back soon and ask for a really big sum for these unfortunate people who, while talking about private enterprise, seem to require lavish State aid in order to allow them to go forward at all.

I have a few short observations to make. First of all, I think it is appropriate to refer to the Minister's last visit to the House because Senator Sheehy Skeffington has forgotten all about it. On that occasion I was very remiss that I did not congratulate the Minister and the Government on coming to the House to seek more money for the small industries, especially since small industries, even in my own village, have benefited from the Small Industries Programme. Senator Sheehy Skeffington has been sneering at £750 maximum, but I know people in small industries who have been very glad to get an amount as big as this. The scheme for small industries corresponds with the scheme for the small farmers.

I should like to congratulate the Minister for bringing in this Bill asking for further help for our large industries. It is very heartening news that the amount available has been used up and that we need more in the interim period. This shows the confidence that industrialists have in our country and in our Government. I would remind Senator Garret FitzGerald that, far from the tempo of Government slowing down, the position is that progress under our Fianna Fáil Government is so fast that even the Government themselves cannot keep up with it. A statement was made by a Professor at Leicester University about three months ago, in which he said that the progress in Ireland over the last ten years was nothing short of a modern miracle. Perhaps if Opposition Members would take the trouble to skim through this statement there would be no need to give apologies because Fianna Fáil are looking for more money.

I am glad to note that the House appears on the whole to welcome this Bill. What Senator Ahern has just said is something I was going to say and I think it bears repeating. The problem in relation to Bills of the kind mentioned in my introductory statement is that we are working at such a fast rate under this Government that some of our machinery cannot keep up with it. We are endeavouring to speed up that machinery. But I think this is a case for congratulation rather than otherwise. I was amused listening to Senator Garret FitzGerald in his essay of possible reasons for delay in bringing forward this legislation. In fact, I thought he had exhausted every possible reasons except the truth until I heard Senator Rooney, who managed to think up another one.

The fact of the matter, as I have stated, is simply the difficulty in obtaining the Bill from the draftsmen. The decisions have been made; they have been announced and industrialists are aware of what they are. Indeed, within certain limitations, they are being operated. The machinery for the amalgamation of the IGA and An Foras Tionscal is going ahead. A good deal of the recruiting of the staff, based on the new structure which I announced, has gone ahead and is continuing. Anyone who did not know what was going on in this country could be forgiven, having listened to Senator Garret FitzGerald, for thinking that what is happening here is that things are grinding slowly—or perhaps quickly—to a halt. The truth of the matter as far as the industrial sphere is concerned, which is what we are concerned with here, is that each of the last few years has seen a considerable increase on the previous year. But the year which finished on the 31st March last saw almost a doubling of the number of projects and the amount of employment involved over the previous year, which itself was an increase over the year before and exceeds all records we have ever had. This is the reason for the necessity for more money and why we think the £10 million will not be sufficient for the present financial year.

I made that point.

As I say, anybody listening to Senator Garret FitzGerald and who did not know the facts would have thought things were not going well, but they would have been wrong. The facts are at variance with what was given by Senator FitzGerald. I might in relation to something said by Senator Ahern, say that this includes the money involved for the small industries programme.

I must confess I was very puzzled in the early parts of Senator Sheehy Skeffington's speech because, whatever one might say about him, one would not say he is unintelligent. Yet he proceeded on a most unintelligent basis to try to compare things which were not allied, to try to compare loans for agriculture with grants for industry. The thing was so ludicrously fallacious it was obvious that Senator Sheehy Skeffington was well aware of this. I was puzzled as to how he could proceed on this basis, how his intellectual integrity would allow him to proceed on such a foolish basis. I then realised when he proceeded further that all he was doing was trying to lay some kind of foundation for his lecture on the philosophy of private enterprise. I do not propose to follow him in that regard as I do not think it is necessary. I was, however, amused by his statement that in the case of private enterprise economics the general impression as to which deity was in charge was wrong. He said it was not God, it was Mammon. The corollary to that, which would seem to follow, was that in public enterprise economies God was in charge. This is not as obvious to other people as it may be to the Senator.

I notice, too, he appeared to think that in the case of farmers, even on the basis of his peculiar terms of reference in this debate, there was some kind of unfair treatment of them as compared with what was done for industrialists. The implications in the latter part of his address seemed to me to indicate that he does not think that farmers are private enterprise. I would like to let him know they are very much so and he will have quite a job convincing the farmers of this country that they should agree with him to do away with private enterprise.

More is the pity.

The farmers of this country would have a different view, and indeed so would the 150,000, approximately, people who have jobs in the industry of this country created under the kind of scheme we are talking about here and the kind of structure we are discussing here. I said I did not want to follow him too far in this as I do not think it is worthwhile, but I want to say that the scheme we have been operating in the development of industry is meeting with increasing success. As I have indicated, the success in the year ended 31st March last is quite spectacular, and I believe we are going to proceed with even greater momentum and the major legislation, to which I have referred, will expedite and assist that development. In the meantime, what is required to keep up this momentum is to provide further money for An Foras Tionscal. As I have indicated, this is what this Bill proposes to do.

Question put.

Would the Senators requiring a Division rise in their places?

Senator Sheehy Skeffington rose.

Acting Chairman

The Senator will be recorded as dissenting.

Question agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.