Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Oct 1995

Vol. 144 No. 16

Industrial Development Bill, 1995: Second Stage.

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

I am standing in today for the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Richard Bruton, as he is unavailable and he has asked me to convey his apologies to the House.

The purposes of the Bill before the House are to amend the Industrial Development Act, 1993, in order to remove unnecessary restrictions on the operations of Forbairt and IDA Ireland in regard to the acquisition, holding and disposal of property; to enable Forfás, Forbairt and IDA Ireland to establish subsidiaries; to allow Forbairt and IDA Ireland to invest moneys in funds aimed at the development of industry, as opposed to investments in specific companies; to increase the aggregate limit of grants that may be made to SFADCo to enable it to discharge its industrial development functions and make other minor amendments to the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Acts, 1959 to 1991; and to provide statutory authority for the payment to county enterprise boards, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, of grants to meet their administration and general expenses and to discharge the obligations and liabilities arising out of the performance of their enterprise support functions.

Overall the provisions of the Bill will enhance the abilities of operating agencies to respond to the needs of industry thereby adding to the policies aimed at increasing employment and reducing unemployment. Over the period 1994 to 1996 Ireland is forecast to have the strongest performance in terms of economic and employment growth in the EU and OECD countries. According to OECD forecasts as of June employment in Ireland will grow by an average of 2.3 per cent over this three year period, while the EU and OECD averages will be less than half of 1 per cent. Economic growth over the same period is forecast at 5.6 per cent in real terms for Ireland, while EU and OECD averages will be 2.8 per cent.

No matter how good our record growth is, whether in comparison with other countries or historically, the economy must achieve higher employment for our economic growth if we are to make inroads on the general unemployment problem but also, in particular, on the stubbornly high numbers of those who are long-term unemployed and who have not by and large been reached by the growth in employment.

A number of initiatives have been taken in recent months specifically geared towards dealing with the long-term unemployed. The numbers who benefit from community employment have been restored to an average of 40,000 for 1995. The recommendations of the task force on unemployment, which arose out of the National Economic and Social Forum's report on long-term unemployment to which Members here contributed, have been proceeded with and a new unit has been established in my Department to oversee the operation of this service. The local employment service is being introduced initially in the 12 established partnership areas and two non-partnership areas, and Clare and Limerick have been chosen for this.

In each area a local management committee has been set up to oversee the drawing up and implementation of the overall plan for the provision of services for the long-term unemployed in the area. Plans for four areas have already been approved and assessment for a further seven are at an advanced stage, and approvals on these should be forthcoming over the next couple of weeks. We are getting the local employment service up and running in line with the planning which was promised in the task force report.

In parallel with this process an examination of employment strategy is being carried out in my Department to ensure we are doing our absolute best to increase employment and reduce unemployment. To this end a policy review in the areas of foreign direct investment, indigenous industry and labour market interventions is in the process of being finalised. We must all raise our sights higher to ensure that people who are unemployed can be reintegrated into the labour market. It is not a simple task; it is highly complex but is fundamental to tackling unemployment, in particular long-term unemployment.

Government policy on employment has many facets. It is first important to have appropriate macroeconomic policies that encourage sustainable economic and job growth. Business confidence and investment depends on a positive macroeconomic framework and the Government is strongly committed to maintaining and building such a framework. In relation to competitiveness, the House will be aware that a new task force for industry adjustment was established to identify areas of business at risk from competitive forces and to propose competitive strategies. This task force was involved in a process aimed at bringing about changes, particularly in the traditional manufacturing sectors, to encourage firms to prevent job losses and secure existing employment. The task force, which includes ICTU and IBEC as well as the State agencies, is developing a strategy aimed at areas where avoidance of job losses requires major change and adjustment. I hope they will have completed the process shortly.

In addition, IDA Ireland and Forbairt already work closely with their existing clients to identify at an early stage Irish or Irish based companies that are in danger of becoming uncompetitive. There are a number of ways that IDA Ireland and Forbairt can help companies improve their competitiveness, including working with companies to achieve ISO accreditation, introducing world class manufacturing standards, establishing research and development functions, working with companies to keep overheads down to ensure the cost of manufacturing can compete internationally, and close intervention with companies which wish to become sub-suppliers to major multinational enterprises. However, Forbairt also provides significant support to indigenous companies under the management development programme.

I established earlier this year a new unit in the Department to deal with the whole project of partnership in delivering change. If Irish companies are to meet the challenge of the inevitable changes in the marketplace and the production process, that has to be achieved through partnership of everybody in the company, from the shop floor up to the top. This unit on partnership in enterprise is working to ensure that Irish companies can mobilise all that their employees bring to work — their brains and their hands — so that the enterprise can deliver in a co-operative way the kind of flexibility and adaptability necessary to anticipate and manage change. Our future ability to compete will depend on our ability to manage change.

The operational programme for industry, 1994-99, sets out an overall target of 20,000 gross new jobs per annum. This target was exceeded by Forbairt, IDA Ireland and Shannon Development in 1994. We are confident that these agencies will maintain that excellent performance in 1995 and over the remainder of the decade. It is good to see us attracting world class companies and we hope that there will be a good spin off.

While the last operational programme had significant successes — it achieved its 20,000 gross jobs on average per annum target and saw Ireland achieve the highest growth in output and employment in manufacturing in the EU — it also showed up important continuing weaknesses. These include the static Irish share in EU markets and the continuing high level of job losses — 87,000 over the last operational programme — which almost wiped out the jobs created. In the indigenous sector 60,624 new jobs were matched by 59,043 job losses, leaving only a meagre 1,600 extra at work in that area over the five years. There is a wide discrepancy in performance of the high tech, mostly foreign owned sector and the traditional sectors. There is also a difficulty in increasing the Irish economy purchases by overseas industry.

The new operational programme is setting itself explicit targets, not just of gross job creation as in the past but other targets which must be achieved if we are to make our industry competitive. We want to increase indigenous exports by 66 per cent in value, almost twice as fast as the overseas sectors for which we have set a target of 35 per cent. We want to increase our share of world trade by 20 per cent, from 0.7 per cent to 0.84 per cent; to increase the share of raw materials used by foreign companies sourced in Ireland by 15 per cent, from 27 per cent to 31 per cent and to increase the share of GDP devoted to R & D by 30 per cent, from 1 per cent to 1.3 per cent.

The gross job target of 20,000 is the same as for the last operational programme, although the greater emphasis on strengthening the long-term capability of Irish industry will help reduce job losses and give a more secure long-term employment base. The operational programme should make it possible to double the net annual jobs outturn from 2,400 over the last programme to 5,000 jobs on average per annum up to 1999.

The small business and services sectors have a major role to play in the drive to increase employment and reduce unemployment. The recently launched operational programme on small business is the Government's most recent response to the needs of small business. Under this programme more than £53 million is being made available in targeted supports in partnership between the State, the EU and the private sector. The programme complements and underpins Government policy for the small business sector.

In particular, it will help small businesses and service firms obtain access to low cost long-term finance. In this regard a new access to finance scheme, which was announced separately recently, is already operational and builds on the success of the initial pilot scheme with the following major improvements: the fund size is more than doubled from £100 million to £208 million; the interest rate has been lowered from 6.75 per cent to 6.5 per cent; the minimum loan size has been reduced from £40,000 to £20,000; there is nationwide delivery via almost 1,000 bank branches and the service sector has been included for the first time.

The programme also provides for a number of initiatives aimed at upgrading the small business share of access to public purchasing, enhancing the growth in employment potential of service firms, developing best practice among small businesses and supporting training initiatives. The small business forum, consisting of representatives of small business, Government Departments and the social partners, was also set up recently. I believe that the forum will have a useful ongoing role in the development of small business policy.

The launch of the small business programme follows the launch earlier this year of the local development programme under which EU funding will be made available for a wide range of local development initiatives, including the county enterprise boards. The local development programme recognises both the general role which local initiatives can play as a catalyst for local development and the particular importance of locally based measures for such development. The programme complements the emphasis on improving the business environment through measures designed to create an enterprise culture at local level. Clearly, a more developed sense of enterprise at local level would contribute to the creation of new small businesses, which, in turn, will stand to benefit from what is on offer under the small business programme.

Whereas these measures will create additional jobs, I am conscious of the need to ensure that all members of society, particularly the young and the unemployed, have access to these new opportunities. As I said, we have been successful in creating jobs over the last couple of years, but we have not tackled successfully the problem of ensuring that a fair share of those new jobs go to the long-term unemployed, who have not been reached so far by our mainstream economic development.

We are committed to pursuing a range of active labour market measures to improve access to jobs, which include the provision of work and the development of job related skills. Enterprise initiatives on their own are only part of the answer to tackling unemployment. In addition to the local employment service, my Department is working on the White Paper on Training which will address the role of training in a competitive world.

It is clear that a strong and sustained national effort is required to remedy the unemployment problem. There is not one simple answer as it is a multifaceted problem and we need to move on a number of different fronts. Our job policies are being reviewed in the light of changing trends, opportunities and threats to ensure the solutions we pursue represent the best strategy for the future.

Against this background, I wish to turn in more detail to the provisions of the Bill. The Industrial Development Act, 1993, which established the three new agencies in January 1994 — Forfás, IDA Ireland and Forbairt — confined to Forfás the power of the former IDA to acquire, hold and dispose of land and other property. While the original intention was to give Forfás, Forbairt and IDA Ireland the basic power to acquire, hold and dispose of land and other property, paragraph 1 (2) of the First Schedule of the 1993 Act confines this power to Forfás only. This had two main effects: neither Forbairt nor IDA Ireland can hold land either for their own administrative purposes or for industrial development purposes, and neither of them can acquire or hold shares in their respective client companies. Section 3 of this Bill rectifies this anomaly by allowing Forbairt and IDA Ireland to acquire, hold and dispose of land and other property.

Section 3 also provides for the transfer of the existing property portfolio from Forfás to IDA Ireland and makes provision for the agencies to dispose of property for purposes other than industrial use, subject to the express consent of the Minister and there being no industrial interest in such property. Therefore, they can manage the property portfolio in a commercial manner if that is the best action to take.

Independent consultants and the evaluation unit attached to the Department both recommended that IDA Ireland should manage the property function in future. It was never intended that this function would remain with Forfás, which is essentially a policy advisory body. The basic rationale for it going to IDA Ireland is that the property function has a greater importance in supporting its promotional role. As Forbairt and IDA Ireland clients are frequently intermingled in industrial estates within specific properties, it would not be feasible to break the property portfolio between them in any effective and efficient way.

However, I wish to stress that there is no question of this decision having adverse effects on the provision for Forbairt's property needs. Forbairt was consulted fully on it and is quite happy that its requirements will be adequately catered for. To ensure that this happens, arrangements are currently being put in place and discussions are taking place between the agencies and my Department. These arrangements, when in place, will be kept under periodic review to ensure their continued effectiveness.

Section 4 is related to section 3 and provides for the transfer of shares in client companies already currently vested in Forfás to Forbairt or IDA Ireland, as the case requires. Unlike land and buildings, this property is clearly identifiable and therefore could be more easily transferred to the appropriate operating agency. Section 4 provides for the arrangements in this regard.

Section 5 makes provision for an enabling power to allow Forfás, Forbairt or IDA Ireland to establish subsidiaries for areas of activity, particularly with regard to Forbairt, that may appreciably be considered more appropriate to be carried on outside the mainstream of the agency concerned.

The creation and operations of any subsidiaries will be subject to controls exercised by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment and the Minister for Finance. Currently, the executive agencies may only invest moneys in specific undertakings on a project by project basis. However, my Department and the agencies are currently developing certain options for the creation of development funds, some specific to particular industrial sectors — for example, software — and some general in nature. Section 6 provides the necessary powers. The funds involved will include money sources, Structural Funds and EU funding sources. Activity by the agencies in this area will be subject to ministerial supervision.

An equity capital survey of Irish indigenous industry, carried out by my Department in 1993, found that 34 per cent of respondents had a current equity requirement, 58 per cent had either a current equity requirement or would have one in the next three years and 78 per cent of firms with an equity requirement considered that raising equity would be difficult. These findings, together with the other work in this area, indicate that many small and medium sized Irish manufacturing firms have difficulty raising the required equity, and the growth of such companies is constrained through lack of availability of equity capital.

Under the EU operational programme for industry, 1994-99, a sum of approximately £33 million will be available for seed and venture capital investment. The object of the fund for seed and venture capital support from Structural Funds is to provide equity and management support to growth oriented small and medium sized businesses. This support will be expected to facilitate significant growth in the investing companies that in turn will be expected to generate employment opportunities in these companies.

Financial support from EU Structural Funds will be made available to applicant organisations involved in seed venture stage equity investment in growth oriented firms. Under the scheme Structural Funds will be entitled to rank equally with private sector funding in terms of dividends and the repayment of capital. In addition, any allocation of EU support funding will be conditional on an equivalent level of matching private sector funding. Overall, during the lifetime of this scheme it is expected that equity support will be provided to many small and medium sized enterprises which would otherwise find it difficult to raise the necessary equity for their ventures. Section 6 will enable the agencies to be involved in the disbursement and so on of these funds, enabling them to set up other funds as required, using their own money in partnership with private third sector parties.

The Bill also provides for the further financing of SFADCo. Specifically, the Bill provides, under section 8, for an increase from £150 million to £200 million in respect of the upper limit of the aggregate amount of grant in aid voted annually and that may be made to SFADCo. The grant in aid moneys are applied towards meeting the company's running expenses, enabling the company to provide financial assistance to companies in the Shannon Free Zone. The proposed increase in the statutory limit of the aggregate amount of grant in aid that may be issued to the company is expected to be sufficient to cover the company's operations over the next four years.

In the years 1992-94, SFADCo has assisted in the creation of 4,350 gross new jobs in the industrial areas for which it is responsible, resulting in a net increase of over 840 jobs in the Shannon Free Zone and in Irish owned companies throughout the midwest region. In 1995, SFADCo has a target of 1,200 gross new jobs, 400 of which will be in the Shannon Free Zone. It is confident these targets will be achieved.

In 1994, the EU Commission approved an extension, to the year 2000, of the cut off date for the availability of a special 10 per cent rate for corporation tax for new international service industries establishing in the Shannon Free Zone. This will assist the company in promoting the zone and the region, where 5,600 people are employed. SFADCo also has ambitious plans for the future development of the National Technological Park, including additional capital investment of £100 million by the private sector in new industrial facilities and the achievement of 5,000 jobs in the park by the end of this century. The company will, of course, be continuing its industrial development role throughout the entire midwest region. Other technical provisions in the Bill are also proposed with regard to SFADCo concerning pension arrangements for the employees of the company's wholly owned subsidiaries and a proposed exemption from stamp duty with regard to land acquisition to align with the arrangements that are applicable to SFADCo, Forfás, Forbairt and IDA Ireland.

The provision under section 10 will give the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the power to make grants to the county enterprise partnership boards from Exchequer funds to enable them undertake activities in support of enterprise. This power has not been required to date as the boards' main function, under the direct supervision of my Department, is to manage their financial transactions during this start up phase. However, in all, 35 boards have now been established as companies limited by guarantee, and the interim phase of the county enterprise initiative is drawing to a close. It is intended that the boards will become fully operational by 1 January 1996 as independently controlled local enterprise development companies limited by guarantee, with direct responsibility for the management of their own operations, subject to the terms of this legislation, the memorandum and articles of association and operating agreement to be signed between my Department and each board.

Once they are operating on an independent basis, the county enterprise partnership boards will be in a position to provide an expanded range of services to enterprise, including financial supports and, ultimately, business advice and counselling and management development support to small firms. The capacity to deliver a full range of such services, provided for under enterprise plans, will be considerably enhanced when they commence operation on a fully independent basis. The central role in the formulation of the local economic agenda through the enterprise plans and the promotion of an enterprise culture at a local level will also be strengthened. Much of this activity will be eligible for EU co-financing under the operational programme for local development.

Already, the enterprise plans constitute a major advance in securing local input into national enterprise planning, and their existing counselling and referral services provide a valuable resource to potential entrepreneurs in existing small businesses nationwide. The enhancement of this role will have a significant effect on the development of an enterprise culture at local level and the prospects for development and growth of smaller micro enterprises.

The interim county enterprise fund grant scheme, managed by the boards to provide fixed capital employment in feasibility study grants to assist small business start ups and expansions, has provoked a major response. Boards have approved grants of over £34 million and more than 4,000 projects since their establishment, of which over £14 million has been drawn down. Projects supported are expected to create over 6,000 and 1,400 part time jobs, of which 1,776 full time and 263 part time jobs were created by the end of 1994, according to the figures supplied by the boards.

I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am disappointed that the Minister for Enterprise and Employment did not consider it worthwhile to attend the Seanad for this most important debate. He described the Bill in the Dáil most appropriately when he said it was no more than a housekeeping Bill. From the way in which the Minister read her script, it does not appear to be a very important piece of housekeeping.

I see nothing in the passage of the Bill to convince me that there will be any major change in industrial policy which will give us the jobs we seek so much. Indeed, the Bill adds further to the quango of agencies we already have and which are both unco-ordinated and hardly cost effective. It makes one wonder if the lack of focus and co-ordination, which is now part of industrial policy, and part of industrial policy for a number of previous Governments, will give us the results that we all want so much in the creation of jobs.

I have been concerned for some time at the plethora of agencies that are now involved in job creation. It is clear that, in view of the number involved, the cost effectiveness of those agencies cannot be as efficient as we would hope. There are 35 separate county enterprise partnership boards. In addition, we have IDA Ireland, Forfás, Forbairt, SFADCo, Údarás na Gaeltachta, a series of marketing agencies and the LEADER programme. In my own county, Galway, there are three different agencies. These include the small industries section of Forbairt, the county enterprise partnerships board and LEADER, all dealing with the same type of projects. One wonders how cost effective three agencies can be in such circumstances? In trying to establish a business, the small business person is mesmerised, before he or she even begins, with the plethora of agencies they must deal with.

It is clear that policy initiatives need to be delivered in a more integrated and cost effective way. I am sad that this Government has not come up with anything new by way of more cost effective and integrated services for the provision of jobs. One cannot find great fault with the sections of the Bill as outlined by the Minister. However, the Bill does nothing to instil confidence in the overall strategy for a more effective job creation mechanism.

One must say that the provision of support to small business has been one of the better aspects of Government policy and compliments are due to the Minister and to the relevant section in the Department of Enterprise and Employment. One of the better things to happen in this country was the establishment of the small businesses section in the Department and the work of Department officials in that sector is highly commendable. The small business sector is one of the engines for economic growth and job creation. However, when one looks at the other agencies one must wonder how effective we can be in creating jobs. The evidence is there. The Minister admitted some time ago that, despite the fact that we have achieved a good measure of success in job creation, that success is being undermined by the loss of jobs throughout other sectors and we ended up with no net growth in overall employment.

There are still significant issues to be tackled in the small business sector, particularly administrative simplification. A small business person finds it extremely difficult to get off the ground because of the range of regulations and bureaucracy he or she must go through in order to become established. There is a need — I am aware this is being tackled and that progress is being made — to become more aggressive in dealing with the problems of small businesses trying to get started or to become stronger. I commend the work being done but we should be more aggressive and focused in developing a more straightforward system for small business to become established and to thrive.

The other significant issue is the provision of finance. The provision of long-term fixed rate finance at subsidised rates is a step forward. It is interesting that the four associated banks were queuing up to get their hands on the allocation of this money. Their representatives came before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Small Businesses and Services recently. One clear conclusion that emerged from that discussion was that the banks will be as careful as they ever were in the provision of risk finance. They will give it to the companies that are strongest and most capable of ensuring that there is no risk for the bank in paying the money back. That defeats the purpose of this legislation.

We must face up to the fact that we cannot create jobs unless we are prepared to support people who are willing to take risks. Two brothers visited my clinic in Galway this week. One of them has sold his house in Galway and is putting up the £25,000 proceeds of the sale after paying back his mortgage. The bank will loan him £20,000 on the basis of his depositing the £25,000 with that bank. The bank will take no risk whatsoever. The other brother has just left his job and set up a small business but the bank does not want to know. The leasing department of the bank will not even give them money under a leasing agreement to buy a van which is essential for their business. We, as politicians, talk about the need for small business to get up and running and the need for people to take risks. However, what happened in my clinic in Galway this week is an example of what is happening on the ground.

We must look seriously at ourselves when we talk about introducing legislation of this nature. We talk about giving the long-term unemployed the opportunity to find employment and the need to grow small industry and start-up businesses and so forth. The example I offered is the reality of what is happening on the ground and we must face up to the fact that we simply are not providing the vehicle for people to get started. We are throwing people off course with bureaucracy and legislation and it would take a brave person to go out and raise money — even if he could get it — because of the risks he must undertake. Until we get to grips with those problems we will not be serious about the creation of employment.

I must be scathing of the Minister and her party with regard to the long-term unemployed. During the last Government's term of office I was chairman of the sub-committee on initiatives for the long-term unemployed. One of the initiatives we suggested was that people who are unemployed and want to work should not be penalised by the loss of their unemployment assistance payments. We suggested a system where a person in receipt of £50 per week unemployment assistance or dole would be allowed — not forced through any involuntary system — to work for three days and still be paid that dole payment. He or she would be allowed to earn extra money if they are able or if an employer was able to provide that money. Essentially we were trying to tackle the black market. We know that many people who are unemployed are drawing unemployment assistance and doing nixers — which are to be found everywhere — on the side.

Unfortunately, there was no support from the Civil Service for that initiative. I had discussions with the Department of Finance, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Enterprise and Employment. We encountered obstacles at every step in our effort to suggest a practical solution for people who are unemployed and want to work but who do not want to be penalised for doing so. The Minister has pontificated about the need to be of assistance to the long-term unemployed but I can see no initiative from this Government to do something positive for them. Many examples are given of initiatives being taken but the harsh reality is that we are going the other way. The Minister says that 40,000 places are being provided in the community employment programme. However, by this November most of the schemes that were up and running in Galway will be cancelled because there is no money to fund them. Recently the VTOS scheme to provide education and training opportunities for the long-term unemployed was reduced by 1,000 places.

If this Government and the Labour Party in particular are serious about the long-term unemployed they will not attack the most vulnerable section of that community. Surely the most important single initiative for the long-term unemployed is to provide them with the opportunity of education and training so that they can get out of the rut in which they find themselves. Community employment schemes are being cut, VTOS programmes are being cut and other training programmes for the long-term unemployed are being cut. If the Minister's party is serious, we must see positive discrimination in favour of the long-term unemployed before the end of this year in terms of investment in programmes to give those people education and training opportunities in the first instance and employment opportunities in the second instance.

It is clear that major progress could be made in job creation in three industrial sectors — the food industry, the international service sector and the semi-State sector. It is quite clear, as Ireland is a premier food producing country, that there is vast potential for growth in job creation in this sector; yet, as Dr. Tony O'Reilly said recently, the only food sold under a national brand is Kerrygold butter. We are producing the finest food in the world, yet our ability to market that food effectively is very weak. A supermarket chain in Holland recently decided to stock only Irish beef, yet we cannot export and market Irish beef with the level of success we should be able to expect. We are still depending on the live cattle trade to give us a return on our investment in the cattle industry. This is another area where our marketing is not successful enough.

We can pay accountants and barristers massive amounts of money. The most important single discipline in successful trading is marketing, yet we are simply not interested in paying top marketing people and sales people to successfully market our food products abroad. It is a fundamental flaw in the Irish industrial sector that we are not able to market our products across Europe and further afield. There are significant job creation opportunities in the food sector if we were able to market our food adequately, yet we see no initiative from the Government other than a quango of agencies. Why are Irish pubs successful all over Europe? Why is it that Irish craft industries are successful all over Europe? Yet why is it we have not been able to establish an Irish food marketing initiative in Europe? I put that question to the Minister and to the Department of Enterprise and Employment.

Until we can market our food products successfully and brand name our food products successfully we will not achieve that level of success. Many clothes labels or brand names, such as Benetton and Pringle, are recognised by everybody. Why is only one Irish food product, Kerrygold butter, marketed under a brand name? Why are all other products not marketed in the same way? Our export figures for butter as opposed to other food products show that with proper marketing we can create many more jobs in the food sector. A number of Irish companies, some of them controversial in recent years, have been successful in that respect. I will not discuss what has happened to some of those.

The international service sector is not subject to the same competition from some of the Third World countries which are now tackling high tech industries; Digital was faced with difficulties such as this. In the international service sector we can compete with countries around the world. Other large cities such as London, Paris and New York are far more expensive locations for international service industries such as insurance and reinsurance, yet we have so far failed to attract the levels of the international service sector we should be attracting. One of the reasons is the high cost of telecommunications. When the last Government tried to reduce telecommunications costs overseas, the Minister was berated. We need fundamental changes in the way in which we charge for international services so that Ireland will be more attractive to many of these industries who could be located here.

The Bill is a housekeeping Bill. It will not do very much for job creation in this country. We must look much more seriously at the problems facing job creation in this country. If we make those fundamental changes perhaps we will have some chance of tackling our continuing difficulties in regard to employment.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill and I welcome the Minister of State to the House. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, is not being disingenuous by not being here. He is attending a family funeral. I would not like it to go on the record that he would not attend here and deal with the business.

I was not aware that the Minister was attending a funeral. I withdraw my earlier comment about him.

The Senator should withhold his comments until he knows the facts.

In regard to comments about this being a housekeeping Bill, I was in the Seanad on the Opposition benches when the 1993-94 Industrial Development Authority Bill was debated. There would be no need for a housekeeping Bill today if everything had been done right on that occasion. Indeed, the Minister of State at the time, and not the Minister, was present in this House during much of the debate on that Bill. I dealt with her on a number of occasions while the Bill was going through the House, so if the Minister of State is in the House today things are no different. I know the Minister of State will inform the Minister of the comments made by Members about the Bill.

This is a housekeeping Bill which gives us the opportunity to discuss employment and the way we can help people who want to provide jobs for themselves. It was interesting to note the comments made by the previous speaker that we have not been successful in exporting our food products. I disagree with him. He mentioned the live cattle leaving the country. There is a need for competition in every walk of life and if there was no live cattle trade those who own beef processing factories in this country would have a monopoly of the beef industry in the country. The live cattle trade is keeping competition alive. I take my hat off to those in the beef business. They have sold their product across Europe and anywhere else they can find a market, as a result of which there is no beef going into intervention today.

We are aware that the purpose of this Bill is to amend the Industrial Development Act, 1993, to remove unnecessary restrictions on the operation of Forbairt and the IDA Ireland, to enable Forfás, Forbairt and IDA Ireland to establish subsidiaries and to allow them to invest money in funds for the development of industry as opposed simply to investment in specific companies, to increase the aggregate level of grant that may be made to SFADCo to enable it to discharge industrial development functions and to make a number of other minor amendments to the 1959 and 1991 legislation.

It is true to say that it is a housekeeping Bill. In other words, the Bill itself did not allow these organisations to do what we want them to do now. I welcome the number of initiatives, especially those geared towards dealing with the issue of unemployment.

The Minister has increased the number who will benefit under the community employment programmes this year — an average of 40,000 for 1995. The last speaker mentioned that the numbers on these schemes will need to be reduced towards the end of the year. Last year's Estimates, prepared by Senator Fahey's party would have left fewer than 40,000 on the scheme, approximately 27,500. It is ironic that he would come into the House and say that the extra money provided by the Government for this scheme is not in keeping with a change of policy proposed by that particular Government.

The Minister proceeded with the recommendations of the task force on long-term unemployment to establish a local employment service. The task force is continuing its work to refine community employment type programmes to make them more effective in dealing with long-term unemployment. I believe the long-term employment strategy to ensure we do the best we can to increase employment and reduce unemployment is continuing. I welcome the Minister's policy review in the area of foreign direct investment in indigenous industries and the border action which will improve our ability to turn the good growth we are enjoying into reductions in unemployment. We must raise our sights higher to ensure that those who are unemployed can be reintegrated into the active labour market. I accept this is not a simple task but a highly complex one which is fundamental to tackling unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment.

I welcome the action the Government has taken in this year's budget to reduce the cost of employment. However, if there is £300 million available for expenditure in the budget or to the Government again, it should go towards a further reduction in PRSI costs to the employer to give a real once-off boost to them so they will take on more employees. For too long the cost of employment has been a deterrent to extra people being employed. I ask this and future Governments, if they are earnest about tackling unemployment, to reduce the cost to the employer. We have for too long penalised those who are prepared to employ people. As I stated before, at the end of each year employers seek ways to try to reduce the labour force in their companies so they can reduce costs.

I welcome the framework operational programme for industry launched last January and the 1994-99 programme. An overall target of 20,000 gross new jobs per annum has been set. We are aware that the targets were exceeded by Forbairt and the other development agencies in 1994. I have no doubt they are well on their way to exceeding those targets in 1995. I cannot stress enough the importance of encouraging development in small business and I would like to see more of this, particularly in the services sector. This sector has been a high provider of wealth and employment and it is important that the Government recognises its role. It is part of this Government's programme as it was of the last Government.

The county enterprise partnership boards have been partly successful and have taken a while to find their feet. They have helped many individuals to start up small businesses. However, they have been wary of helping people who might go into competition with somebody down the road or in the next town. Officers of the county enterprise partnership boards believe they cannot help anybody who might interrupt or affect somebody else in the same business. I believe competition is the life of trade. Many individuals who have set up small businesses have become successful entrepreneurs. Competition will help those who start up a business to provide a better service to the public.

I welcome the introduction of the new scheme to provide long-term fixed finance at a subsidised rate to small businesses. It is the main element of the small businesses operational programme developed by the Minister's Department, the European Union and the banks. We can of course build on this success. I agree with Senator Fahey when he said that it was hard for small entrepreneurs to get finance from the banks and how considerable the guarantees required. Banks have not been to the forefront in helping entrepreneurs to get up and running. There was a rush when the funds were made available but I believe they are too restrictive in many ways. They could have included schemes in the haulage area, for example. There are huge costs involved in the haulage area. Where builders want to build small apartments or flat complexes in towns where there is not a great turnover of property, such developments should be considered if the properties are made available for people on low incomes or the unemployed. We could have provided accommodation to people at fixed rates. Although we might say banks and building societies provide money at fixed rates, the rate for commercial development is 10, 11 or 12 per cent as opposed to the 6.5 per cent rate at which a person would get a mortgage. This action would have provided accommodation for people, would have taken them off local authority registers and would have reduced the cost to the State.

I welcome under the EU operational programme for industry the sum of £33 million which will be made available for seed and venture capital investment. The objective of the fund for seed and venture capital support from the Structural Funds is to provide equity and management support to small and medium sized enterprises. The support will be expected to facilitate significant growth in investment companies. That in turn will be expected to generate employment opportunities in these companies. To date venture funds have not strayed into the smaller end, they tend to want more gilt edged investment. The new fund will be important as regards equality in business.

Heretofore, small businesses were not in a position to get involved in venture funding or to look for share capital. What is proposed should help some of these companies. Many small businesses with excellent owners and entrepreneurs have felt that they could not avail of funds to further invest. There are many small companies in my county. One such company has grown quite large from small beginnings. Almost 99 per cent of the products it produces is for export. Three weeks ago the owner told me that the unit cost of the product he produces is the same as it was four years ago. He said the only way he can compete on the international market is because the efficiency of the operation doubles or trebles output with the same number of staff. That is the only way he can survive. Costs are vitally important.

I spoke to someone no later than last night who informed me of the same thing. A machine or two can help him to provide the product for the market place at the time at which it is required while reducing the costs. The fact that the unit cost of the product being produced ends up being the same as it was four years ago shows the changes which have taken place, not only here in Ireland but also across Europe. This is what we must compete with. Unless the funds which are available for research and development are made available to those small companies to get into that line of action, they will not survive. I welcome the fact that this money is available and that smaller companies will take it up.

The Bill has been dealt with comprehensively by the Minister and, as it is a housekeeping Bill, I do not propose to go through the changes which are being made. I welcome the updating of the situation because there were a few omissions the last time a similar Bill was in the House. Small companies and Forbairt will be able to deal with matters which they were unable to deal with heretofore.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Eithne Fitzgerald, to the House. She is a regular visitor here.

And to Donegal.

And to Donegal, where she is equally welcome.

I hope Senator Farrelly is wrong when he said the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Richard Bruton, interprets this Bill as a housekeeping Bill. Under normal circumstances a Bill to extend the provision for IDA Ireland and Forbairt to raise or provide extra funding could be fairly described as a housekeeping Bill but in the climate in which we live and the overall development of the nation we could hardly let this pass by saying it is just a housekeeping Bill. There are so many different agencies out there looking for money. In my part of the country there are Údarás na Gaeltachta, Forbairt, IDA Ireland, a county enterprise board and the task force. Forbairt has less than adequate funds, the county enterprise board has no funds, the task force has no funds and the Border region has no funds at all, not enough to pay travelling expenses.

God help the poor bishops who started out with Developing the West Together. They started out with a fair measure of sincerity but they did not get very far. I think they are keeping quiet because they know the idea behind Developing the West Together was an honourable principle but they have foundered on the rocks through lack of funding and not finding a place in the industrial development of the west of Ireland, which was their intention. They put an awful lot into it but where are they now?

Another organisation which was formed after that one was the Western Development Partnership Board. It was set up by the present Government and prominent people in the Labour Party were nominated on to it. One of them was in Donegal recently telling us that everything we were doing was wrong, that we should put it together and coordinate it, that there were new plans altogether and that everything else had been thrown out the door.

The present Government's LEADER funding has been very disappointing and I am told there is additional funding now. Brussels has recognised it was a frivolous amount of money, that it hardly justified putting a LEADER organisation in place in the different rural areas and that it was a serious disappointment to those who expected some contribution for the unemployed in rural Ireland. It was such a disappointment that they have now made some extra funding available. We welcome that, but it is still not anything like what we had hoped for prior to the build up to LEADER II.

On top of all the agencies which I have mentioned, there is the International Fund for Ireland, of which we get 20 per cent; the Delors package, of which we get 20 per cent; and the peace and reconciliation fund, of which we get 20 per cent. I blame the present Government's lack of awareness and input for the bias or unfair allocation of these three funds.

I want to refer to the county enterprise boards. I am one of four councillors who, on a non-political basis, are members of the county enterprise board in Donegal. Here is our current situation as I talk to the Minister today. I am certain all the good people who attend county enterprise board meetings would expect me, the only Member of the Oireachtas who is on that county enterprise board, to take this opportunity to tell the Minister that our board has been an absolute disaster. Let me tell the Minister why. This year the Minister allocated £500,000 for small projects. That looks all right. I hope I am wrong about this, that the Minister will tell me I have the wrong perception and that I should go about this in a different way and I will be bringing back her message to my colleagues on the county enterprise board in Donegal.

We have 127 projects on the books and the total amount of money involved is £1.1 million. We were allocated £500,000, we have drawn down only £200,000 and the Minister says we are not able to spend what we were allocated.

Here is the way in which you go about applying to a county enterprise board. First, you get somebody, an accountant or somebody down the scale from an accountant, to put a project together and present it. It goes to an evaluation team, who look at several aspects of it, such as whether the applicant has the money and resources necessary. They require him to produce a statement from his bank. The Minister knows what that means. It involves going to the bank and telling the bank manager about the project. For example, the person may want to buy a boat or two to collect seaweed to sell to the seaweed factory. The applicant must have an amount of documentation for a small project of even that size before he gets to the evaluation team and the bank. He must also have a tax certificate. It is not a valid application at all until all this information is provided up front. If he was going to build a small extension to his house, a craft shop or whatever, he needs planning permission. All these compliances reach the stage where if he is only going for a feasibility study grant of £2,000, there is £2,000 spent on sheer bureaucracy before the fellow hits the ground at all. It is the biggest tangle of red tape, bureaucracy or whatever name the Minister wishes to call it. It is the biggest failure ever.

We listen to the talk about from the bottom up, the community decision, eliminating all this and letting the people decide for themselves. This has been the biggest con ever because we have had people who have nearly gone bankrupt on a small scale trying to comply and to follow the incentive of the county enterprise fund, which was launched with a blaze of publicity by my party which was in Government with the Labour Party. At the launch of Developing the West Together in Castlebar with the bishops, I heard former Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, say that the county enterprise boards will not be allowed to fail. We had someone from the Labour Party in Donegal recently who told us the county enterprise boards would fail within two years, in 1997, and there was no real, sincere commitment to keeping the county enterprise boards in place long term.

The Minister may correct me if I am exaggerating because I want to bring back a message. I want to tell everyone and convince myself that I am totally wrong. I have no political gain to make here; I will not be nominated to a higher body and I hope to stay in the Seanad a while longer. I have no great ambition, I do not wish to knock and I have no personal or political point to score. However, I have an obligation to those I represent and I must deliver on it now, when I can talk to the Minister.

The compliance procedure in order to get funding from the county enterprise boards involves an accountant, a bank, and presentations to the evaluation team and to the board. The chief executive of the enterprise board then deals with the proposal. If it involves a small extension to a building the builder must have a C2 form. It is not sufficient to furnish a copy of the form and the builder may not be willing to present the original, so often the chief executive officer must go to see it — in Donegal he may have to travel from Lifford to Ardara to see the original form.

I assume the Minister has enough intelligence to know that either I am a complete gombeen or I am telling the truth. I am in fact speaking from experience. I am one of four councillors, two of whom are from Fine Gael, who work together and are frustrated. We wonder how long we can last and when we will walk out. We do not want to pull the plug and make a political issue of this, because that is how it will be interpreted.

The Minister will say we were not able to spend the money we were given — £300,000 was left unused — but we are tied hand and foot. The EU gives between £7 billion and £8 billion to the Government and trusts it with the money because of accountability, structures, etc., but the Government does not trust the people it nominated to the county enterprise boards. In Donegal there are three excellent Labour nominees on the board but they are not even trusted with £2,000. After the procedure I outlined earlier has been followed, everything has to be submitted to Dublin to get clearance. This is not much of a bottom-up programme nor is it great community involvement. I hope the Minister's aides advise her that I am totally wrong because, if I am, we are being misled. The county enterprise board in Donegal is not working.

I may not have much time but I want to continue because I am only warming up.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has eight minutes left.

And he's going great.

Keep going, Senator.

I am glad I am being received in this atmosphere because I will now mention the next biggest blunder made by the present Government. In the Border counties we have a major interest in the International Fund for Ireland and were anticipating the Washington Conference. I was not at the conference — I had an invitation but gave it to someone else — but I took a keen interest. The Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, was there, as was Baroness Denton, the British Minister representing Northern Ireland. There was a substantial delegation from Northern Ireland who made a major impression.

The problem in the Border counties is that the main focus is on the North, about what can be done to stabilise the peace and bring about reconciliation. Little or no attention was given by Governments in the last 25 years to the Border counties. There was an opportunity at the Washington Conference, but Baroness Denton was clever and well-briefed. She asked everyone at the conference to stand up and express gratitude to the President, the Government and the people of the US who contributed so generously to Northern Ireland; 90 per cent of those in the hall stood up and applauded.

However, our Minister, whom the Minister of State is representing today, never opened his mouth. He should have said that was a tremendous display of gratitude from the people of Northern Ireland and that he wished equally to congratulate and thank the American President, Government and people for their help, recognition and contribution to the southern Border counties, who kept their heads down when it was not politically wise or prudent to rock the boat and complain about neglect. All the deprivation which took place in the North was paid for by the British Government and 80 per cent of the funding has gone there, so that it is no longer prudent for an industrialist to consider the west or the Border counties.

Those of us from the Border counties, including you, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, have an uphill fight to make the Minister and her party recognise there has been deprivation on a scale which has never been measured. A big opportunity was missed in Washington and since then every representative of President Clinton who came here, including Mr. George Mitchell and Mr. Ron Brown, went to the North. In Derry they met everyone from the play-school group to the bishop. At a working breakfast Mr. John Hume said it was important that the Secretary for Commerce, Mr. Brown, was properly briefed, so Mr. Hume went to Washington to bring him to Derry, and spoke to him on the aeroplane. I am an admirer of Mr. Hume and what he has done, but those of us from the South who were there were never introduced to Mr. Brown, including the Donegal county manager. There is a competition and people here must realise it. I was invited to a dinner with Mr. Brown in the castle the following evening. The able representatives from Northern Ireland sat beside him, caretaking him.

Our Government took no such interest and people from the Border counties and the west know it. At least the Government is consistent in that it failed to identify the problem in the Border counties at the Washington Conference and on every occasion since. Not once has it recognised the deprivation which has taken place. Partition may have done damage in 1922, dividing Ulster and excluding my county from its province and hinterland. We have fared badly as far as the administration of this part of Ireland is concerned. The Government will not last politically because everybody in my county, the Border counties and the west, is waiting patiently for a little recognition. The figure of 20 per cent, set up by the Americans, is a sop.

The Delors package of £139,000 was announced by Ms Monika Wulf-Mathies, the EU Commissioner for Regional Development, in Belfast. She did not get any further than Belfast and did not visit the southern Border counties. Nobody in Dublin suggested the area should receive recognition through a visit of the Commissioner or the Americans. None of the Americans who came to examine the situation on the ground and decide where the needs lay was invited to stop for a moment in the southern Border counties or the west.

I could provide more details but I will not do so in case I run out of time. However, I am concerned about two aspects which I hope I have adequately expressed. I have more responsibility than I am in a position to discharge. The county enterprise boards are a disaster and the Government's recognition of the Border counties and the west is an even bigger disaster. The Government has completely failed and candidates in the next election should not under-estimate the awareness of ordinary people.

I am not attacking the Minister personally; I am trying to deliver a message in my style. I get frustrated because I am trying to deliver my points adequately. I am not able to do the job as well as I should because not enough people realise the situation. However, the people on the ground realise and we shall judge the Government on its performance.

I welcome the Minister and the Bill. It is difficult to follow Senator McGowan who gave his customary passionate speech. The Senator is not listening to me but I agree with him. Senator Maloney and Senator Gallagher have indicated in conversations that neglect exists. I have a little more faith in the county enterprise boards than Senator McGowan but I am also critical of the way they are operating at present.

Some of the major problems facing us today vis-a-vis long-term unemployment are outlined in the interim report of the task force on long-term unemployment which reported in March. It stated:

Ireland has a serious problem of long-term unemployment.

In the years between 1980 and 1993, the rate of long-term unemployment rose from 2.8% of the workforce, or 35,000, to 10% of the workforce, or 135,000 people.

This means that one in ten of the workforce, have been without a job for more than a year. A large number have not worked for a number of years, and their chances of ever finding work are slim. Of the registered unemployed in October 1994, 92,000 were unemployed for two years or more and 66,000 for three years or more. [These are frightening figures.]

Those who have been unemployed for more than two years have a 74% chance of being unemployed one year later. This rises to over 80% for men aged 25-44 and 90% for men aged 45-54. [The chances of a man who has reached 45 years of age and who has been unemployed for more than two years of not getting a job is 90 per cent.]

This also means that whole communities, where clusters of people have been out of work for some time, suffer from severe poverty and disadvantage.

These people, these communities, will not recover without special measures. Even if the economy improves and unemployment falls, it is those who have not worked for some time who will find it hardest to get back to the world of work. They are left outside.

We must bear this aspect in mind when we engage in any debate on employment. There is no point creating myriads of new jobs if whole sections of society are left jobless. This concern for the long-term unemployed must underpin each and every strategy and programme undertaken. This cannot only be done by the Government. If private industry is setting up in an area which has a problem of long-term unemployment, it must make special provision to target this aspect. It is more chronic in some areas than others but special effort must be made, as in Tallaght, to make jobs available to the long-term unemployed.

Industry must look for unemployed people who have the skills but who do not know the jobs are available and who have lost confidence in themselves. Efforts must be made to bring them back into the workforce, not just for their sake but for the sake of their children, families and communities. The situation of entire communities badly in need of work cannot continue.

The Government has a role to play and I am sure this subject is dear to the Minister's heart. The Government is doing many things, for example, there is the local employment service. This is geared towards helping people at local level. However, private industry also has a role. It cannot turn its back on the communities in which it is established. It cannot import talent from elsewhere and ignore those in the areas in which it is based. It has a moral duty to create vacancies for local people and provide opportunities.

I welcome the Bill because it at last provides a legislative role for the county enterprise boards. I accept many of Senator McGowan's points but one of the Bill's advantages is that it abolishes one of the problems identified by the Senator, the requirement to submit every proposal to Dublin for ratification. When the county enterprise boards receive their legislative basis, the need to have everything rubber stamped by Dublin will be removed.

I am a member of the Limerick County Enterprise Partnership Board and I know its work at first hand. Many people who have been helped by the board would not have received help from any other agency, particularly the banks operating in our area. It provided many worthwhile opportunities in rural areas which would not otherwise have existed. However, County Limerick has a larger population than some other counties. Our county enterprise action plan says:

First, there is already a very high level of interest in the county enterprise scheme in County Limerick. This is demonstrated by the number of inquiries and applications received to date. Undoubtedly, substantial benefits will accrue from this in the longer term. Second, both in terms of size and population, County Limerick is larger than the average county. Accordingly, it merits a larger than average allocation from the county enterprise fund. It does not appear to be equitable that other county enterprise boards, with a much smaller geographical area and a population less than half that of County Limerick, should merit the same allocation.

The result was that the county enterprise board ran out of money at the end of May. Although 84 projects have been processed since October 1993, another 80 projects are in the pipeline. It is difficult when a young person goes to the county enterprise board with an idea to start up a business — he may be living at home and be drawing £29 a week in social welfare — only to be told it cannot help him because it has run out of money. The person may ask when it will have the money and be told there might be some in January but there are so many people ahead of him on the list that he will be lucky if his application is processed next April or May. He may not want to wait that long and he might go abroad instead. That young person is lost to the community. Young people are too full of energy to wait. They want to get started immediately. They have this idea and feel it can work but there is nobody there to help them. Unless their parents have money in the bank or have a good credit rating, money will not be forthcoming from them either. Credit unions do not give enough money to help people start a business and a person must be saving with them for a long time to get a loan. By the time a person has started to save with them, it may be next April before they can get even a small loan.

Another aspect of the county enterprise boards that also needs to be improved, and the Bill makes provision for it, is giving loans. While giving grants are fine, people often need a soft loan or money for which they do not have to pay high interest rates to enable them to run their businesses. County enterprise boards give grants for capital investments and machinery. If a young person wants to set up an upholstery business, he will get a grant to buy the sewing machines but where will he get the money to buy the materials? He may go to the bank for the money but he will be charged high interest rates. Some sort of low interest loan scheme is needed.

Many businesses may do well over a period and fill their orders but they may find themselves falling into the gap between being paid for their services and their need to reinvest that capital in the business. These businesses need soft support to keep them going while they are waiting for their money from the buyer. There is a need for an almost constant financing of the small businessman. The Bill has provided for this and I hope the Minister will encourage the county enterprise boards by making funds available to them to give this rollover funding.

While grants are good, constantly giving them drains the county enterprise boards. The advantage of giving this loan is that the money will eventually come back to the board to help somebody else. There is also a greater sense of responsibility imposed on the person setting up the business if they feel they have to pay back the loan. Grants are often regarded as free money and are not appreciated as much as they should.

This Bill also gives greater flexibility to Shannon Development. Coming from the mid-west, I can see at first hand the benefits of having that organisation. We are privileged to have such a body dealing with our tourism and industry. It gives us a focused and targeted approach to the area. If I have any complaints about SFADCo, it would be that it tends to overlook some areas. The bigger and higher profile regions, such as Shannon and larger towns, tend to be looked after to a greater extent than the smaller villages and towns. However, we are grateful for the work and effort SFADCo has put into attracting jobs to the mid-west. I am especially pleased with the recent job creation in the National Technological Park in Plassey which is aligned to, and draws resources from, the University of Limerick.

Universities, which should be a source of skilled graduates, should also be seen as areas for research and development because they are the key to the future of Irish industry. If we are not constantly at the forefront of research and seeing new methods of doing things, we will fall behind. One statistic in the booklet produced by Forfás disturbed me. It said that the small firms group, firms of ten to 49 employees, are most reliant on older products while only 8 per cent of their turnover comes from new products. We rely very heavily on the small and medium enterprise sector for job creation. However, if only 8 per cent of their products are new, the future does not look good. The State and private business need to spend more money on science, technology and innovation.

Senator Fahey complained that few Irish products are worldwide brand names and he is correct. I am not sure if the fault lies with the Government or its agencies. Maybe it lies with some of our larger companies. Some of our food companies are major players in the European market. However, they have not spent the money on marketing and research. They have found it more expedient not to do so. Skimmed milk, for example, is sold by us as a commodity on the world market but it is sold back to our shops under brand names such as Cadbury's, etc. Although the food companies did not invest in marketing ten years ago they still have time to do it but they are now facing an uphill struggle. What is a brand name but a marketing creation? One must establish the brand name so that it is synonymous with the product. For example, we talk about a packet of Tayto's or hoovering the carpet. This is indicative of good marketing. Private industry should be criticised in this respect since it did not reinvest profits in that field because it was not expedient to so do.

While this is a housekeeping Bill, it adds to our legislation on industrial development. Hopefully, the improvements to the county enterprise boards will ensure that they become a focus for increased industrial development. While we increase industrial development we should be forever mindful of the problem of our long term unemployed who, without help, will not see another day's work.

Ar dtús báire, ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire go dtí an Teach seo. I will not speak about the enterprise boards but I endorse everything my colleague, Senator McGowan, said. He is speaking from experience and we all have that experience. However, I would make one point. Everybody serving on the enterprise boards is paid, except local authority members. It is an indication of the determination and big heartedness of local authority members that they attend day long meetings at their own expense, very often while they should be working in their own businesses. It is sad that they are not respected and are not getting expenses like any other official. I do not want to get anything more than others, but there is discrimination against public representatives and that is only one example of it. I hope the Minister will examine this matter because public representatives should, to use a modern cliché, be on a level playing pitch. We do not want more than others but we should have equal rights.

I am not enamoured of this Bill. Somebody wrote recently that there are 93 agencies in this country dealing with job creation and this is the 94th. We have gone mad with bureaucracy.

That is job creation.

But we are creating non-productive jobs because the taxpayer is paying for them. We cannot afford to be continually promoting non-productive work. That is what is wrong with this country. We have too much non-productive work. With all due respect to people working in the Civil Service, they cannot by virtue of their job be productive. We are now expanding into the area of job creation. As Senator Quinn said on one occasion, there is no such thing as job creation. It is a misnomer. One creates work and work creates jobs.

We should reintroduce and improve the county development teams. There were no problems with that system. The current system is completely wrapped in red tape. When the county development officer examined a project, he told a person whether he could give them £2,000 and they could start work straight away. One man was making good decisions. I encouraged and started many industries in my village with the £2,000 grant. One of the industries which I encouraged young men to start is the biggest of its kind in Ireland today, while another won the IDA award of the month in September as one of the ten best in the country. Those industries started with £2,000 loans from the county development team.

In the 1970s and early 1980s one could build industries. I have land idle in Grange and I would not dream of putting buildings on it or renting them. The last factory built in Grange cost £12,000 before a block was put on the ground and that was with the best will in the world from the local authority and no complaints or objections. Thank God we have no problem with objections in Grange as yet, but it is a phenomenon that is rearing its ugly head around the country. Another factory employing 30 people and supplying goods to the home market had to expand this year. The owner was waiting nine months for planning permission even though there were no objections. There is too much red tape and it all costs so much money when one includes environmental impact studies and the cost of planning itself.

We will not create jobs or work while we have all this bureaucracy. There are many agencies trying to help people but when they start the work, the contractor must have tax forms and so on. One section of the Government is encouraging people to work while the other is saying there will be no progress until everything is in order. It is an impossible situation. This was unheard of in the 1970s and the early 1980s but we went mad in the late 1980s and the 1990s.

There is much talk about long term unemployment, but are we doing anything serious about it? If we were we would set up a register of the long term unemployed with details of their qualifications, expertise and trades. In fact we should register all the unemployed in such a manner. It would then be possible to set up a workers co-op. We could use the available management skills and approach others with the necessary expertise and skills and ask them to get involved. We talk about the long term unemployed because it is very popular but we are not ascertaining what they can give to the community.

I recently gave an interview to Faces where I said that every industry employing up to ten people should pay no taxes for the first five years. This would give them a chance to get off the ground and cut out all the paperwork. We blame the banks but it is not the banks' fault. They are also tied by bureaucracy and computers. When I was starting a small business in the village of Grange in 1964 I went to the bank manager who gave me a £200 overdraft. Today one must have accountants, who cost a fortune, paperwork and projections before one goes to the bank. This makes it impossible for the ordinary individual.

I recently stated that if I were young again I would have two choices on going into business. First, I could sign on for the dole and begin doing "nixers". Second, I could buy a caravan and land-rover and travel around the country selling wares by the side of the road. These seem to be the only ways people can enter into business without being murdered by bureaucracy.

I spoke to a man this morning who spent £750 preparing applications for grants and was then informed that he did not qualify. He wasted £750 he could not afford to be told that he did not qualify. That is the madness of the situation in which we find ourselves at present. There are also no grants available for someone supplying the home market. We do not want to hear about these people even though they are creating jobs and providing a necessary service. We do not provide advice for such people. A man who owns a factory on the main Sligo-Bundoran road supplying the home market informed me that no one from any of the relevant agencies called to inquire about the nature of the work being carried out there. Those people are not showing any interest.

I once worked as a salesman selling milking machines. If I saw seven to ten cows in a field, I would stop the car to discover who owned them and if they had a milking machine. The well-paid people working for the agencies will not even stop to discover what is being built or if they could offer help in some way. That is the attitude today. We have been informed that our goods would be sold if we studied marketing and research and development at university. There have never been more people involved in marketing than at present, but are they selling anything? There is a complete lack of interest.

One can enter any shop in this city and the people working there do not care a damn whether you buy anything. Many Members of my age group will remember a time when they would be visited at home by three or four car salesmen when buying a car. At present, if people try to trade-in their cars they are informed that the garage has one like it at the moment and are asked to return at a later date. In the age in which we live, the garage has no interest in selling. An awareness and hunger must be created for people to find work.

The black economy is currently thriving. I stated previously that if all those people who are supposed to be out of work were actually unemployed this country would be in a state of revolution. I visited a house in this city recently where a man was carrying out some work. I spoke to him about the unemployment situation. He told me that he himself was unemployed but that there was no real unemployment in Dublin. He informed me that he often offered men £50 per day to work and they laughed at him. I asked how he avoided being caught. He told me that I would be lucky in any housing estate in this city to catch an unemployed person engaged in doing "nixers".

Why has a system been created which is anti-work when people are willing to work? The reason is that we do not encourage enterprise. We are doing our damnedest to ensure that someone who promotes industry and works hard will be crucified. In the late 1970s and into the 1980s the idea developed that speculators and the self-employed were the bad people in our society and had to be eradicated.

Hear, hear.

All kinds of laws and tax regulations were introduced to ensure that these people will not make any money. The attitude is "You can work if you want, so long as you work for us". This is what has happened to the enterprise culture. When I was growing up the people of this country were very independent. Today, however, we have a dependent society. We must return to that independence, begin to motivate people and abandon bureaucracy. I spoke to a person who has seven inspectors calling to investigate their business and in the region of 11 inspectors call to check up on my daughter's business. She has to have a file and relevant documentation available for each of them. How can any person employing a work-force of four or five people run their business while ensuring that the books are up to date? It is well nigh impossible.

Why are people in Irish society so discontented at present? Civil servants, school teachers, bank managers, gardaí, soldiers and people from every strata of society all want to leave their jobs. There are too many regulations. A shopkeeper I know told me that if they could sell their shop tomorrow they would. I was in a shop in the west of Ireland recently, it is the last of its kind, which employs four or five people. The shop sold groceries, draperies, hardware, seed and manure, indeed everything needed by the rural community. The woman who runs it informed me that she is getting out because she would require £12,000 to bring it up to necessary standards. That shop has served the community for 150 years without any problems. Now, however, the shutters will go up. In every town and village in Ireland there are six or seven shops with the shutters up, shops that employed four to five people and supported their families also. Why is this happening?

I began walking around my area as a hobby last summer and I counted eight shops, which supported at least 25 families, that had closed down. There were nine farms which were lying practically derelict. These had once been the going concerns of good families. The rural environmental scheme and the rural renewal schemes have been introduced, but people are not now living in rural Ireland. A woman in Cork was recently fined £200 for selling home-made bread. A firm in my own area, which employs 35 people, would have been put out of business but for the chief executive officer in the local health board demanding to be shown all the particulars of the case before it went to court. If the environmental inspectors had their way, those 35 people would never have seen a pay-packet. We are not prepared to permit small industries to flourish. I believe that small industries should be given a chance to get off the ground.

Today I received a letter from the European Commission in which Pádraig Flynn states:

If Europe achieves investment-led growth of 3 to 3.5 per cent a year, unemployment could fall to 7.5 per cent, but it could be cut further to 5 per cent if accompanied by structural measures to increase the employment intensity of growth. The paper entitled "European Strategy for Employment" is the Commission's contribution to a report being prepared for December's European Council in Madrid. It proposes the implementation of a macro-economic policy that will restore public finances and allow business to grow and create jobs, combined with a vigorous structural policy and more active labour market policies. The basic conditions for growth and new jobs are the best for 20 or 30 years, the paper says, citing low inflation, healthy profits and a trade surplus. In addition, structural reform of the labour market is also proceeding effectively, offering real and positive prospects of greater flexibility.

I hope we do get greater flexibility because that is what is needed. I do not believe we should ever have entered into a system of giving grants. We should have adopted a system of low interest loans. If we abandon grants and give low interest loans we would not need the bureaucratic machine because the person issuing the loan would be responsible for assessing it. The present situation would be very different if we had given low interest loans rather than grants in the 1970s. That might not be popular because a lot of bureaucrats might be put out of work, but many other people would get work.

If we had a register of the skills of the unemployed we could start worker co-operatives. I have always been in favour of worker co-operatives but they never seemed to get off the ground in this country. The Minister told us she is setting up another task force. Task forces are great; the first was set up in County Roscommon when the Arigna Mines closed and, although it did great work, it did not create employment; it was going to solve the problems of Counties Roscommon and Leitrim. It has been the buzzword since then; we now set up a task force for everything. I would like to see a task force for small businesses going out of business.

If small businesses are in trouble the employees may wish to take them over. However, unless they are six months unemployed they do not qualify for anything and six months later the business and its customers may be gone. The employees should be given expert assistance to keep the business going.

It is time expertise was made available to small industries. I do not mean the liquidators who only shut up shop but people who will give advice and help to get a business back on the rails. If a business which has been going for five or ten years starts to go off the rails it may be due to management problems or a combination of management and staff problems. There should be a mediator to sort out the problems so the staff would not be let go and the industry would remain.

I always find it refreshing to listen to Senator Farrell because, more than many on the Government side, he speaks a great deal of sense. What he says comes from the heart and from his long experience as a public representative. As so often happens, I find myself more in agreement with the free views expressed by the Opposition than those expressed by the Minister — that may be a peculiarity I alone experience.

If the Minister was here the Bill would be particularly timely for him because, as Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton has provoked a great deal of criticism — much of it justified — but he is entitled to his week in the sun and is enjoying it, because of the achievement the Government is parading around the country, that is, the jobs to be created in the near future at Intel in Leixlip. That has been credited to the IDA and it is entitled to recognition for what has been achieved. However, it is not entitled to uncritical recognition.

It is tempting for Ministers when multinationals are about to expand their businesses to spend days in front of television cameras proclaiming the success of their policy. It is also appropriate that the cost of the project in Leixlip should be examined in great detail. I do not know what its cost will be or how much will be given to Intel in terms of grants — we read a figure of about £100 million — and I do not know what tax incentives will be given to Intel. Since it is said the Government achieved this scoop against great competition from abroad, it is fair to ask what is meant by "competition". If it means the Irish Government was prepared to give away more in the form of grants, tax breaks and other concessions to the multinational, I would not be particularly surprised.

As Senator Farrell so rightly said we have a natural dependency culture. Giving grants is second nature to Irish Governments. The giving of grants to anybody and everybody who asks is a natural way of winning votes and "creating employment" according to the culture which has almost cross-party consensus. However, that is not to take away from what has been announced this week. The jury should remain out as it is a Government announcement and comes from a source which has a vested interest in announcing it. We will wait to see what the IDA has really achieved. I will be interested to hear the comments from the Intel management who have not formally announced this, although the Government appears to have jumped the gun.

I would also be interested in the Minister's comments on what was said by Professor Brendan Walsh when he uttered a word of caution on the Intel development. He said it was fine but that there may be a problem looming on the horizon, namely, the technology developments may be a bubble that could burst. There is a danger that Ireland, in encouraging all these technology and computer companies to come here, may be putting too many eggs into one basket. That is a note of caution but one of which we should be aware. We should also be aware that while there was a surge in technology shares on the American stock market in recent months — the rise was of the order of 30 to 40 per cent — in recent weeks there was a sharp fall. Many American investors are looking again at the potential for technology shares and are being more selective. Intel is one of the most sophisticated companies in these developments and is perhaps 18 months to two years ahead of the posse. Let us hope this investment by the Government pays off.

I do not share the enthusiasm expressed by successive Ministers for the IDA, Forfás, Forbairt and the other State agencies. The temptation to praise all these agencies is one to which we have become accustomed. It is in the nature of Irish politics to talk about creating employment and to regard these quangos as a solution to our unemployment problem. However much we congratulate ourselves on what has happened with Intel this week, the fact is that despite the IDA, its glossy brochures and the help it has had from successive Ministers in congratulating itself and despite all the other quangos, the unemployment situation is a disaster and this Bill will not do anything about it. I submit that because this Bill promotes the dependency culture of giving grants willy nilly to particular industries and bodies, it will probably damage rather than help employment prospects.

In 1993 the Industrial Development Act divided the then IDA into Forbairt and IDA Ireland. That experiment has not been a success. It was divided on grounds which I have still to understand because I do not know where the food industry belongs. It was meant to be divided on the grounds of foreign and domestic industry but instead it has been confused and blurred by overlap in certain areas and by territorial claims between IDA Ireland and Forbairt which have left their job creation declarations in some doubt.

Nevertheless, we have to put up with this absurd consensus with Ministers coming into this House year after year with IDA or IDB Bills asking for more powers for these State agencies which have done such a fantastic job creating employment. It is self-evident that they have not done a good job creating employment because the unemployment figures continued to rise until very recently and have now stabilised at an unacceptably high level.

For some extraordinary reason, nobody in this or the last Government ever said maybe we might be tackling this problem in the wrong way. They never question why, while Ireland has an exceptionally high growth rate and we call ourselves one of the most prosperous expanding economies in Europe, there is an accompanying increase in unemployment, or at best a flattening of the unemployment level. We cannot understand it and nobody has come up with the solution. However, from time to time, when there is a political problem about unemployment and it gets nearer to elections and we want to buy votes, we pump more money into IDA Ireland, Forbairt and other agencies and we hope that they, in turn, will pump it into the troubled areas so that we can pacify the unemployed for the moment. However, despite IDA Ireland, Forbairt and Forfás, the unemployment figures continue to rise.

The Minister spoke very eloquently today about the amount of money which will be put into various projects as a result of this Bill. She spoke about the access to the finance fund — which is mostly EU funded — the increase in the funds from £100 million to £200 million and the increase of 6,000 jobs. Those are very fine aspirations but what has happened to all the money put into projects in the past? Is the Minister saying that the situation would be worse if we were not giving grants through IDA Ireland, Bord Fáilte. Forfás, Forbairt and all the other numerous bureaucratic bodies? Perhaps she is right but I doubt it very much.

One of the projects which has been swamped by the recent news about Intel is Celtworld in County Waterford. As far as I remember — the Minister can correct me — £1.8 million was put into Celtworld. Although it was EU money, it was public funds directed and approved by Bord Fáilte, a semi-State body. Presumably that money was invested on the altar of job creation, to which we all pay such lip service but do nothing about. That project is now up for sale for £500,000 or £600,000. I cannot understand on what the £1.8 million was spent. There may also have been a £300,000 loan, bringing the total to over £2 million. Two years later, they are trying to sell the whole project for £600,000. Where did the money go? We obviously were not getting value but just pumping money into a puff of smoke which was not going to produce anything for us.

Celtworld is the other side of Intel. There are numerous examples of projects into which the IDA has pumped money over the years and which have gone bust. There are even more examples this year of Forbairt pumping money into projects which are in trouble. Is this Bill really about creating jobs — an expression which we should ban from the language — and providing employment or is it about putting money into lame ducks, which is our national malaise?

While I condemn them, I can understand the political reasons Governments continually put money into public projects or semi-State bodies which are not making money and are about to go bust. However, we have now established under this Government a very unhealthy pattern of the Government, through Forbairt, pumping money into projects and private companies which are going under. This happened recently in the case of Sunbeam in Cork where the Government, for political reasons, put several million pounds into a company which was in serious trouble.

This is what happens. A plan is produced and projections are conjured out of the air which are sent to Forbairt and approved. The jobs which were in danger are suddenly not lost. A few years later, the company may be in trouble again endangering Forbairt's investment so it will have to sink good money after bad in order to save those jobs again. Otherwise they would have egg on their faces and would lose a great deal of votes if they allowed a project which they had supported to go bust.

That pattern was also seen in regard to Shannon Aerospace where 700 jobs were quite rightly at risk because it was not making money. The Government negotiated a deal which saved the jobs but cost the taxpayer £12 million. However, it only saved the jobs for the moment. In a few years time, when the £12 million has run out, they will look for more slush funds from the State to save those jobs again. This is piecemeal, finger in the dyke economics. Governments do it time after time and it makes no impact on the unemployment figures.

Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

We, in this House, in our various ways, are great champions of the unemployed and we all have our solutions to their problems, especially the problems of the long-term unemployed. We are very good at paying lip service, but we are not good at finding solutions. The Bill is part of the process that has failed to find a solution. It is simply extending the thought processes which have been going on for many decades about how to solve our unemployment problem, which is to throw money at it through grants.

The Minister should look at a more radical approach. Instead of expanding the role of Forbairt, IDA Ireland and diversifying them into other areas, enabling them, as the Bill does, to infiltrate further into the industrial base of the country, the Minister should look at the possibilities of disbanding IDA Ireland and Forbairt — which is only a State rescue agency that has, unfortunately, replaced Fóir Teoranta — abolishing the county enterprise partnership boards and forgetting about establishing absurd talking shops, forums, task forces and other things mentioned in the Bill. They are ineffectual and all are failures.

The Economic and Social Forum meets in Dublin Castle from time to time and achieves nothing except to pay lip service to the unemployed and produce many reports, as does the task force for industry and the social partners. There is a conspiracy against the unemployed among those who are in jobs. This conspiracy, of which IBEC, the trade unions, the farmers and, above all, the Government are part, is to fool them and, if they kick up enough fuss, to throw them a few bob through IDA Ireland, Forbairt and any other State agencies, established to pacify and anaesthetise the unemployed.

The figures are there for everybody to see. Unemployment is booming; it is a boom industry, despite Bills of this kind, and despite the news regarding Intel yesterday. However, if the Minister is serious — I do not believe she or anybody else in the Government is serious about unemployment — she should radically tackle this problem. Why does the Government not wind down and dismantle IDA Ireland and all the other 94 quangos I could name if I had time, and use that money to cut taxes?

The only way jobs will be provided is through the creation of wealth. This Bill does not create wealth; it expands the empire of an already dead hand of bureaucracy, which is stifling enterprise. In the short term it provides a few jobs in specific, selected areas which usually have strong political connotations and where much fuss is being made by people in key constituencies. However, it does not tackle the problem in a global sense. The Minister and the Minister for Finance should look at these State agencies which we are expanding and enlarging here today, wind them down, save a large amount of taxpayers' money and then use it as a base for reducing income tax, capital gains tax and giving real incentives to industry. That is how jobs will be provided in this country.

The message needs to be said again and again to the social partners that you do not create jobs; there is no such thing as taking money, giving it to IDA Ireland and telling it to create jobs. Yet this is what we are doing. All that happens is that we take more money from the taxpayer to keep those jobs going year after year. There are multiple examples of this in the accounts of IDA Ireland; a company which has already received grants receives more and more. This arises because the public relations operations and the machinery of the State agencies require that they are not exposed for already having wasted taxpayers' money.

I would like to see, not a Bill of this kind, which is perpetuating an already existing evil, but a Bill making it clear that we are now going to reduce the cost of IDA Ireland and Forbairt progressively, with a view to a free enterprise economy which abolishes these agencies. It will be done with a view to cutting taxes so that we stimulate the economy and jobs are provided by real, organic and natural expansion in the economy rather than by throwing money at them and pretending they will be created in that way.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House in the absence of the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Bruton. From reading the Bill, I gather this is in the nature of a tidying up measure from 1993. It also affords an opportunity, as is evident from the debate so far, to look at industrial policy and our progress and development as an economy in the highly competitive sector of job creation.

I welcome the removal of unnecessary restrictions. Any removal of restrictions in industrial development is to be welcomed. The Minister said that the purpose of the Bill is to amend the Industrial Development Act in order to remove unnecessary restrictions on the operations of Forbairt and IDA Ireland in regard to the acquisition, holding and disposal of property. However, Fianna Fáil will put down amendments to section 3 which reads:

(2) Forfás and each Agency shall have the power to acquire, hold and dispose of land and other property or any interest therein.

It is our intention to amend that by including a subsection to provide that no disposals will be undertaken without prior consultation with local development organisations and bodies. Section 5 (4) reads:

A directive under subsection (3) in relation to the disposal of any assets or profits of a subsidiary shall not be given without the consent of the Minister for Finance.

We will suggest that this be amended to include representatives from local development organisations.

When the original Bill was introduced in 1993 there was a flaw in the creation of the three separate bodies by splitting up the Industrial Development Authority. When the IDA was first charged with the mandate of creating employment and attracting potential investors to this country it set up a land bank on which it constructed advance factories. At one time — and politicians will testify to this — there was a degree of kudos attached to having an advance factory located in one's town or village. Whether it was occupied was another matter. To have such a facility was seen as recognition that the area had potential for job creation.

In attempting to fill these factories and in disposing of its land banks for job creation the Industrial Development Authority, at both national and regional level, was always conscious of local needs. It was conscious of the type of industry or jobs that would be most suited to the particular area or region. Consequently, there are identifiable types of industry in certain regions of the country. The Japanese, for example, tend to locate their electronic industries on the eastern seaboard, Americans tend to locate in the mid-west and Germans generally locate in my area — the north-west, north midlands and so forth — where there is a number of German owned industries. IDA policy was directed towards attracting particular types of industry to particular parts of the country and that situation pertained for as long as the IDA was in control of the disposal of advance factories.

However, from 1993 it became apparent, and it has been reiterated in this amending legislation, that this obligation — I use the word advisedly because there was no legal constraint on the IDA to operate in this manner — or modus operandi of the IDA has been dissipated, if not eliminated entirely, with the transfer of rights that were traditionally in IDA hands to Forfás, Forbairt and IDA Ireland. The legislation now baldly states that Forfás, Forbairt and IDA Ireland may acquire, hold and dispose of land and other property. It does not go beyond that.

There should be a broadening of this section to include local interests. Let us take, for example, a part of the country where there is an identifiable environment that is tourist related, where local interests are concerned about protecting its image and where industrial development, if it has occurred at all, is complementary to that environment and image. The IDA recognised that and pursued potential investors along those lines. Under this legislation there will be only one obligation on the three bodies concerned — to dispose of the property to the highest bidder. In other words, they are entitled under law to dispose of land and other properties without any named restrictions as to whom they should dispose of it or for what reasons.

If a region has an ecological and environmental image of purity and green fields that attracts tourists and has industries that are clean — for example, in the food sector — and it is then approached by a business consortium or individual who wishes to instal an industry that is not complementary to that image, a decision can be taken by Forfás to dispose of the property if the market price is reached. That is not right and should not be allowed. There is a need, which should be recognised in legislation, for local development interests to be consulted before the disposal of such properties. The land bank, small as it may be, and the advance factories — there are three empty advance factories in my county despite the best efforts of the IDA in Sligo — could be sold to anybody for any purpose so long as the price is right. That is not right. It is not fair to the communities in which these factories and land banks are situated. I will make this case again on Committee Stage but I am giving my reasons now for amending this legislation.

I endorse much of what my colleagues said about a limited enterprise culture at the highest levels. The lack of enterprise culture permeates every facet of official life. The cries about bureaucracy and red tape have become a flood and the subject has been mentioned here several times today. If we talk to any organisation or individual who is involved in job and wealth creation we will hear the same story — there is too much red tape and bureaucracy.

We have an excellent Civil Service and I hope my remarks will not be misinterpreted as a criticism of it. It does an excellent job, in some cases for far less pay than its members could get in the private sector. For that reason alone its members should be complimented for sticking to the job at hand. However, during the last few days Deputy Harney asked the Taoiseach whether there should be performance related assessment of civil servants and the Taoiseach was amenable to the suggestion. Unless one introduces some form of enterprise culture into the Civil Service structure — these are the people who plan legislation which the Oireachtas ultimately enacts — or this type of performance related assessment or an awareness that jobs will not come unless we have an environment which will allow business people to create wealth and in so doing create jobs, we will never seriously crack the high unemployment figures, irrespective of what Administration is in place.

There is a certain ideological difference between parties which reflects itself in legislation that is not always helpful to the creation of a business culture in this country but be that as it may, the people get the Government they deserve and if they do not like it then they vote the Government out and put in a new one.

I can only apply these comments to my own experience of a semi-State, which, as is widely known, is with RTÉ. RTÉ management is permeated by the attitude that irrespective of the audience figures, the cheque will arrive at the end of the month and the pension will come at the end of the career. Most of the activity that goes on at some middle management level in radio is as much concerned about empire building as it is about adopting a commercial attitude. In defence of that attitude in RTÉ, it is my opinion, which may not be shared by others, that RTÉ's mandate is to provide a public service and therefore the grubby dollar should not enter into any discussions.

The reality is, however, that in communications, as in many other areas of life in Ireland, competition is a reality. While it would be very nice to have a public service ethos, RTÉ, like many of the semi-State bodies, unless it gears itself to the new culture in which it has been forced to operate for reasons over which it has no control, will suffer. The communications area is as much a job creation area as any other. The advent of digital television, the existence of a plethora of satellite television stations and the promise of more terrestrial stations in this country will force RTÉ to respond competitively. That is a very good development, but not everybody is in that situation.

The Civil Service and those who draft the legislation under which we must operate in this country are not in a competitive situation. They are charged with a particular mandate and they carry that out to the best of their abilities. There is a need within Government to change that lack of a competitive ethos which will lead to a more ready recognition of the difficulties faced in the business sector.

Legal restrictions placed on employers are having an adverse effect, even though the motive for employee protection legislation over the last 20 years has been the highest. As an employee, I would stoutly defend much of what has been introduced in the way of employee protection legislation; but from the employer's point of view, serious questions must be asked about our job creation policies in the context of this legislation. I remind the House that despite the laudatory comments on the announcement of another 2,000 jobs in Leixlip from Intel, which I welcome wholeheartedly, and the recent announcement by Hewlett Packard of a further 1,100 jobs in the same area, there have been some failures and I believe those failures raise questions.

The most recent failure of the Industrial Development Authority was the loss of over 2,000 jobs to the United Kingdom when the German giant, Siemens, opted out of negotiations with IDA Ireland and opted to expand in Scotland. What struck me about this decision was not that we lost it, because the attraction of inward industry is a highly competitive area. We have been conditioned into believing that we have a very attractive grant/subsidy culture, that it has been the lynchpin of our drive to attract industry and that we have fought tenaciously at European level to retain these incentives against European opposition who have seen us as having an unfair advantage. Therefore, like others, I believed that this has been the jewel in Ireland's industrial crown.

When the chief executive of Siemens was asked for the reasons he had decided that his company should provide 2,000 jobs in Britain, a fellow EU member state, he dismissed the question of grants and subsidies as being of little consequence. His company was attracted to the United Kingdom because there was a low cost labour market available there. We pride ourselves on having a low cost labour market. He said that the United Kingdom's decision to opt out of the Social Charter — although he did not put it in so many words, that is effectively what he was conveying — had also been a significant influence on their decision, yet he repeated that the question of grants and subsidies was of little consequence.

If that is the case, the alarm bells are already ringing. If the basis of our industrial policy is inward investment a la Intel and Hewlett Packard, then the alarm bells are clanging, because there is something inherently wrong in that approach. This company is not from the Third World, from the emerging markets, the Pacific Rim or America. This company is already based within the European Union in the country that is effectively the paymaster of the European Union. However, it has not expanded in Germany, but in another EU member state, because that state opted out of a charter, which has been welcomed generally across the European Union, and because of what are perceived to be low costs in the UK market. He did not talk about the environment or Britain's green image, if it has one; he talked in very specific terms about low cost and about the alleged real or imagined restrictions placed on employers operating in the European Union under the Social Charter provisions.

I am not for one minute suggesting that Ireland should consider opting out of the Social Charter, but it is time we stopped being ideological about much of what is coming out of Europe because it seems to be the right thing to do and then discovering much later that the consequences of those commitments are that we are not in a position to compete effectively, even within the European Union, for inward investment.

There is a real need for a White Paper on Industrial Policy which would consolidate the various reports, comments, commentaries and commissions from Government, from the Telesis report through the Culliton report and the various reports that have come from the forum on which I had the honour to sit, the National Economic and Social Forum. We need to take stock now of where we are going as we approach the millennium, to look at the implications of our industrial policy to date and at the consequences of the continuance of acceptance and adoption of European Union directives in the workplace.

In the area of education we need to address the lack of expertise in the film industry. We are now losing films out of this country. Everybody thinks we are getting them all; we are not, because we have so many films in production here that we do not have enough technical expertise to keep up with demand. We need to look at the educational sector. In our vocational system practical subjects have been downgraded to optional status and the Irish third level education system is dominated by the obscene points race, which I believe has been responsible for more suicides among young people than any other single factor. Students are manipulated into choosing subjects that will gain them access to university with little thought for their future as contributors to the economy that paid for their education.

I briefly refer to yesterday's statement by Kieran McGowan. He said it was time we looked at our educational system and that we must again reappraise where we are going in terms of the type of courses we offer. The heading in The Irish Times, which says it all, states: “Lack of Technical Education May Lead to Staff Shortages”.

I welcome the Minister to the House. This Bill allows for a freeing up of various unnecessary restrictions and regulations which make things difficult. In the past, due to restrictions, the LEADER programme and the county enterprise partnership boards were prevented from helping certain ventures which would have given employment. The freeing up of such restrictions is welcome. For example, Forbairt and the IDA will be allowed to acquire, hold and dispose of property. In addition, Forfás, Forbairt and the IDA will be able to establish subsidiaries. There are also developments as regards SFADCo. I am glad Forbairt and IDA Ireland, the main promoters of industry, will be able to invest money in funds aimed at the development of industry as distinct from investment in industry. These points are extremely important and I will deal with matters relating to the county enterprise partnership boards later.

Much has been said over the years about reducing unemployment and increasing employment. We must get the message home to any organisation or agency which has the ability to create jobs for young people, those who are not so young and the long-term unemployed. It is a shame to see people who are anxious to work but who cannot get worthwhile employment having to rely on social welfare. It is a cost to the State and affects their morale. We must introduce legislation which will free up organisations so more employment can be created.

We have already seen the value of community employment. It is a tremendous asset for rural and urban areas, towns and villages that people who were previously unemployed are now doing work which is of value to their area. It also recognises people's work. In the past a person had a job with a company or the local county council or else they were unemployed. Community employment gives people the right to work. When writing their curriculum vitae people show great pride in saying they worked on a community employment project and that they got a reference from the local engineer or person who had taken them on.

I would like to stress the importance of small and medium sized enterprises and the services sector. Small and medium sized enterprises are extremely important in rural areas. The day of attracting large industry to rural areas is gone. I welcome the various schemes and moneys being made available to small businesses and the services sector, including the doubling of money from £100 million to £208 million, better interest rate and the minimum loan size. We have a banking system in this country where a person is known in the local branch of the particular financial agency and can be vetted there. Somebody mentioned earlier that their expertise could be used instead of creating a further group of people in a State body to check if the enterprise is worthwhile.

I am glad training initiatives will be supported, which is important. It is often said that people are overqualified. I do not believe this to be the case because any training, degree, diploma or whatever a person has acquired will be of use. I am delighted to see the launch of the small business programme and the fact that moneys from the EU will be given to the county enterprise partnership boards, which have played a magnificent role promoting employment in areas where it is hard to find.

I would like to praise the many companies which have been awarded the ISO accreditation. A number of years ago a company in my town, Donovan Medical Equipment Ltd., was awarded an ISO accreditation. Last week a Swedish company, which was established in the town and has provided considerable employment there and in the surrounding area of west Cork, was accredited with ISO. It is a credit to the employers, managers and the workforce in these places. The considerable work done by voluntary associations, whether it is a local village development association or a town promotion association, in trying to acquire an old building, get a site, secure funding from the IDA, Forbairt or the LEADER programme or carrying out a survey in an area cannot be quantified.

Low interest rates from banks are a great incentive. Another Senator mentioned that if low or no interest loans were available instead of grants it would be a good incentive. Personnel in banks, buildings societies or the financial organisation involved could carry out assessments.

I refer to the steps which could be taken by IDA Ireland and Forbairt to promote large industry in rural areas. I already said there was great difficulty in this regard. We must look at this again. Many large industries are located in Dublin and Cork, while smaller towns and villages are fading away. The problems are sometimes economic or relate to transport. It is easier to site a factory near an airport or a shipping area rather than 50, 60 or 100 miles away in a rural area. Sometimes the problems are social where those promoting these industries would prefer to live in a city rather than a rural area. We must look carefully at this and at the steps we can take when companies move their operations from Ireland and out of the EU, but when their products come back in. They get over losses from taxes and concessions by paying low wages. We must look at that not from our point of view, but from that of the EU.

I refer to the West Cork county enterprise partnership board, which has approved 113 projects since being set up. Money in excess of £100 million and 257 jobs have been approved. Existing jobs total 112.

If a factory started up in the morning employing 112 people immediately, we would have banners out and bands playing to welcome it in rural west Cork. When you think that an organisation which has been set up has managed to create 112 jobs over that amount of time, it is a great achievement. All the money which has been given by the Department has been spent to date and it is of immense importance to the peripheral area that more moneys be made available to keep people in these peripheral areas. The great thing about this is that if a project fails, you might lose two or three jobs. If a factory closes down, the full 112 jobs are lost, so there is a great safety valve in the fact that there are so many projects providing the 112 jobs.

The peripheral areas have been severely hit over the years by emigration, migration to the larger towns and cities and unemployment. The rural parts of Ireland have been severely hit by the quota systems and restrictions on agriculture which are now being enforced. Families are leaving the agricultural sector and the contractors who made their living from the agricultural sector are falling away. There have also been job losses in forestry and the only industry which is improving in the more peripheral coastal areas is the fishing industry. Thankfully, a decision was made recently in Dublin, and not by the enterprise boards, so that some of the fishing projects can now be aided through the enterprise boards. That is welcome because they were restricted in the past. I said at the beginning that if we bring forward legislation to free up a lot of the restrictions which prevent employment, I would support it and that is why I support this Bill.

More money is needed in the peripheral areas. There is no doubt about that. It can be provided through the enterprise boards or LEADER. I do not mind what way it is provided so long as it gives employment to our young people. In any small rural town in my area, where about 100 people leave post-primary school, you would be lucky to find ten left in the area after seven or eight years. Where are the other 90 people gone? They have gone to the cities or abroad. They are not in the rural areas where they were reared. That is a huge loss because we are losing the workforce, the people who will generate money, pay taxes and so on in the area.

I want to see the use of the enterprise boards widened to take in work being done by the community enterprise people under FÁS and by the local authorities. I know the local authorities are joined to the enterprise boards. Often the manager of a local authority might be the chairman, or might be involved anyway, and there are three or four local authority members on the various enterprise boards. Closer cohesion between the local authority, the enterprise board and FÁS should be promoted so as to further employment by using all three together.

Other Senators mentioned that local authority members who are members of the enterprise boards do not get expenses or subsistence for being away from their place of work or whatever when attending these meetings. That is not fair. It is not helpful to those members and eventually, like in other spheres, you will find people will have to drop out. If a person takes a half-day off to go to one of these meetings, it does not encourage the person to continue their membership. Maybe it will help the person who can well afford to get away, but it is extremely difficult for someone in a regular nine to five job.

I welcome this legislation, which promotes employment — that is the important thing — and reduces unemployment as a result. I know the Minister of State has this at heart herself and I compliment her on her contribution to the Bill.

I welcome the Minister of State. I have a series of questions arising from her speech this morning. I ask them in all innocence and most of them in all ignorance. It is really an educational exercise for me, putting it at its most selfish.

I am broadly supportive of the general thrust of industrial policy. I believe we must have an industrial policy, using industry in the broadest sense, but this must be the tenth, if not the twentieth, document of this type emanating from various Departments which has come before Seanad Éireann in even the couple of years in which I have been here. These documents did not address this particularly issue but were about the subject matter of industrial policy, growth and so on. One begins to wonder after reading something for the tenth time, and I am sure one begins to wonder after writing something for the tenth time, if there is much more which can be said or if there is much which we can offer here at all.

The first of the questions which I have in mind, and I am taking them seriatim as we go along without any particular hierarchy, is on the relationship between economic growth and job creation, which is a debatable and contentious issue. Are we any further along in understanding the relationship between these variables in this country in the light of the impressive economic growth rates over the last couple of years? I know job creation has also increased, but is it possible to disentangle from the data which we have from the recent past whether any changes are occurring in the relationship between growth and job creation? I need not go on as the Minister knows far more about this sort of thing than I do. Is there some way to identify more confidently the relationship between the variables? Let me put it like that, in very obscure language, but the Minister knows what I mean. Obviously, the projections about job creation and so on over the next four or five years are presumably based on assumptions about relationships between growth and jobs.

In the whole area of avoiding job losses requiring major change and adjustment, to which the Minister referred, I scribbled down the words "major change by whom" and "of what type" as she was speaking. How do our job losses compare to those in other comparable economies? Are there comparable economies for our stage of economic development? Are we, in a sense, having to make it all up as we go along? Are we obliged to be original in terms of trying to ascertain what an "acceptable" level of job loss would be, given the inevitable frictions in economic growth? Given the inevitable level of some losses, are we having significantly more losses than we ought to be having using whatever criteria by which we can assess it? Are we able to tell?

When we look at job losses in absolute terms they look awful, because they almost wipe out in many years job gains into which so much effort has gone. Are they, in fact, awful, or are we performing well in terms of job losses? Is this a necessary concomitant of the type of economic growth which we are undergoing? I would be loath to believe job losses are as low as they could be. Do we know? What are our criteria there? In the context of job losses are there one or two key reasons for them or are there a multitude of factors which contribute to them? Is it possible to weigh those factors?

The Minister said that IDA Ireland and Forbairt already work closely with existing clients to identify at an early stage Irish or Irish-based companies which are in danger of becoming uncompetitive. I was a little taken aback by the reference to Irish-based companies. Presumably, these are multinationals whom we tend to assume, rightly or wrongly, are better managed than Irish companies anyway or that, at least, they have more access to world marketing information and things like that.

There is a question which hangs over much of the formulation and implementation of our industrial policy. If our agencies are able to anticipate the way in which our markets are going and when they are in danger of becoming uncompetitive earlier than our companies or multinational companies, why are our agencies not in the direct business of job creation? How do we have such talented people who are able to, in a sense, double guess the market in advance if those whom we are relying on to achieve market penetration for us are not able to do it as effectively in their own firms? I do not want to be too clever by half on this point, but there is a question mark about the phrase "identifying at an early stage" the dangers of becoming uncompetitive, which presumably means at an earlier stage than the companies themselves.

In terms of the techniques employed in ministerial speeches I would like to see more details as to how the job is done as distinct from being assured the job is being done. This is partly for educational reasons, so we may see how it is done. One way mentioned to help companies improve their competitiveness is "establishing research and development functions"; another is "working with companies to keep overheads down" to ensure the cost of manufacturing can compete internationally. I presume companies are keeping overheads down as far as they can themselves.

Later in the contribution the Minister mentions increasing the R&D dimension from 1 per cent to 1.3 per cent of GDP. How are the sectors and the companies selected in which R&D functions will be established or increased? Presumably the multinationals know their own minds in these matters, although they may be induced to set up more such functions here. What about our own companies? Given their size, how realistic is it to assume R&D can be a significant factor in helping them become more competitive as such? Given my institutional background, I would naturally be a warm supporter of the belief that R&D makes a major contribution, but I would like to know more specifically how the companies are selected and what the anticipated success rate is.

The nub of the matter is touched on in the passage on the success of the last operational programme, which achieved the target of 20,000 gross jobs per annum. That looks impressive, and perhaps it is. I do not fully share Senator Ross' ideological perspective, much as I admire his utopian enthusiasm for a world that never existed, but his contribution raised the question of how we determine how many of those 20,000 jobs are due to policy. What assumptions are we making about the number of jobs which would have been created in any case if we lived in Senator Ross' world and there were no support agencies? If we assume none would have been created, that does not say much for our confidence in any indigenous enterprise, so what figure do we assume between zero and 20,000? What is the net addition to job creation which we attribute to industrial policy? That must be a key variable in assessing its success. Leaving aside the job loss dimension, do we have any idea? How do we set about estimating it as distinct from assuming, as would be natural for the agencies, that every new gross job created is as a result of agency policy?

The Minister said "We want to increase our share of world trade by 20 per cent, from 0.7 per cent to 0.84 per cent". How is that calculated? Specifically, how is the 0.84 per cent calculated, as that assumes what world trade will be in 1999 not just our figure but the world figure? I know this is a hypothetical question, but I am impressed by two places of decimal points in all these projections. I wish to know the assumptions made; I am sure they are reasonable but one thing we know about 1999 is that we do not know what state the world economy will be in by then. If we are going through an upswing at present, the odds are that by 1999 we will be somewhere on the far side of a downswing. Has a constant growth rate been built into those projections, or what has been assumed?

Like many other speakers, I am pleased to see the increased emphasis on the small business and services sectors. I do not like them to be considered as one sector because they are quite separate, although there is overlap between them as in every sector of the economy. For analytical purposes, however, it is undesirable to lump them together, because they are not the same and it blurs thinking to consider them thus.

I welcome the improved access to finance envisaged for the small business sector. The task force report on small businesses reported in January or February last year was one of the best I have ever seen and a number of its recommendations have been taken on board. However, there are questions about small business and in some ways it is being made the new white hope of job creation. Growth in small business is bound to be slow, although there may be the occasional spectacular jump. We should not ask it to bear a larger burden of expectation than is realistic to anticipate is possible over the next few years, because disappointment and disillusionment will set in which ought not arise if expectations were not geared up excessively.

Acquiring shares in respective client companies is a potentially interesting development, depending on what is intended by it. If the agencies envisage an active policy of share acquisition, what are the modalities and implications of that? Are these intended to be permanent share acquisitions? Will they go back on the market at some stage when that might appear appropriate? What happens when things go wrong with the company? All these questions have been asked about other ventures in this direction before. I would be willing to take risks but what happens when things go wrong — will good money go after bad, especially if the reputation of an agency or an individual in an agency is based on something going right?

The problem of picking winners was raised years ago in the Telesis report. By and large, I am a supporter of picking winners, but that means one must be prepared to take losses and build in contingencies to get out of loss situations when they are identified. I am not sure either our techniques or our political or administrative culture have adapted themselves to timely exits from what turn out to be mistaken judgments.

Those are the reflections stimulated by the Minister's contribution. One hears reports occasionally that these agencies have had problems in identifying the demarcation lines between them or institutional problems. I am not unduly bothered by that because all institutions have such problems, whether within them or between them. I suppose the Minister can only give one answer to this, but in her judgment is the level of inevitable institutional friction in the changeover from the old institutional regime to the new acceptable, or would one anticipate a more rapid smoothing of any difficulties which might occur than has been the case?

On a point of order, what is the agreement of the House on the continuation of this Second Stage debate? What is the termination time?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

As I understand it, Second Stage will conclude today unless a number of speakers remain.

Yes, but has a time been fixed? Do we continue until 4 a.m.?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

No time has been fixed.

Can the Chair advise me of the procedure in these cases? Do we continue without any conclusion?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Yes, we continue until there are no further speakers.

Is this normal procedure? Is a time limit not normally set under Standing Orders?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Leader of the House suggested there would be a concluding time but the Leader of the Opposition suggested Second Stage should either continue while there were speakers or not conclude today. That was agreed, so no concluding time was agreed on the Order of Business.

I can confirm there will be adequate time for everyone.

Can that decision be overturned at any time subsequently?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

There could be consultation between the Whips and a proposal for a concluding time could be put before the House.

Thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, I am grateful for your direction.

I join in welcoming Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, to the House. We are sorry the Minister, Deputy Bruton, could not be here.

He is attending a family funeral.

That is understood. From a personal perspective, the Minister, Deputy Bruton, appears to be one of the most diligent, earnest and hard working members of the Government. I am not denigrating any other Minister but in my humble opinion the Minister, Deputy Bruton, has applied himself to the task in his Department in a most wholehearted and sincere manner. This is important because the Department of Enterprise and Employment is crucial. I regard it as one of the most important Departments because it is the engine room of policy creation in the industrial and commercial sector. If there is no progress, forward thinking or action in terms of changes in policy direction in that Department, it is unlikely that economic policy will work.

I am glad Minister of State, Deputy Fitzgerald, is in the House. I and others regard her as the high priestess of political correctness. She is viewed as the shining light of the Government when it comes to correctness and principle, etc. I am not attempting to undermine the effort, if it is required, to have an ethical form of Government and Parliament. However, unfortunately, much of her activity could come within the scope of navel gazing. This Government is prone to navel gazing, internal watching and keeping its eye off the ball to such an extent that there is a possibility of bringing the entire function of Government into disrepute and making it redundant.

This also applies to the previous Government. I am a relative newcomer to the Oireachtas but we seem to be plagued by scandals. We seem to be interested in scandals and controversies of every type. What do foreigners, looking at this country and the Oireachtas, think of the amount of time, energy and effort which is expended on these so called scandals, irrespective of party? I have a Central Statistics Office report before me which deals with seasonally adjusted unemployment figures. In January 1992, it states that 269,600 people were unemployed. Apart from small variations, that figure has remained relatively static. The September 1995 figure was 279,100, an increase of 10,000 over three years.

Is that what we have amounted to? Is that the net contribution of all State agencies, civil servants, public servants and politicians? I place blame on my shoulders also since I have been a full-time politician, more or less, since 1995. Have we consigned the best part of 300,000 people to the waste bin? Are we prepared to accept the alienation, frustration, poverty and lack of opportunity embedded in that figure?

The Minister of State is more familiar than I with the exact figures but she will agree that a large proportion of the September 1995 figure of 279,000 involves people who are long-term unemployed. She did not mention it in her contribution and perhaps it should be said by others, but does she accept that a large proportion of those 279,000 people may never work? Are we prepared to accept that? What percentage are we prepared to accept will never get full-time employment in our lifetime?

I am not preaching because, as a Member of the House I, unfortunately, share the guilt. Does the Minister agree we are all part of a cosy consensus? Are we all part of a cosy arrangement and a conspiracy where, in effect, the unemployed are left outside? Are we walking along a canal where somebody is drowning but we do not throw a life belt? These are disturbing questions in stark terms but a new Industrial Development Bill can only be judged on those grounds. Will the Bill make a significant contribution to ending the misery and lowering that unemployment figure? The Minister will probably agree the jury will still be out on that question long after the publication and passage of the Bill.

I wish to refer to a December 1994 IBEC submission to Government. It stated that a fundamental question must be asked as to why Government expenditure has been allowed to outpace inflation in the last five years. It said the growth in total gross spending, net of debt servicing, has exceeded inflation by 6 per cent on average every year, amounting to a total of 33 per cent over a five year period, and this may be largely attributed to increased spending on public service pay and social services. In other words, public spending is exceeding inflation by 6 per cent since 1989 and most of that money has gone on public sector pay.

As negotiated by IBEC in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work and Programme for Economic and Social Progress.

The fact is that the Labour Party — and this is a political charge — is a tax and spend Government. The Minister of State is also concerned with Structural Funds.

She is concerned with those funds. I attended a meeting——

In case the Senator has not noticed, I have changed my job since last December.

I did not notice. The Minister of State mentioned Structural Funds in her speech. There may not be a second round of Structural Funds once the current phase concludes. The country may have to survive without more Structural Funds. We may have to survive in a European monetary union atmosphere and we will have to compete. Will this Bill help us compete in such an economic environment when the Structural Funds have come to an end?

This Government has been quick to spend on investigations, probes and navel gazing. No doubt it will spend much money on ethics commissions and other righteous exercises. However, when will it start saving money? When will it tell these agencies that if they cannot reduce the misery of those 300,000 unemployed people they will be out of business? When will we reduce taxation so that people who work hard can keep some of their money to save and invest? The only way we will find a long-term solution to unemployment is if business is successful and people are employed in a low cost environment.

Several recommendations are made in this IBEC report. It states that personal and corporate taxation is too high, etc., and the Small Firms Association said the same. Does the Minister accept the ISME and IBEC recommendations or do her socialist principles get in the way? Is the Labour Party still socialist? Is it committed to socialism or a free enterprise economy? I may be presenting my views in too trenchant a way but I get extremely angry, like many others, when I think about these people who are effectively consigned to a future without employment. I hope I have the strength to break away from this cosy consensus because this is a crisis. The only reason this crisis has not exploded into revolution is that those on social welfare get good benefits, and deservedly so.

Is this not a little like shuffling the chairs on the deck of the Titanic? Approximately 18 months ago, I tried to find out from Forfás, Forbairt and IDA Ireland who was responsible for creating more jobs in Crumlin and Drimnagh but nobody could give me an answer. No agency put its hand up and said it was its responsibility.

Who set it up? Ex-Minister O'Rourke.

I have seen replies to questions which talked about new jobs being created by foreign companies. However, it is difficult to get information on the number of jobs that have been created in a specific geographic area of this city.

I represent an inner south suburb of Dublin. The major reason given by these agencies that no new jobs can be created is that there are no sites. I was told the minimum site size for a large industrial project is approximately 20 acres — maybe the Minister can confirm or deny that — and that is a problem. Crumlin, Bluebell, Walkinstown and Drimnagh need jobs and I do not see them being created there. Senator McGowan referred to the county enterprise board in County Donegal. He said it approved many projects but the Government will not give it the money to fund them.

The Senator is wrong. The councils cannot spend the money they have.

That is not what he said.

He did say that and Senator Mulcahy would know that if he had listened to him. It only spent £200,000.

The Senator's party was involved in setting up the county enterprise boards.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator Mulcahy, without interruption.

The Senator has the shortest memory in history.

This Government can find money to probe into CIE and give to lesbian groups but can it find the money to create a few new jobs? I hope the Minister will answer that question. Is the Minister committed to a socialist programme or a free enterprise market economy? I am entitled to an answer.

The Senator is not talking through the Chair. He should not direct his remarks to the Minister.

I am allowed to ask questions and no doubt the Minister will reply in her concluding remarks.

Certain elements of this Bill are welcome. The power of the State to invest in job creation funds or in funds specially set up — again not specified in this Bill——

This Bill is mopping up what was not done the last time.

I can only conclude that, since I am being constantly interrupted, I have touched a sensitive nerve.

I welcome the power of the State to invest in job creation funds but it has to take that obligation seriously. It has to provide funds and not just talk about it. This situation also came about under a different heading when the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, introduced the Civil Legal Aid Bill. It is all very well introducing these fine structures but there is no point doing this if the funds are not there to meet it. Would it not be better to reduce personal taxation, do away with many of these agencies, giving the power back to the people and let them create the businesses? That is what I mean when I talk about breaking the cosy consensus that seems to be prevalent. There was a decrease in the numbers employed in the public service in the mid to late 1980s but that increase is now with us again. That is not long-term sustainability in employment.

When all the internal restrictions in the European market are lifted, Ireland will have to compete on an equal basis with 15 fellow members; that number may go up to 20 members before the century ends. We will not be able to compete if we have a bloated State sector and if levels of personal and corporate taxation are such as to discourage investment. The Minister, in bringing such a slim and inadequate Bill before this House, is not contributing towards solving the fundamental problem. It is high time we had a principled and structured debate on employment because a root and branch approach is required. Indeed, I suggested this before and the Leader of the House agreed.

The Government could have done many other things in this Bill rather than shift the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. If Ireland is a ship, she is not moving very fast in creating new jobs.

I conclude by saying that it is about time this Government made a clear statement as to where it stands on free enterprise. Is it heading down the road of a socialist economy with more and more civil servants, bureaucracy, navel gazing and probes into this and that, or will it reduce taxation, give the power back to the people and start this economy again? That is the difference between Fianna Fáil and this Government. We are committed to giving power to business people——

The Senator is all wet; that is for sure.

——and farmers, reducing their taxation and letting them get on with it. That is a firm marker for the future. This Minister or any other Minister who comes into this Chamber with such a slim and inadequate Bill will get a rough ride. There will be no more kid glove treatment and prancing around. There must be action on jobs or this Government will come to its knees very quickly. It knows it and the people of this country know it.

Would the Senator tell us who increased jobs in the public sector in the last four years, or was he asleep?

I obviously touched a sensitive nerve.

We would all like to see an increase in the number of jobs. The purposes of this Bill are to amend the Industrial Development Act, 1993, in order to remove unnecessary restrictions on the operations of Forbairt and IDA Ireland in regard to the acquisition, holding and disposal of property; to enable Forfás, Forbairt and IDA Ireland to establish subsidiaries; to allow Forbairt and IDA Ireland to invest moneys in funds aimed at the development of industry, as opposed to investments in specific companies; to increase the aggregate limit of grants that may be made to SFADCo to enable it to discharge its industrial development functions and make other minor amendments to the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Acts, 1959 to 1991; and to provide statutory authority for the payment to county enterprise boards, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, of grants to meet their administration and general expenses and to discharge the obligations and liabilities arising out of the performance of their enterprise support functions. These are all worthy reasons for the new Bill.

Coming from the Shannon region I have a special interest in SFADCo and the county enterprise boards. I was studying the latter recently and they are doing good work. However, as has already been said, the increase in employment resulting from these boards is disappointing. I will not say which Government is at fault. I have seen both IDA and SFADCo legislation moved in this House but it never caused a substantial rise in employment. Sometimes, it even decreased it.

I listened to Senator Ross, who made some valuable points about the return on the money being invested in employment. He mentioned the investment in Sunbeam to ensure its viability and asked if such companies fail, will there be further investment? I look at projects in my own area and often wonder whether there is enough research or assessment of their business potential before they get money. A Shannonside recycling company was formed which got plenty of money but only lasted a year. This is a waste of money and is definitely not helping the employment situation. It is essential that there is proper assessment of the potential of industries that will be grant aided by Government. Some of the projects do not live up to the promise when the original investment was made.

There is good news in Leixlip, where foreign investment will create some much needed employment. We do not know what it will cost this country or whether the employment will be permanent, but it is great and I hope it will be a success. In County Limerick the LEADER groups are investing money in indigenous industries. This is very worthy activity. There could be investment to make places attractive to tourists and this will give rise to employment. There is definitely potential in this area. The Limerick enterprise board is in partnership with other groups including Limerick County Council and the University of Limerick, which is making a valuable contribution to projects that will create employment. It is involved in the Limerick Tourist Trade Association, which will also expand the tourism industry in the area.

I commend FÁS for the work they are doing, especially in the community. We benefited ourselves as the local GAA field would not have been developed were it not for FÁS. Other schemes are also benefiting. When we started that scheme it was very difficult. We got a list from the local employment exchange of people receiving unemployment assistance and we interviewed them. Some of them had excuses not to work and others could not work because of distance and they could not be forced to do so. A few reluctantly had to work in the FÁS schemes, which last for a year. However, as soon as the year was up, they were looking for an extension and were delighted that they had participated in the scheme. It was valuable to the projects they were helping and also for employment. There is a stigma attached to unemployment and these people are delighted to have the opportunity to work. The scheme operates on a week on, week off basis, so they are legally free to work in other places without interfering with the social welfare system.

I was at a launch of LEADER II by the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Deenihan, about a month ago. A sizeable sum of money was presented. The Ballyhoura group have done great work in small industries, tourism, nature trails, agritourism and many other areas. These LEADER groups must be commended. In my own area West Limerick Resources is getting LEADER funding. They are efficient and energetic and have great ideas to create employment. They have their own board of directors and Limerick vocational education committee, Bord Fáilte and Teagasc are all involved in this group, which is worthy. I hope this Bill will give rise to a permanent increase in employment.

I stress the point that when industry is grant-aided a proper assessment of the value that that investment will provide in terms of employment etc., should be carried out. A good employment situation exists in the Shannon Estuary area. In my own area we have Castlemahon Chickens, Whites of Askeaton and Aughinish Alumina, which greatly benefit the people there. I am sure the same could apply in other areas.

I hope I am not touching on a delicate subject, but I suppose opportunities for employment have been lost due to the collapse of the Horgan's Quay deal. Anything private developers can do to create employment should be encouraged not criticised. There are other areas which need attention in respect of employment. Bord Fáilte's Tidy Towns scheme creates great interest and provides employment for people preparing their towns for inspection. The building industry also needs encouragement. Indigenous industries such as cheese-making are very important, as are engineering works, which are aided by Government and the IDA. The money provided through the scheme for people to set up their own business is very small. This should be investigated and perhaps the amount might be increased.

I hope that this Bill increases employment and will play a major part in rural renewal and development. Various Ministers for the Environment have made efforts to nurture urban development which is of great benefit and has enhanced many urban areas. Areas which were derelict have been built up or repaired. Urban renewal has enhanced many towns and villages. The chairman of the ICMSA Rural Development Scheme has suggested ideas regarding tax or other incentives to aid the process of rural development. The situation is a serious one because rural Ireland is being depleted. A flight from the land has occurred because there is no industry present. Another important issue is road access. The roads in our cities and the main roads are fine, but the roads in many small rural areas are in a bad state. They need attention to ensure that rural areas are developed and do not die.

I trust that this Bill will create employment. People have their doubts about it. Senator Ross asked whether it will provide money to create jobs. That should be the aim and purpose of this Bill and I trust it will do so.

It is significant that we are amending the Industrial Development Bill, 1993, within two years of its introduction. Members may recall that, when that Bill was introduced, I expressed strong reservations about the nature of the new agencies which were introduced and the necessity for them. I also expressed reservations regarding whether this rationalisation, as it was then called, would achieve the opposite of what we wanted it to achieve, namely, a tight, controlled and targeted policy direction. The latter would ensure that the climate for investment from indigenous industry would be favourable, that external investors would be the first priority and that this would be maintained and enhanced.

When that Bill was introduced in 1993 I stated that the most important contribution we could make to the industrial development climate was the maintenance of attractive conditions for indigenous or foreign investors. This is due to the fact that business people receive signals from the administration of Government policy that they will be guaranteed certain secure bases for expansion when they invest here. I have great reservations about the signals that have been sent out to the business community, be it domestic or foreign, for some time.

While in Government in 1987 my party took certain steps which were very stringent in respect of public expenditure. We saw that it was essential to reduce the growth of public expenditure to ensure that inflation would be reduced and contained at low levels. We realised that interest rates, which are a concomitant of inflation, should also be reduced and maintained at low levels. I want to remind the House that in the period before 1987 interest rates in Ireland were running at the highest rates in Europe. Our rates of inflation were much higher than the norm throughout Europe.

That is totally untrue.

Despite the fact that low rates of interest existed outside Ireland, which brought about a positive and benign effect, our interests were running and raging at a rampant state of increase. We knew that there was no quick fix for this and we took decisions which were not easy.

As a Minister at that time I was criticised by Senator Farrelly, among others, for reducing expenditure on advisory agencies such as Teagasc and ACOT. Farmers were asked to pay a share so that the burden on the Exchequer might be reduced. I was constantly criticised in the Lower House for that, but I knew that I had a part to play. I was not going to stand over a policy that would give people the notion that the Government could spend as it saw fit. We reduced staff numbers in the public service. For every three vacancies that arose only two were filled thereby reducing the numbers on a consistent basis. The public expenditure bill, which was in danger of overwhelming the economy, was also reduced as a result.

In that context I pay tribute to the Fine Gael Party and its leader at the time for supporting the Government of the day by way of the Tallaght Strategy, which was very far-sighted and committed. It enabled all Ministers establish a very close rapport with the unions in setting up the first programme for competitiveness, which proved to be an extraordinary success. I wish to pay tribute to the unions and their leadership for the positive role they played in negotiating that agreement. In my own case I would have faced an insurmountable task in reducing numbers in ACOT and An Forás Talúntais, but the problem was effectively expedited by that degree of consultation and responsibility.

I am happy to say that the policy we sustained over the years has brought about a situation today where the Minister can refer to the economic growth forecast in the OECD and the growth we have recently experienced in Ireland. That is a fact and a matter of satisfaction. Everyone knows it was on the basis of the solid foundation we laid in those years and which those responsible people who co-operated with us helped to put in place. That approach contrasts with the approach of the Labour Party in those days and from 1987 onwards when, every time we took these difficult decisions in the interests of the national economy, we were lambasted for being heartless and cruel. However, we persevered and the Irish people won.

With all that having been achieved where do we now find ourselves? I heard Senator Mulcahy refer to the expansion of the public service. Surely we have all learned those lessons. We made mistakes——

It did not happen this year.

It is happening now.

Tell us when it started.

Senator Farrelly knows it is happening as we speak.

When did it start?

For confirmation he can read the Minister's speech.

When did it start?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Kennedy must be allowed to make his contribution without interruption.

Having taken the difficult decisions and had acceptance from the public service unions and the public sector at large, the growing hunger of the public service should be contained. It is like a mushroom that will expand unless there is deliberate strict control. I am concerned the growth is being reactivated in an alarming way.

Perhaps we can talk about healthy figures in 1995——

Go back to 1994 and before.

——but I am concerned about what we will find in 1996 and 1997 unless the Government steps back and considers the consequences. Investors coming to Ireland are not most concerned about the amount of the grants; established reputable international enterprise managers are not concerned about the first level of grants. They want to know what guarantee they will have in relation to Government policy so that their shareholders and investors will feel secure. They want to know what is reflected in the industries on stock markets around the world. They will not know the detail of all the grants, agencies and supervisory bodies. If they hear about the supervisory bodies being set up they may have strong reservations and if they hear a lot about supervisory bodies they may not consider it the right approach to a growth climate.

I remember telling the former Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, when the Industrial Development Act, 1993, was being debated here that I would support rationalisation, but when I see two existing bodies such as IDA and CTT being replaced by four or five other bodies I have to ask myself what kind of rationalisation is this. We have Forbairt, Forfás, various county enterprise boards and development teams all around the country. What are they for?

The Senator did not vote against it at the time.

My views were strongly expressed. We were in partnership and I expressed my views strongly to people in our party and publicly in the House. I hold those views even more strongly now in view of the experience we have had in the meantime.

There are some fundamentals we should address. The first is the climate I have spoken about — the best guarantee. If we let public service expenditure grow it will create the worst possible condition. The Minister has announced more supervisory bodies — she spoke of a task force on long-term unemployment, the establishment of a local employment service and a new unit in the Department to oversee the operation of the service. Senator Farrelly may ask me for evidence of this growth but it is in the Minister's speech — new units to supervise new operations, partnership schemes and a new local management committee.

Where does it say more people are being employed?

The Minister said: "...a local management committee has been set up to oversee the drawing up and implementation of the overall plan ...." There will be new management committees and supervisory groups at every level. There are local enterprise boards which are fine, but partnerships and task forces of all kinds are being set up to supervise.

As far as external investment is concerned I regret to say that not a single new job has been introduced into my constituency of north Tipperary since I was a Minister a number of years ago. What price all these management, cooperation and supervisory groups? What is the justification for having Forbairt or Forfás or other bodies located in a constituency such as mine when we cannot point to one new job? That is the reality in my constituency and it is no different from many others in that regard. Where is the evidence of a dynamic new policy? I have seen a growth in the numbers of agencies which cuts across the fundamental focal point for any business — the economic climate.

Training and market research, etc., are very important. I exclude from some of my criticisms the question of industry adjustment and getting an effective marketing strategy and support for small industry. There are three key areas. The first is the overall economic climate and I am gravely concerned at the way controls have been relaxed and let go.

Fianna Fáil were at it for years.

The second is education. I was privileged to be in Government in 1970 as a Minister of State when we made a specific decision under the great Seán Lemass that we would locate, first in Limerick and then throughout the country, a group of technical institutes, colleges and universities where appropriate; a new dimension outside of the existing national university structure, where we would be educating and equipping our graduates to not only avail of jobs but, more importantly, to create jobs in the new international environment. We targeted the Limerick area as a pilot scheme in relation to Shannon and the record shows that our foresight has been vindicated. We now have graduates, an educational institute and a technology park that can compete with and beat the best in the world. Others are adopting what we have done. Education is the second key element.

Equipment in this new era of information technology is where the priority should be in terms of Government decisions. I do not see as much evidence of that as there should be. We set up the regional colleges and the new technical institutes. They are not just a monument to us but to the capacity of the young people who attended and the professionals who taught them. It was a marvellous breakthrough. Now, however, we see enterprise and partnership boards.

If somebody asks me for information I do not know where to send them. I could toss a coin and tell them there is a variety of choices between Forbairt, Forfás, Shannon Development and the county enterprise boards. I think Senator Farrelly agrees with me more than he is willing to say publicly. A business person wants to know if the local authority will create an investment climate and ensure that it has expeditious planning procedures or if it will frustrate and delay him, which is what kills investment.

Much remains to be done in terms of infrastructure and I welcome much of the investment. However, what about the extra cost? The majority of our investors deal with the extra cost by going North to export out of the port of Larne, which is a very efficient port. Why, when there is a port in the heart of this city, do they have to go that extra distance? The Government could make a major contribution if it took a dynamic approach and said that Dublin Port and the surrounding infrastructure was its priority. We are tolerating huge extra transportation costs and delays. That is what I would like to see in an industrial development Bill.

Shannon Development played a very strategic and dynamic role in my region. Now we find that it has no further role. I am not saying this has happened during the lifetime of this Government but it happened during the partnership Government about which I expressed reservations many times. Shannon Development has now been stripped down. We knew the people with whom we were dealing and the reaction, direct advice and response we could get. That has now been replaced by bodies and agencies the people on the ground do not know. This is regrettable. I saw the dramatic change which Shannon Development brought about, particularly in Clare and Limerick, as part of the overall targeting under the great Mr. Lemass and the great Brendan O'Regan. I was as school in Clare in those days and I saw it for myself. Where is that vision now? It has been lost in task forces and supervisory groups within the growing public service.

One of the great successes in Tokyo is that the banks are involved in enterprise as joint investors. Our banks seem to take the view that they are only to be involved when they can make a profit without risk. They are not really integrated, in any sense, with the business development climate. The examples of Germany and Japan show that the banks have a responsibility as well as an opportunity to increase their immediate profits.

Those macro approaches to development should be considered much more than increasing the number of task forces and supervisory units. The more of those I see, the more I feel that, while we are increasing public sector expenditure, we are not increasing jobs and profitability.

I thank the Senators for their contributions. I will personally convey Senator Fahey's congratulations to the small business sector in my Department because they do a good job. The head of that unit has just been promoted, which is a recognition of the quality of their work.

Senator Fahey spoke about the plethora of agencies active at local level. Many of us sympathise with that and we do not want to see a bord na mbord dealing with them. We need to ensure that we offer a very consistent response, which is simple and easy to follow, to someone looking for help in expanding a business.

Senator McGowan raised the question of the amount of red tape involved with the county enterprise boards. He made a number of very fair points and I will ask my Department to deal with them. We need to make the point that when we are dealing with public and EU money, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the EU Court of Auditors have to be satisfied, so there needs to be an amount of accountability. We also need to ensure that if we are giving public money to an enterprise, that enterprise is playing by the rules. Every enterprise which is seriously interested in creating jobs should have its books and tax affairs in order. That is not excessive bureaucracy. However, the point he raised about people not accepting photocopies of C2 forms and looking for originals is daft and I will take it up.

A number of Members raised the issue of grants versus loans and the importance of using loans. That is built into this Bill for the county enterprise boards. We are having trouble with Brussels on this point who would prefer us to give out grants as that makes for easier accounting rules. That is crazy because the financial discipline of repaying a loan is good for any starter business and it also ensures that people seek markets rather than spending their energy on seeking grants. That point was very well made in the Culliton report. We have provided for that in this Bill and any assistance in our battles with Brussels on this matter would be welcome.

Senator Mooney raised the importance of consulting the local community in relation to how the IDA handles its land bank. There was a major review — which has not been published yet, as far as I know, but I am sure will be made available to anyone who looks for it — in advance of the enactment of the freedom of information legislation looking at the use of the State agencies' land banks. The proposals in the Bill arise out of their recommendations. It is important that where land or buildings are not being used and where there is no reasonable or likely prospect of anybody providing jobs on the site, the agencies would be in a position to dispose of the land through proper tendering procedures, as we have learned painfully. The money can then be recycled into providing facilities which will yield jobs. It is no boast for any area to say that it has three empty advance factories in which nobody is interested. That does not do anything for jobs.

Senator Mooney also raised the issue of environmental considerations in regard to sales of land. Obviously, any new buyer of previously IDA owned land will have to apply for planning permission. The planning authorities should be the arbiters there.

The question was raised of why we lost the Siemens project and its chief executive officer was quoted. We have to take note — and this applies to both the Siemens and the Intel projects — that major, blue chip companies are often in a position to play off the industrial promotion agencies of a number of countries. Sometimes the right thing for us to do is not to play this game, because we are not interested in jobs at any exorbitant price; we are interested in jobs that are priced in a way that makes sense to us.

It is clear that there was much bidding for this project. Michael Heseltine and John Major both got personally involved in terms of the bidding. There comes a point at which the agencies have to say that it is not worth it to us at that price. We always need to keep this is mind because if we can get more jobs for the same money with another company we should not allow companies to price up our cost per job.

Senator Mooney raised the question of the EU Social Charter. This is a red herring. I hope we would not fall into the trap set for us by the British CBI. We are part of Europe and are happy to take European Social Funds. Our share of the Structural Funds is the highest in the EU. We are also happy to accept our social obligations. Much nonsense has been spoken of the UK opt out of the EU Social Charter. In practical terms the only difference it has made to date is that the UK has not signed the EU Works Council Directive. We should not, therefore, beat ourselves on the head by saying that our employment protection legislation is too hard, too high and so on. This is nonsense. We should not play the UK propaganda game on this.

There is an important function in providing a proper, adequate and simple system of basic social protection as a floor of basic social rights, especially for unorganised workers, such as those working in small companies and units who will never be represented by a union because of the size of the business. This is what the EU Social Charter sets out to do, and I have no apology to make for the fact that we signed up to it.

Senator Lee raised a series of questions. With regard to the relationship of economic growth to job creation, we have gone through periods where we have seen virtually jobless growth. One of the reasons for this is that we had a huge increase in labour productivity and we have been going in for the high productivity sectors. Unless the incomes generated from this productivity are translated into spending in lower productivity, higher job intensive areas, such as the services sector, we will not get job intensive growth. There is, therefore, a role in recycling the incomes earned from the Intels of this world, both on the profit and the wages side, into spending on more labour intensive areas of the economy, because they are, intrinsically, going to be high productivity, relatively low job intensive areas for the capital investment involved.

With regard to our job losses compared to other countries, we have a lower inflow into unemployment than, for example, a country like the USA, which turns over jobs much more quickly, with job losses of the order of 2 to 2.5 per cent per annum. Our rate of job losses in Europe and Ireland would be much more of the order of 1 per cent per annum. The difference in Ireland is that people who lose their jobs are far less likely to come back. Our employment problem is primarily one of long term unemployment, chronic unemployment and how we bring those affected back into the economic system.

In terms of the performance of the economy, we are doing very well at present. It is forecast that we will create approximately 35,000 jobs this year, a record performance in our own terms and in European terms. The problem is not with job creation. Our problem is about how we bring back into the economic system people who have effectively dropped off the table, who are long term unemployed. Senator Kelly read a description into the record of the House of their probability of getting a job.

With regard to the need for an early warning system, we have established such a system in my Department. It looks in the first instance at companies whose product is going to disappear and tries to anticipate this. It tries to get such companies to gear up to change and to gear up for the future, to move into products and services where there is going to be a market. If somebody is in an industry that is dying we want them, before the industry dies, to anticipate, retrain, retool, reskill and develop new products. There is a unit in my Department — I do not apologise for using the word "unit"— with that specific function.

Senator Lee also asked about taking shares in client companies. Again, this is a variation on giving a loan by way of preference shares. We can do it in a way that is compatible with EU laws. If we are investing as a country in job creation we should also be in a position to tap into some of the profits. This kind of joint venture system is envisaged under the Bill.

I will not respond to the personal abuse which was dished out by Senator Mulcahy. It was out of line with the general tone of the debate. Senator O'Kennedy raised a number of questions about the level of public expenditure, the level of services and so on. When we entered Government in January 1993, we found a bill of £600 million on the table in terms of deferred public pay increases that had been negotiated by IBEC, the ICTU and the outgoing Government. It was a bill which hung around our ability to get on with the job.

I make no apologies, in a country which has a growth rate of 5 to 6 per cent, for channelling some of that money into better education services — for example, in tackling the scandal we had regarding the treatment of mentally handicapped people whose parents were no longer able to look after them. When we have an economy that is growing strongly we need to put money back into basic social services.

It is also very important that, when we are looking at how we distribute the fruits of economic growth, we consider how we can channel the fruits of those growths into long term unemployment. It is easy to be abusive about task forces, units and so on. We are talking about redeploying civil servants to cast their collective minds, wisdom and intellects to look at one of the most serious problems facing the country, the problem of long term unemployment.

Having established the National Economic and Social Forum and brought the long term unemployed to the table, it is important that we follow through on the reports it has provided on long term unemployment and put in place a service that can address the reasons for the persistence of long term unemployment and the reason why, in an economy that is growing 35,000 jobs a year, very few of those jobs have so far gone to people who are long term unemployed. Again, I make no apology for putting public funds into those areas.

I thank the Senators for their contribution to the debate, which became wide ranging and interesting on the whole area of job creation at both local and national level. It is useful for the House to engage in this kind of debate from time to time, even if the Bill in itself is a relatively slight tidying up measure. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 26 October 1995.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

On Wednesday, 26 October 1995 at 2.30 p.m.

Top
Share