Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 9 Jul 1959

Vol. 176 No. 7

Undeveloped Areas (Amendment) Bill, 1959—Second Stage (Resumed).

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

General Mulcahy

Last night, I intervened for the purpose of getting a little more clarity as to the intention and effect of this Bill. I said, as reported in the Irish Independent this morning, that the attitude of the Taoiseach was “to admit very definitely that that was a policy intended to assist the transfer of the population from the western districts to the greater centres of...” Then the Minister interrupted to say that the Taoiseach said no such thing and that he would quote him verbatim. I was in the House here, listening to the Taoiseach's general line on this matter. It was suggested by Deputy Corish — again reported only in today's paper — that “he could not understand why special treatment should be afforded to people in any particular part of the country.” He said that they should “encourage people to come from underdeveloped areas to areas where there could be development.” The report in today's paper goes on:

Mr. Lemass: One of the effects of this Bill will be to do that.

When a Bill is brought in, one of the effects of which will be to bring people from the undeveloped areas into greater centres of population, the Government cannot divest themselves of the intention of doing that.

I raised the matter in relation to the general principle, so that we may not go blindly into such a situation. Even if it is inevitable, at any rate, we ought to know what we are doing. We are asked, in very hurried circumstances, to discuss a series of Bills here. We have the Undeveloped Areas Bill and the Minister admits that should not be the title of that Bill at all. While that title may be misleading in certain cases, I think it is a matter of advantage to this House that the Bill has been misnamed, because it draws attention to a very important part of the spectrum of our society, where industrial development is desirable and necessary. That development is necessary if the people in some of the western areas are not to go like the scraw off the rocks, without any possibility of any development in the area at all once the population is weakened to a greater extent. We have seen specimens in western areas where the arduous work of the people there in winning a living from the land has been made almost impossible by the reason of the absence of that stimulus to action which the having of neighbours around brings. There are arduous occupations in the West of Ireland, in the sea and on the land, where without the presence of an audience, the work will not go ahead and where without the presence of helping hands in difficulties, there is no courage in the people and no intention in the people to face their work.

I asked that we should hear the Minister for the Gaeltacht in the discussion of a measure which, it is admitted by the Taoiseach, will draw people from the undeveloped areas, in circumstances in which he expresses disappointment at the amount of development it has been possible to bring about in the western areas. With this background of legislation regarding the undeveloped areas, State grants and An Foras Tionscal, the Taoiseach definitely says that there is little field now for the development of industry in the country intended to supply native or local needs. All this concentration on the provision of additional capital, on increased millions of expenditure under this Undeveloped Areas (Amendment) Bill — which is not intended for the undeveloped areas at all — and on increased money being provided under the proposed Industrial Credit (Amendment) Bill, is intended, according to the Taoiseach, for the development of industry other than the smaller industries which provide for our own people here, that is to say, it is intended for the development of large export industries.

That is all right. While we are committing ourselves to the possible expenditure of very substantial sums in development, we ought not to be asked — as we are apparently being asked — to turn our minds entirely away from the conditions that exist in the Western areas and, particularly, from my point of view, in the areas for the protection and development of which the Gaeltacht Department was set up. That area has at its heart from 40,000 to 50,000 people, where the main concentrated residue of people who traditionally speak the Irish language is situated. Outside that, in the contiguous areas, the Gaeltacht Department is responsible for about another 70,000 or 80,000 people. But the returns given for the development that has taken place under the Undeveloped Areas Act and the meagre details included in the annual reports of An Foras Tionscal give no impression at all that any development has taken place in the areas that are the responsibility of the Gaeltacht Minister.

There has been a certain conflict of emphasis on some aspects of this Bill. It has been indicated that Section 1 gives an unfair advantage to the undeveloped areas, that is, to the areas for which the Undeveloped Areas Act was originally framed. There is no evidence — none at all — in anything that has taken place that that is so. On the contrary, there is very substantial evidence in the statements made by the Taoiseach, if not by the Minister, that the present developments in the proposals in the Bill and the increased money provided for industrial credit expansion hold no inducement at all and give no hope of any development taking place in a way that would help the areas for which the Minister for the Gaeltacht is responsible.

I appreciate that the situation as presented in the Dáil and the type of discussion for which an opportunity is offered to the Dáil lead to confusion enough without any deliberate misrepresentation of any aspect of the case. But I suggest to the Minister that when the Taoiseach comes along and says, as he said here in response to a suggestion that people should be encouraged to come from the West, that one of the effects of the Bill will be to do that, that statement, with the background of his general comment on the unsatisfactory development that has taken place up to the present under the Undeveloped Areas Act, at any rate should indicate to us what will happen in the carrying out of the work intended in the various Bills before us.

The problem envisaged when the Undeveloped Areas Bill was first introduced in 1952, and the problem particularly envisaged when the Gaeltacht Department was set up, should not be ignored; and it seems to me that it is being entirely ignored. Before the discussion on this measure concludes, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for the Gaeltacht should address themselves very definitely to it and let us have a little more information.

Mr. MacCarthy

Some of the speeches from the Opposition Benches started on a high national note but I regret to say in many instances they lost pitch as they proceeded. There is always a danger that depressing speeches here may interfere with our general economic outlook. It is too often evident that Deputies do not realise that various schemes and projects may proceed on parallel lines without clash or obstruction.

Due to the handicaps of a scattered population and distant lines of communication, the undeveloped areas of the western seaboard were treated advantageously in the matter of development, but that does not mean that now the Government do not realise there are pockets of undeveloped areas in many other parts of the country which require attention. Everybody travelling through the country will observe that a town or village with an industry has a prosperous outlook. Its people are more content and that makes for the future progress of our nation.

As well as leaving the door open for further development in the West, the idea should be to develop the country generally as well. The West still have the advantage in the grants being provided over those proposed for other parts of the country. There is no intention whatever on the part of the Government to abandon the West to the fate that some members of the Opposition referred to here. There is room for development all round. The intention of this Bill is to make more general, but to a lesser degree, the grants available for the establishment and promotion of industries. That is very necessary.

Even though agriculture is our primary industry, it cannot, as has been seen, give employment to all our people in the rural areas. In the towns and villages, it is necessary to have the employment potential provided by industry. Any encouragement in that direction is not only desirable but vitally necessary now, when there is so much competition in trade in the world and so many suggestions for the linking up of nations in groups such as the Free Trade Area and other developments of that kind. At least, it is necessary for us to do what we can for our own people nationally and then, if possible, to establish industries with an export potential.

To my mind, it is not always necessary that buildings and such like should be provided in order to establish a local industry employing, perhaps, 20, 25, or more people. With regard to our bogs, for example, we sometimes have enterprising businessmen who recognise that fuel must be provided for the towns and who set out to develop portion of a bog to provide turf for winter fuel. These people should get every encouragement, too. They do not have to put up buildings except, perhaps, some shelters, but they may require some machinery to develop the little project they have in mind. Those projects are small, sometimes, but they are important locally and they come from our native resources, from the soil itself.

Some time ago, I had a visit from people from the Baltic area, from Holland and other countries in that area. They passed the remark that there was gold in the fields of Ireland if they were properly developed, and they pointed out that, due to the advantages of the more favourable and the milder weather which the Gulf Stream gives us, if transport were available, we would be a month or two ahead of them in regard to vegetation. They said there is wide scope here for the production of flowers and vegetables for sale in the cities of Northern Europe along the Baltic.

We have always looked on the people of Holland as being very progressive, and having all the technique and skill to develop horticulture and agriculture and things of that kind, but they had no hesitation in pointing out that from what they saw themselves here, activities of that kind could be developed to the advantage of families residing in certain parts of the country, if transport were available. That is one of the reasons I have been so anxious for the construction of an airport at Cork: within three or four hours, vegetables and flowers from certain parts of this country could be marketed in the cities of Holland.

These are matters which are apart from what we understand as ordinary industrial projects where buildings and machinery are required. There are many other things which come to mind, which if properly organised, might develop into worthwhile projects which would serve our interests and add considerably to our national economy. It is evident that even if there are difficulties and obstacles in some directions, we always have the skill and technique and enterprise to try to work on some smaller lines and keep our people employed at home.

Reference has been made to people coming from the Gaeltacht to take up employment in other industries which may be established outside the western seaboard. Surely it is far more desirable that they should be given employment in industries of various kinds in their own land, rather than that they should be obliged to emigrate. We have all seen the advantages of seasonal employment when people from the West came to work for farmers of the South during the beet season. They worked with advantage to themselves in their own country on this seasonal employment.

The emphasis all the time is on grants. Immediately someone mentions a grant for some project there is a debate, and criticism is made regarding the objects which the Government have in mind. There is something more fundamental than that in it. There is the question of employment; there is the question of the technique available; and there is the question of the machinery which may be necessary. No matter how we may talk, in many ways, we are an undeveloped country in that respect, due, in great measure, to our history, and a Government who try to change that should be encouraged in every way, instead of having to listen to the olagóns we sometimes hear from members of this House, who should be trying to put forward some constructive ideas to encourage our people rather than depress them, saying that there is no hope anywhere.

That was not the spirit of the generations who clung to the soil, and fought and made sacrifices for the freedom of this land. Their spirit was that we should develop our resources to the fullest, and where local enterprise cannot do that, surely it is the obvious duty of the Government in power to devise ways and means in order that that development may take place. That is what the Government are doing here, with the Industrial Development Authority and An Foras Tionscal acting, one as an advisory authority so to speak, and the other helping to bring these projects to fruition.

We have seen many of those projects. I have travelled through the west of Ireland in recent years and I saw none of the despair of which people in this House have spoken just because they want to criticise the Government. In doing so, they do not care about the effect they are creating locally by an attitude of that kind. Surely what we ought to do is to stimulate public opinion rather than depress it in this way. Everything is not healthy no doubt; much remains to be done. All of us regret that so many people have had to emigrate in order to get employment, but many who did emigrate did so because inducements were held out by their relatives who had already gone abroad.

At the same time, I am glad to say from my experience at any rate many people are returning to some parts of the country where new industries are being founded and where hope of extensive employment is arising. Bills such as this, if properly debated in the House, and improved, if there is room for improvement, and then implemented, should create, in other parts of the country, the same measure of hope and confidence as is arising in the constituency which I, with others, have the honour to represent. These are the things we should keep in mind, and I believe this Bill will go some way towards implementing the efforts of local people.

Meetings are sometimes held by local development organisations in an effort to get funds to promote a local industry. Very often these funds are limited. We have heard speeches here which would discourage — some of them would at any rate — people who have money from investing it in Irish enterprises. That has actually happened in the past and the consequence is that provisions of this kind have to be brought in in order to get the progress so essential in the competitive world in which we live. The Minister is to be congratulated on the step he has taken. I hope his efforts will be crowned with success. I hope that they will result in the establishment of many new industries.

Mr. Jones

The remarks made by the Deputy who has just spoken are not in any way conducive to the constructive criticism that he asked for on this side of the House. He seemed to think that the views expressed on this side of the House are wholly destructive.

On the face of it, this Bill is something we should welcome, certainly as far as my constituency is concerned, if the clauses in the Bill mean that an attempt will be made to encourage industries in the smaller towns throughout the country. The constituency I represent has four medium-sized towns, each of which has no industry of any kind. Kilmallock, Rathkeale, Abbeyfeale and Newcastle West have no industries. They are centres of trading so far as the farming community is concerned, but in all of them there are pockets of unemployment. If grants are made available under this Bill to encourage small industries, even industries employing as few as ten men, it may be possible to hold the people on the land. I hope the Minister will clarify that for us when he comes to reply. Will the emphasis be on exports from the point of view of financial assistance or will the establishment of the industries be regarded as work of national importance, vital to the economy of the country as a whole?

We must bend all our efforts and all our energies towards retaining on the land and in the smaller towns throughout the country the population that we now have in them. From that point of view we must establish industries catering for the needs of the people in the first instance, industries to supplement, or even to supplant, the products we now import. It is important that those industries should be based on native materials.

The fear has been expressed that this represents a departure from the principles governing grants hitherto to the undeveloped areas. If the emphasis is on goods for export, prospective industrialists will be tempted to concentrate their efforts near the larger centres of population, close to railheads and ports. From that point of view, this Bill may possibly interfere with the advantage enjoyed up to this by undeveloped areas along the western seaboard. So far as the Gaeltacht and congested areas are concerned, our policy should be to keep people in these areas. I do not agree with Deputy MacCarthy that they should be encouraged to migrate from these areas to do seasonal work elsewhere. What should be encouraged is keeping them permanently in the areas in which they are born and bred. That is the policy I advocated earlier with regard to land division, and so forth. These people should not be migrated. If we want to keep their culture and traditions alive we must keep them in their own surroundings, or as close to them as possible.

I should like to know from the Minister whether projects which have been established but which are labouring under difficulties will qualify for assistance by way of grants under this measure. I welcome the Bill as something which gives hope to the smaller towns, towns which have been gravely hit. I hope that many of them will benefit directly under the provisions of this Bill.

Mrs. Crowley

I welcome this Bill because of the effects of the Principal Act in the past. The Undeveloped Areas Act has helped areas more than most people think. In the last two years in my constituency one big factory has gone into production; it is employing about 150 at the moment and, when in full production, it will employ between 400 and 500 people. Another smaller factory is also in production. Yet another has been sanctioned. That has made all the difference to the people in these areas. They are now able to stay in their own locality, among their own friends and in their own surroundings.

If this Bill extends the benefits to cover other areas, I do not think the people in the undeveloped areas will suffer because I understand the bias will always be towards the undeveloped areas. The reason we give grants is to encourage development. We give grants for the reconstruction of houses. We give grants to farmers to build haysheds. These grants are an encouragement. If people did not get these grants they would not reconstruct their houses at all. It is the fact of getting something that encourages people to go on to do something better. Therefore, I welcome this Bill but I still hope that every inducement will be given to manufacturers to come into the undeveloped areas so that the good work started by the Principal Act of 1952 will be continued.

Mr. Sweetman

I had not the advantage of hearing the entire of the Minister's speech and, as the Official Report is not yet available, the only way in which I can deal with the part of his speech that I did not hear is to take the report as it appeared in this morning's Irish Press. My difficulty is that I am not at all clear yet what the Minister and the Government intend or hope to achieve by this Bill. Frankly, first of all, I had thought that the Bill was founded on the dogma, if I may use that term, laid down in paragraph 13, Chapter 16, of the grey book on Industrial Development but I heard the Minister last night take violent issue with Deputy Mulcahy in relation to what had been said by the Taoiseach. It seemed to me that the interjection by the Taoiseach, which I heard when Deputy Corish was speaking, was exactly as phrased by Deputy Mulcahy and I see in this morning's Irish Press a report which bears out exactly my interpretation. The report is as follows:—

Mr. B. Corish (Lab.) said they should encourage people to come from undeveloped areas to areas where there could be development.

Taoiseach: One of the effects of this Bill will be to do that.

As I understood Deputy Mulcahy last night, that was exactly what he said that the Taoiseach had described as an effect of this Bill but the Minister seemed to be very upset and extremely annoyed that such a declaration had been attributed to the Taoiseach. If that is not one of the effects and, indeed, not one of the purposes of the Bill, in the mind of the Minister, I should be glad if he would give us some clarification, when he comes to reply, of exactly what it is intended to do under the Bill.

Frankly, I feel that the main reason for this Bill is to kill the Industrial Grants Act, that because the Industrial Grants Act was passed by us when we were in Government, the Minister and the present Government want to ensure that it does not operate in future.

Mr. J. Lynch

It is a re-enactment of it in a better form.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not think it is. I think one of the reasons the Industrial Grants Act has not been availed of at all as widely as people would like is that the period from the time it was passed until the time the present Government took over was very short indeed, that they deliberately set out to throw cold water on the provisions of that Act and that there was a general feeling abroad, immediately after they acceded to office, that anybody who considered moving under the Industrial Grants Act was not likely to find favour with them. That is an entirely wrong approach. It is an approach that is not likely to make for the continued industrial development that all of us — and I include the Government in that— would like to see. Nothing can be more disturbing in relation to general private enterprise than the feeling that there is not a continuity of approach and that in relation to the general policy, as apart from specific projects, of assisting industry, there will be a change, that merely because an Act, such as the Industrial Grants Act, was passed by the previous Government, this Government would frown on it.

Whenever one is considering problems like this — and it is no criticism of the grey book or of its author to say so — one must consider, not merely the strict economic approach, but also the human problem inherent in our problem. Obviously, from a strict economic point of view, it might be entirely desirable to concentrate every industry, every project, in Dublin but it would be highly undesirable from a social and from a general political point of view — using that term in the extreme, widest sense — and particularly from a human point of view. One has to measure the benefit of the two things and to weigh them one against the other. I do not think that mere streamlining for economic purposes is necessarily always the best approach to any problem like this.

One must not consider this Bill on its own. One must put it against the general picture. It is, for example, a measure that must be considered side by side with the discontinuance by the Government of the Connemara scheme under the Land Project. That is another part of a scheme for the undeveloped areas. One must consider the whole pattern and it does seem to me that, when one considers that pattern, the interjection of the Taoiseach in reply to Deputy Corish does point to the mind of the Government.

Anybody who goes through the country at the present time cannot fail to be struck by the fact that the worst problem with which we are trying to grapple is what will happen to the village and the smaller town in rural Ireland. Anybody who goes from one part of the country to another cannot but be depressed by the outlook in relation to the small town and the larger village. No matter what may be suggested about this Bill, I do not see where there is much hope in it in that connection.

I do not mind whether the State assistance is in the form of an initial grant or interest-free loan, I would prefer to pay more State assistance to base an industry which will thereafter have a permanent chance in an area where it would improve human and social conditions than to base it in an area where it would not improve them so much. As I see the position, it is the permanent chance of the industry that should be the consideration there rather than the amount of the grant or State assistance that has to be paid out in future. There is no use, under any Bill like this, putting up State moneys merely for the purpose of starting an industry unless it will have a definite chance of survival in future, no matter where it is placed. Otherwise you will have a position, as unfortunately we have had before, of considerable State moneys being poured out in an area to start something and the industry merely eats into the State moneys. When the initial grants of State assistance finish, the industry itself fails to operate and either has to go back for more or else fade out. It would be a much better proposition to pay even more at the beginning to establish something worth while, provided that, in so doing, it would not merely be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I know of cases where industries have been started, kept going for a few years on State assistance and, at the end of that period, the industries have had to fold up. However, during the interval in which they were operating, existing industries catering for exactly the same product were put out of production even though they had some chance of surviving, in the wider sense. I shall have a word to say about that on another Bill that is ordered for today.

We must be realistic about this. The first way to be realistic about any part of our approach to our economic problem is to tell the people the truth and the whole truth — and that is the business of Government. I cannot see where the Minister or the Taoiseach have been frank with the people in relation to this Bill. Certainly the interjections I heard from the Taoiseach and from the Minister for Industry and Commerce differ absolutely. We cannot hope to get anywhere in relation to economic development when we have the head of the Government saying one thing and his Minister for Industry and Commerce saying another thing. We must make it clear that the people as a whole are taken into the confidence of the Government and that this House is fully taken into its confidence.

There is another way in which that should be done. I have said this before regarding the Industrial Credit Company and I say it again in relation to An Foras Tionscal. I agree that the method of having an allocation of grants by a body such as An Foras Tionscal or a body removed only one step, as may be, from the Department of Industry and Commerce is desirable. I feel however that once grants have been made and the position has clearly been defined by the body concerned, be it An Foras Tionscal or the I.D.A., as it was before this, there would be a very distinct advantage to the community as a whole if, after the completion of negotiations, the position were frankly stated. I feel that in relation to the Industrial Credit Company which we shall discuss later.

On a previous occasion, the present Taoiseach made the objection that I was asking him to take political responsibility for something for which he was not politically responsible. The Trade Loans (Guarantee) Acts were a cumbersome method in some respects of assisting industry but they had the advantage that there was a frank disclosure once the conclusions had been reached. We are likely to get a better appreciation and understanding of our problem and of the means we are taking to ease and solve it if we have that full and frank disclosure after negotiations have been completed. I cannot see how it can be suggested that such disclosure is asking the Government to accept political responsibility for something for which they have not been politically responsible unless you take the view that the Government on the other side — whatever Government is there — will claim the entire credit for allocations that may be made by An Foras Tionscal, the I.D.A. or the Industrial Credit Company.

If the Government want to take the line that they are responsible for pressurising one of these State bodies into making advances or grants, then they must take the blame but in their quieter moments — apart, perhaps, from the heat of an election platform — I do not think the Government want to make the case that they pressurise An Foras Tionscal or any other bodies in that connection into providing the State assistance. I think the approach they, in their quieter moments, want to make is that these bodies do it on the merits of the case put up to them. That being so, I do not see what disadvantage there is in openness and frankness. I do not see what disadvantage there is in saying: "Here is what will be done; here is what is hoped for; here is what is intended", once the negotiations have been completed.

Certainly it would remove a great deal of the irritation felt by existing industrialists in relation to the provision of State assistance towards something in which they are interested. If the full facts were known a great deal of that irritation would be removed. Therefore, I should have liked the Minister, when introducing this Bill, to give us a far more detailed resume of what has been done in relation to grants and State assistance for industry other than protection. I should have liked to be able to see all that so that the House could judge whether the given State assistance had been successful, whether it had been a failure or whether it had resulted in competition. I would describe it as unfair competition if the State-assisted industry went into competition with existing industries so that existing industries had to curb their activities.

If we had such a disclosure, we would be in a position to judge the efficacy of the measures involved. I do not follow the reasoning by the Government that it is desirable that the entire question of State assistance should be dealt with by An Foras Tionscal rather than by the I.D.A. I do not see why it is necessary to segregate those two functions in the way suggested in the Government White Paper that they must be segregated and in the way in which that segregation is effected under this Bill.

I think there was an advantage in having separate consideration, though consideration effected in consultation between areas where there is the type of problem that exists in the undeveloped areas and the type of problem that exists in the rest of rural Ireland. I am disappointed that the Government did not in the past two and a half years give greater support to the proposals that were offered under the Industrial Grants Act. I am sorry that, during those two and a half years, they applied douches of cold water to those grants, mainly by pronouncements from time to time by the former Minister for Industry and Commerce, the present Taoiseach, and by implications in the Government White Paper for Economic Expansion.

It seems to me that that type of approach, merely because it is general State assistance as apart from specific projects, is not right. All of us have an absolute right to differ on specific projects but the suggestion that because a type of general State assistance was provided by one Government it will not be continued by the succeeding Government seems to me to be basically wrong.

Mr. Carroll

It was to be expected that this Bill would be welcome since stress has been laid on export markets. I shall be rather brief. I hope the Minister will give consideration to the fact that it is not sufficient merely to give grants for projects designed to create or develop our export markets. While we think of our immediate neighbour as our greatest customer, in the United States, there has been a very ready and willing market of which we, as an agricultural country, could take advantage. The very large Irish population there are desirous of taking advantage of that situation. It is necessary that consideration be given, whether collectively or otherwise, by the people concerned, whether the Minister, his Department or some section set up in relation to industrial development, to the advisability of acquiring or erecting the necessary warehouses either on the New York or the Jersey front as a base for our products. Grave disappointment has been expressed when, the first issue of a product having arrived and been welcomed, there is no continuity of supply. It has been suggested that those concerned in this matter are one step removed from the Minister's Department; it might be better if that step were taken away completely because the situation is anything but satisfactory. I know that is slightly irrelevant but it is no use spending money and finding that after a year or two no purpose is served by that expenditure.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. J. Lynch)

This debate has lasted much longer than I anticipated——

Mr. Sweetman

Or any of us.

Mr. J. Lynch

——or any of us, for that matter. That has been due largely to a certain amount of confusion introduced at an early stage and, I should think, introduced needlessly. Those who spoke early on should have spoken with greater knowledge than they professed to have of the background and the history of this type of legislation. I suggest that in a few instances there was deliberate misrepresentation of the terms of the Bill and of the events over the past eight or nine years leading up to to-day. Personally, I have never heard such a see-saw debate in this House — Deputies criticising the Bill for completely different reasons. In a sense, the whole tenor of the debate savoured of unreality.

Deputies ought to appreciate, and I am sure they would if they thought enough about it, that the giving of grants is not a sine qua non to the establishment or development of industry in this or in any other country. If a sound project is to be established to produce a commodity of reasonable quality to be sold at a fair price and as long as that commodity is satisfying a yet unsatisfied home demand or has a reasonable prospect of export, it is very unlikely that such a project will fail for want of capital. In the first instance, it is likely — certainly it is possible — that it will attract private investment. If it fails to attract private investment to a sufficient degree, there is always the opportunity of having recourse to the banks or to insurance companies who advance moneys for purposes such as this, and in the long run there is the State agency, the Industrial Credit Company.

There are perhaps means other than the seeking of a grant for the establishment, expansion or other development of industrial projects, but let me take a practical example as to the effectiveness of a grant as against getting the capital in some other form, that is, in an industry in which the subscribed share capital and possibly the working capital would amount to, say, £120,000. If for want of £20,000 of that money, the promoters found it impossible to go ahead, surely in that case the difference between 5 per cent. on £20,000 or £20,000 free would not be the difference between the starting or the non-starting of the industry or the success or failure of the industry, having started.

Most Deputies will agree that this is so, but there are occasions when free grants are sought to assist in the establishment of industry or in the development of those already established. Let us look for a moment at the reason for giving grants for such purposes. We have the well-established principle underlying the Undeveloped Areas Act. It is not only well-established but generally accepted in this House and in the Parliaments of other countries. It is nothing new for a country to assist industrial development in what have been described as under- or less-developed areas. Even in such an economically and industrially advanced country as Germany, they have such a system. They have it also in Britain and in Italy, to my knowledge; there are perhaps others. That principle was established and accepted generally in this country when the Undeveloped Areas Act of 1952 was passed through the House.

Then there is the other form of assistance which is available under the Industrial Grants Act. The Industrial Grants Act was intended to cover the parts of the country for which the Undeveloped Areas Act did not cater. Before I leave that, I should like to refer to the comment that has been made on the term "underdeveloped areas" as applied to parts of this country or, as people suggested, as should be applied to the entire country. It is true that Ireland is described in the concept of the O.E.E.C. negotiations as an underdeveloped country, but during these negotiations, it was recognised that if the Free Trade Area proposals were to materialise, there were certain countries, of which we were one, that would need assistance and certainly a little more time in order to condition themselves to the requirements and, I might even say, the rigours, of the Free Trade Area.

It was sought to get a definition covering these countries and at one stage I believe it was suggested that the term "countries in the course of development" be applied to them, but other countries which were more economically advanced said that that term could be applied to almost any country, even Germany, Great Britain and France. For that reason, "underdeveloped" was the adjective ultimately applied and I do not think we need feel any shame that we are included in that category in the O.E.E.C. negotiations. It implies not destitution or depression but a country whose economic position requires some assistance or some marking of time, over and above that given to the more economically advanced countries.

However, to pass from that, I should like at this stage to take a look briefly at the history of that form of legislation in this country. The Undeveloped Areas Act was introduced in 1952. It was introduced shortly after the change of Government, it is true. It was suggested that it was introduced primarily as a political stunt in order to assist Fianna Fáil to retrieve a situation they had lost in the western part of the country.

I think the situation was reached shortly after the war when it became apparent that the measures taken up to then with regard to the rehabilitation of the western areas generally and the Gaeltacht areas in particular had not been meeting with the success which everybody desired. Therefore, it was realised that something more than had been done up to then ought to be done thenceforth.

The Government decided to set up the Parliamentary Secretaryship — I happened to be appointed Parliamentary Secretary — with special responsibilities to the needs of these areas. But as part of the general scheme, the Government decided to introduce the Undeveloped Areas Act whereby grants for the establishment of industries were given in this country for the first time but were given only for the establishment of industries in what were described as the scheduled areas which closely conformed to the old congested districts and were scheduled in the legislation.

The line had to be drawn somewhere. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the definition conforming with the old congested districts, there was provision in the Act that in the event of a sound industrial project materialising in an area contiguous to the undeveloped areas, the Minister might, by Order, schedule that new area as an undeveloped area.

There have been over a number of years applications from development committees in some of these contiguous areas to be scheduled for the purpose of the undeveloped areas, but it was frequently stated by the Taoiseach, when Minister for Industry and Commerce, and, I believe, by Deputy Norton, when Minister, that it would not be desirable to schedule in advance of a sound project any particular area, but that if an area or town contiguous to the scheduled undeveloped areas was successful in procuring an industrial project favourable consideration would be given to the scheduling of that area or town as an undeveloped area. I believe it was a good practice to follow and that many areas and towns benefited as a result.

Mr. Sweetman

Has the Minister got the figures?

Mr. J. Lynch

I am afraid not. The Undeveloped Areas Act continued in operation until 1957 when it was necessary to increase the limit of the moneys available for grant purposes. At this stage, it may be convenient to answer a number of questions asked by Deputy Cosgrave — Deputy Sweetman also referred to this — in regard to the amount of money expended and the number of industries established. I am afraid that I cannot give all the information that was asked for but I shall give all that is before me. The total grants approved under both the Undeveloped Areas Acts and the Industrial Grants Act amount to £2,695,840. The break up as between the two Acts is: Undeveloped Areas Acts, £2,293,490; Industrial Grants Act, £402,350. These are approved. The amounts paid are: Undeveloped Areas Acts, £1,189,047; Industrial Grants Act, £152,915 — a total of £1,341,962.

General Mulcahy

Does that include the first six months of this year?

Mr. J. Lynch

As at 30th June, 1959.

Mr. Sweetman

Up to date, in other words?

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes. The other figures I have here are in respect of grants approved but not yet paid. They will be a matter for easy calculation. Projects assisted by An Foras Tionscal, 43; projects approved by An Foras Tionscal and not yet in production, 19; projects assisted under the Industrial Grants Act which are in production, 8; projects approved under the Industrial Grants Act not yet in production, 7. Therefore, the overall total of the projects approved is 77, of which 51 are in production and 26 not yet.

Mr. Corish

There are 51 in production as between what?

Mr. J. Lynch

Both Acts. Then there is the further figure. Naturally, the grants do not comprise the total amount of money invested. Let me give the House some indication in regard to the total amount of money as a result of these grants. Estimated total capital invested in projects under Foras Tionscal, £5.5 million; under the Industrial Grants Act, £2 million — estimated total, £7.5 million.

General Mulcahy

Is that exclusive of the State money provided?

Mr. J. Lynch

Inclusive.

Mr. Corish

Would the Minister give a breakdown of the 51 projects, new factories as against extensions?

Mr. J. Lynch

I have not got that.

Mr. Sweetman

I should be much more interested in the people employed.

Mr. J. Lynch

Deputy Corish asked me how many were employed. I had the figures at the time but I did not know I had and, perhaps, I may have given him a wrong picture. I think I said that 4,500 might have been the number employed as a result of the grants under Foras Tionscal. That is a bit on the high side. The numbers employed in projects approved by Foras Tionscal, 3,955; projects approved under the Industrial Grants Act, 1,700 — total 5,655. These are all the figures I have. I think they will give Deputies a good picture under both Acts. It was suggested during the course of the debate——

Mr. Sweetman

The significant thing about those figures is that it is costing about £1,300 to put one man into employment under Foras Tionscal schemes. The divide up there is £1,300 per person.

Mr. J. Lynch

I do not know if that is far off the ordinary figure required to put a man into employment. I have not got that figure here.

Mr. Sweetman

Unless my mathematics are wrong, that is an indication of the size of the problem.

Mr. Corish

It takes nearly as much to put a man on relief work in winter.

Mr. J. Lynch

I do not think it is very far off the figure needed to employ a man in any circumstances.

General Mulcahy

That is, in permanent, continuous employment.

Mr. J. Lynch

It has been suggested during the course of the debate that the Undeveloped Areas (Amendment) Bill which is before the House is a departure from the principle underlying the Undeveloped Areas Act. It has been referred to in most extravagant terms, first, by Deputy Dillon, who described it as a cynical and shameless betrayal of the people in the west of Ireland and then by Deputy Lindsay who followed by describing it as a shameless desertion of a position taken up for a shameless reason.

I should like to remind Deputies opposite that if the Bill before the House can be so described, they are the guilty ones because it was they who first passed the Industrial Grants Act which weakened the influence and the effects of the Undeveloped Areas Act by extending the grant-giving facilities to the entire country. So if there is anything shameless, or anything cynical, in the introduction of this Bill, the shame and the cynicism must at least be shared by Deputies opposite because it was they, and not the Fianna Fáil Government, who first introduced this principle of giving grants for the establishment of industries outside the undeveloped areas.

It is no harm that Deputies should remember that, and it is one of the reasons why I said in my opening remarks that there was a certain amount of misunderstanding and a certain amount of misinterpretation introduced into the debate and in a few instances, I said, deliberately. The attempt was to run from a situation that they had created themselves. It is no harm to remind them and the country what the true position is. There is no new principle in the Bill before the House. It is a principle established by the last inter-Party Government as late as December, 1956, when they brought this measure before the House.

With regard to the effect of this Bill on the Undeveloped Areas Act, the Taoiseach in his intervention did say, and I promised I would give the quotation:—

"It is correct that the introduction of the grants for industrial enterprise in areas outside the undeveloped areas had the effect of weakening the policy of industrial development in the western counties,"

and that was the principle of an Act introduced and enacted when the inter-Party Government were in power.

Mr. Corish

Was that good or bad?

Mr. J. Lynch

I shall come now to the point which Deputy Sweetman wants me to come to. The Taoiseach also said:—

"Anybody will realise who gives it a moment's thought that that must be so and clearly therefore any enlargement of the grants or extensions of the conditions under which grants can be given in the rest of the country must also have that effect."

So much for what the Taoiseach said during the course of his speech. When Deputy Corish was speaking, it is true that he did make a suggestion to the effect that it would be better to attract people from the west and give them employment in the eastern part of the country. As a result of an interjection by Deputy Dillon who asked for an interpretation of a nod which he had seen the Taoiseach make, the Taoiseach said "Yes, it would have that effect." During the course of the debate, it was suggested that the Taoiseach had stated that the intention of the Bill was purposely to draw people from the Gaeltacht areas. That was a very wide and loose interpretation of what in fact he did say.

Mr. Dillon

Of the nod?

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

I am well acquainted with his nods. A nod can mean all things to all men.

Mr. J. Lynch

During the course of yesterday's debate, I had not got the newspaper account of the previous day's debate and at the time of Deputy Dillon's interjection, there were some other interjections and I did not hear exactly what the Taoiseach said. That was why I said last night to Deputy Mulcahy that the Taoiseach said no such thing. I admit that he said something similar but he did not say that the intention was to draw people away from the Gaeltacht areas. If the Deputy consults the Official Report, he will see the statement. That is the allegation I denied vehemently last night and I admit freely I did not get the import of the Taoiseach's remark when he made it as a result of some other remark made at the time.

Nevertheless, we all know there is a special problem in the Gaeltacht areas. When the Undeveloped Areas Act was introduced originally, it was not represented as the panacea for all the ills of the Gaeltacht areas and it was so stated by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, now Taoiseach. Deputy O'Sullivan last night suggested that that was the claim made for it but it was never made in that fashion and certainly never intended that it could cure all the ills from which the Gaeltacht suffered economically.

I might refer to the Taoiseach's speech, when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce, when he introduced the Bill in December 1951. The Taoiseach speaking on 12th December 1951, at column 892 of the Official Report said:—

I think that private enterprise in the Fíor-Ghaeltacht would only have an anglicising effect.

Mr. Corish

What kind of an effect?

Mr. J. Lynch

An anglicising effect. The quotation continues:—

If there is to be development of industry or other activities there, it must of necessity be done by State organisations, organisations which will have instructions to subordinate commercial success to the preservation of the language and the Gaelic character of the area.

I think he stated, and spelled out in very clear terms, that he did not anticipate that the Undeveloped Areas Bill was going to have the effect of keeping the people——

Mr. Corish

Could the Minister give the column reference?

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes, column 892.

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Minister give the date?

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes, I gave the date. It is 12th December 1951.

Mr. Dillon

Volume 123 — I was quoting from it yesterday at length.

Mr. J. Lynch

I want to repeat that I share the same concern as some of the Deputies who are interested in the survival of the language and who realise the importance of preserving the Gaeltacht for that purpose. Even when I spoke on the Undeveloped Areas Act, 1952, I did say it was possible that the Undeveloped Areas Bill might attract industries to the Gaeltacht areas, but I realised that it was necessary that a little more should be done in order to achieve that purpose.

I share what the Taoiseach said in 1952, that some State organisation, some State enterprise, specially set up with a particular purpose in view, is possibly the only and certainly the best type of organisation that we can look to for the purpose of establishing industries in the Gaeltacht areas. The special Department for the Gaeltacht will naturally have regard to that aspect of the Gaeltacht economic life and I would suggest that the recent establishment of Gaeltarra Éireann as an independent body is a step in this direction.

With regard to the Bill before the House and its relationship to the Industrial Grants Act, I want to repeat that the Industrial Grants Act is not being wiped out, but, having regard to the proposals laid down in the White Paper on Economic Expansion——

Mr. Dillon

Surely the Minister is making a mistake? The Industrial Grants Act is being repealed.

Mr. J. Lynch

It is being repealed, but, as I said in an interjection to Deputy Sweetman, it is being reenacted in a better form. That really is the cause of the unfortunate title of this Bill. In so far as it is an amending Bill, it amends the Undeveloped Areas Act by increasing its terms, by increasing the amount of money available for grant-giving purposes, and making provision for capital for electricity supply in remote areas. It contains the same differential in favour of the undeveloped areas — I should not say the same, but a substantial differential, in favour of the undeveloped areas as against the rest of the country. In the White Paper it was stated that the improved facilities which were being provided for the Industrial Credit Company would have the effect of placing that company in a better position to offer assistance in general to meet adequately the requirements of industrial promoters, and that it was the intention that grants under the Industrial Grants Act, 1956, would in future be made only in exceptional circumstances, and for projects of exceptional importance.

That was stated in the White Paper and was generally accepted, and I would say to Deputy Russell that it was in this context that I stated, in my original statement, that the introduction of this Bill was in accordance with the contents of the White Paper and also in so far as it divided the functions of the Industrial Development Authority by leaving with it its promotional functions, and transferring to An Foras Tionscal the grant-giving functions they had held up to that.

But, to revert to the giving of grants only in cases of exceptional national importance and in exceptional circumstances, that has been stated clearly in Section 2(1)(b) which states that where the Board

"are satisfied that financial assistance by way of grant is necessary to ensure the establishment or development of the undertaking and that the undertaking will be of a reasonably permanent nature and will be carried on efficiently,

the Board may —

(i) for the purpose of providing or facilitating the provision of sites or premises".

I should have quoted, in fact, from Section 2(1)(a), which says that whenever the Board:

"are of opinion ... that the undertaking is, having regard to its size, character or the probable extent to which its products are likely to be exported, of exceptionl national importance".

That is consistent with the terms of the White Paper.

Mr. Corish

May I ask the Minister a question? Suppose five Irishmen had £200,000 and proposed to establish a factory for the manufacture of something that was at present being imported, and say they wanted to establish the factory in some town in Kildare, what would they get?

Mr. J. Lynch

They would get the same assistance as anybody else would get.

Mr. Corish

What sort of assistance? Would they get any grant?

Mr. J. Lynch

For the establishment of a factory?

Mr. Corish

To manufacture something that was being imported.

Mr. J. Lynch

I have every reason to believe that under the terms of this Bill they could get assistance.

Mr. Corish

You believe that?

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes.

Mr. Corish

It is up to the Board to decide.

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes. Any industry that is established to produce something that we had imported, up to this, must surely be put in the category of being of exceptional national importance and could, therefore, qualify for a grant under Section 2 of this Bill.

Mr. Russell

Would they not have to prove it could not be established in the undeveloped areas?

Mr. J. Lynch

Yes. Deputy Norton gave an example, just on that point, when he was speaking the other night. He asked if a certain town within 50 miles of Dublin was able, by its own initiative or that of a development association in the town, to procure a certain amount of capital and made contact with a foreigner who also had a certain amount of capital and technical know-how, and they intended to produce a commodity not already produced in this country but which had to be imported, and the project had an export potential what would happen. I think that would be a case where it could be established that the industry might not go to the undeveloped areas. First of all, these people would have the capital and, obviously, would have made provision for a local site. They would have contact with foreign know-how and foreign capital as well. I think these would be circumstances under which a grant might be given under this Act.

However, I think it is undesirable that I should be giving off-the-cuff interpretation of legislation here because a Board is established for the purpose of implementing this legislation, and any interpretation in this fashion from me might tend to be a directive to, or, on the other hand, tie the hands of the Board. I think it is undesirable that I should do that, but, as projects emerge and they are put before the Board, they will be treated on their merits within the framework of this Bill.

Mr. Russell

Is that quite right? In other words, you are leaving the interpretation of this Bill completely to the Board even though Deputies have evinced doubts as to possible interpretations. Take the case of my own city, Limerick, within eight or 10 miles of an undeveloped area. It would be very hard to prove that an industrialist could not go those eight or 10 miles to establish a factory in the undeveloped area.

Mr. J. Lynch

It may or may not be hard to prove.

Mr. Russell

I think the more concentrated the legislation is, the better, and the less ambiguity in it, the better.

Mr. J. Lynch

The necessity for this legislation has been questioned, particularly from the opposite side of the House, but I think it will be appreciated that the scope for new industries in this country is getting more and more limited, that is, industries designed to satisfy only home needs. There certainly is plenty of scope for the establishment of industries with an export potential and I think, as the Taoiseach said, it is only reasonable to assume that industries designed to export products would require to be located at, or near, a port capable of exporting their products. Where that port might be is a matter for the promoters of the industries concerned and, in so far as they might qualify for a grant, the qualification would be a matter for the Board.

I think we must be practical and if we are to pursue this principle of the giving of grants outside the undeveloped areas, introduced by the previous Government, in the future these should be limited to, as this Bill says, a project of exceptional national importance that has an export potential. If a project has an export potential, we must be equally realistic with regard to its location, and its location must provide it with a good chance of making its products competitive in foreign markets.

The examination by An Foras Tionscal of proposals in regard to production for home consumption in the case of industries to be established in undeveloped areas will naturally be more liberal and not as close as in the case of industries to be established outside those areas. Another reason for the introduction of this measure was that the Industrial Grants Act, 1956, showed certain weaknesses. That Act provided for the giving of grants only in the case of industries that had certain potentialities, but it did not provide for the giving of grants to industries already established. If there was a company in a certain line of business who felt that by their knowledge, experience and equipment and by their potential to get into a new line of business in the premises they already occupied or with an extension of the existing premises and that new line of business had export possibilities, they would not, under the original Industrial Grants Act, be entitled to a grant. It was for this purpose that the Bill was amended, "for the purpose of providing or facilitating ... the establishment or development" etc. That will give the opportunity in future for such industries to receive assistance.

Deputy Cosgrave made a point about the multiplicity of organisations dealing with the giving of grants or loans or examination of industrial projects. I think this is, to a great extent, a co-ordinating Bill producing a desirable co-ordination. Some Deputies have objected to the taking away of the grant-giving functions of the Industrial Development Authority but the Taoiseach said — and I should like to repeat — that that is done at the instance of the I.D.A. itself. They found that, having regard to their peculiar function of promoting industry, a function which often necessitated seeking out possible industrialists — I would say industrialists for whom we had a hope of establishing an industry here — it was rather invidious for them to examine the financial aspect of it with a view to deciding whether or not the industrialists should be given a grant. The I.D.A. felt they would be able to pursue their promotional activities much more effectively if they were relieved of the grant-giving functions. It was for that reason, not only because they asked but because the Government was satisfied that the reasons behind their request were sound, that the grant-giving functions in the case of the Industrial Grants Act have been transferred to An Foras Tionscal who already administer the giving of grants under the Undeveloped Areas Act.

Deputy Cosgrave also asked that there should be a greater disclosure of information by the Industrial Credit Company. I think it would be a departure from the practice of most finance houses that a disclosure of the arrangements between private individuals in the matter of giving loan assistance should be made to anybody outside. The Deputy and other Deputies will have an opportunity of raising this matter when the Bill dealing with the Industrial Credit Company comes before the House later in the day, I hope, or certainly next week.

I now come to one piece of criticism by Deputy Lindsay. He criticised not only the terms of the Bill but the purpose of the Bill and the principle underlying it and in his usual Pharisaical manner——

Mr. Dillon

Now, remember the Taoiseach's injunction to be nice and polite.

Mr. J. Lynch

I am polite. I think "Pharisaical" is not a very strong term to use.

Mr. Dillon

I used "Pontius Pilate" myself yesterday and so I suppose it is all right.

Mr. J. Lynch

Deputy Lindsay read out the terms of the Bill. He quoted portion of Section 2:—"Whenever the Board are of opinion that there are sound reasons why an industrial undertaking cannot be established or developed in the undeveloped areas and that the undertaking is, having regard to its size, character of the probable extent to which its products are likely to be exported." He dwelt on some of these provisions and asked how any Government could introduce in a Bill something so incapable of assessment as "carried on efficiently". He asked how could any Government impose on an organisation the task of deciding that any industry that was being examined could be "of a reasonably permanent nature." He described these provisions and others as fraudulent.

Again, as in the case of the suggestion from the Opposition that this Bill is a completely new departure from the terms of the Undeveloped Areas Bill, I remind the Opposition that it was they themselves who made this departure in the first instance. I should like to remind Deputy Lindsay that in December, 1956 when the Industrial Grants Bill was before the House he was a Minister and, therefore, I presume had some responsibility for the terminology of the Industrial Grants Act. I am sorry he is not here because I should like to read for his benefit certain passages out of Section 2, subsection (1) of that Act. It says:—

"... the Authority, if satisfied that financial assistance is necessary to ensure the establishment of an industrial undertaking to manufacture the commodity to a substantial extent——"

again consistent with the terms of the new Bill,

"——and that the undertaking will be of a reasonably permanent nature——"

a phrase to which Deputy Lindsay took great exception as being fraudulent,

"and will be carried on efficiently,——"

another phrase to which he took vociferous exception. He described these provisions as fraudulent and intended to delude the unfortunate people coming before the I.D.A. for grants and he suggested in effect that the Government that introduced such terms in a Bill were not entitled to be in Government at all because they were frauds and incompetent and because they were imposing impossible burdens on an organisation.

It would be no harm if Deputy Lindsay went back on his notes or jogged his recollection to see what protest he made to the then Government when they introduced these "shameless" and "fraudulent" provisions in the 1956 Industrial Grants Act.

I do not intend to deal with every point made by all the Deputies. The debate lasted much longer than I anticipated but there are a few matters to which I think I ought to refer. Deputy M.P. Murphy and Deputy Wycherley referred to the special conditions applying to West Cork and each of them said that I was not very far removed from West Cork. That is so; there are certain paternal associations for me in West Cork but when I used to go there as a young fellow on holidays I got the impression that the people of West Cork were a resilient type of people. I got the impression that they would thrive in adversity, that opposition would bring out the best in them. I should like to believe that that is the position still.

I want to say, particularly in reply to the charges made by Deputy Michael Pat Murphy, that there is no bias in An Foras Tionscal or amongst its members, against West Cork. On the contrary, there is the utmost goodwill. As a result of inquiries I have made, I find there is not only ordinary goodwill but active goodwill towards West Cork. There was one industry of which I had special knowledge myself when, as a Parliamentary Secretary, it was being negotiated with An Foras Tionscal. The project appeared to be a good one, the prospective employment appeared to be reasonably good and substantial, the goodwill of An Foras Tionscal was there in abundance and a grant was available. It had all the ingredients for the establishment of an industry in the town of Bantry. Something went wrong. It was not that something went wrong with the Government or their attitude to it, or with An Foras Tionscal, or with the amount of the grant they were to get, or with the foreign interests. It is not fair for Deputies or people from West Cork to suggest that if anything goes wrong with industrial proposals somebody other than the local promoters is at fault. I am sure that what I say will jog the memories of some people who were interested in these early industrial proposals.

I want to repeat that, far from having a bias or a prejudice against West Cork, An Foras Tionscal is extremely desirous and anxious that some project will come before them, of a reasonably substantial nature, which will justify the giving of a grant and which will qualify for such a grant. The people of West Cork can be sure that, in such a case, there will be no delay and there will certainly be no absence of goodwill in coming forward with the necessary assistance.

The Undeveloped Areas Act is still in existence. The grants under it are more favourable than those which it is proposed to give under this Bill for the rest of the country. The grants under the Undeveloped Areas Act amount to the full cost of the buildings and half the cost of the machinery, together with other ancillary requirements. Grants will be given for these, too. Outside the undeveloped areas, grants will be given, up to a maximum of £250,000, of half the cost of the buildings and machinery. The £250,000 maximum covers both. The grants in the undeveloped areas will have no limit.

It is not right, and certainly it is not fair, for Deputies to say — and some of them have, although others had the contrary view — that the differential in favour of undeveloped areas is being wiped out. It may be that, by reason of the passage of time, the effect of the Undeveloped Areas Act is being somewhat reduced. Nevertheless, the same provisions are there under this Bill as were there before. In fact, they are better provisions, in so far as the over-all amount of the grant is increased and certain assistance is being given for the introduction of electric power.

This Bill is an attempt, within the terms of the White Paper on Economic Expansion, to improve the Industrial Grants Act. It repeals that Act in its entirety, but re-enacts it, I insist, in a better form, having regard to the needs of the day. If, as time passes, it proves not to meet the requirements which we expect it will be asked to meet, or if some new conditions emerge which we feel will have to be provided for, I certainly shall have no hesitation in asking the Government to amend this legislation to meet these new requirements or to keep up with new conditions.

Mr. Dillon

I understood the Minister to say in his concluding observations that the grant available outside the undeveloped areas was one-half the cost of buildings.

Mr. J. Lynch

Two-thirds. I am sorry, that was a mistake on my part.

Mr. Dillon

I am much obliged. I just want to have that made clear.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage?

Mr. J. Lynch

On Tuesday next.

Mr. Norton

No. This Bill might have to be amended. Amendments may have to be submitted.

General Mulcahy

I understand there has been an arrangement to have the Estimates concluded before the Committee Stage of these Bills.

Mr. J. Lynch

I did not hear of that.

General Mulcahy

I understood there was a discussion with the Whips — it is not finally settled — that before the Committee Stages of the Bills at present before us are taken, the Estimates will be completed.

Mr. Norton

I do not know anything about this arrangement.

General Mulcahy

I understand it is only under discussion.

Mr. Norton

We cannot agree to take the Committee Stage on Tuesday next.

Mr. J. Lynch

Would the House agree to fix it provisionally for Wednesday?

Mr. Norton

Provisionally, yes.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 15th July, 1959.