Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 May 1963

Vol. 203 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 42—Industry and Commerce (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.—(Deputy Cosgrave.)

Mr. Clinton

Before reporting progress, I indicated that while there was some headway in the establishment of industries in 1962, the rate of progress was not nearly sufficient. It is completely inadequate for present needs. I believe the Minister is as anxious as anyone to increase that rate but I cannot see anything exceptional to accelerate that rate in the measures proposed for the coming year. Perhaps there is something that I do not see. Last year, the employment provided by the establishment of new industries was, if anything, less than in the previous year. At the same time, we had 19,000 people leaving agriculture and a consistently high figure of unemployment throughout the year. If we are to meet that situation, industrial development must be stepped up much more than in the past. I do not know how that will be done but I have felt for a long time that local authorities should be brought into it in some way.

Not enough people are working on the establishment of industries. The matter should be of much wider concern. If industrial promotion groups were set up in every local authority area and built around the local authority, it would lead to an improvement. The local authority would be the first interest because it can supply sites, knows about services and housing and where unemployment pockets exist. It has a fair idea of the possibilities in the area. The banks should also be interested and the insurance companies. The transport company and the ESB and the trade unions should come into it. I see no reason why such a group should not be started in every local authority area.

In criticism of the trade unions, I think they concentrate too much effort on the conditions of the people who are in employment and far too little on efforts to provide new employment opportunities. The trade unions should be actively engaged in this work.

There is need for a broadening of the organisation we already have for the promotion of industry. I say that because I have had the experience of going to existing organisations with propositions and being somewhat disappointed by the reception given. By far the most important industries that can be established are those based on Irish raw materials but they are mainly food industries and the sale of food in the world is a very difficult task to-day. Yet, no opportunity should be lost. I am aware that excellent work is being done through the Sugar Company in this direction.

No industry, however small, can be ignored and no industry would be ignored if we had this small local group interested in the establishment of industry in its own area. There should be measured standards in regard to the facilities available to an industry, big or small, if it is possible to provide one in a given area. There should not be an effort to discourage industries just because they want to set themselves up in a particular area. I am afraid there is obvious prejudice in the Dublin area.

Some time ago, I went with an industrial group to investigate the possibilities of obtaining State aid. This firm were coming in from the continent to make certain equipment here. On the first inquiry, we were told that, as far as was known, no firm was making similar equipment here and that also, as far as was known, a licence would be forthcoming for the making of the equipment. Some time later we were told that there was in fact one firm that could make this equipment. I went along to this other firm. I failed to get a catalogue and failed to see any completed piece of equipment. However, that deprived the original firm of a licence to manufacture that particular range of equipment at the time. Later on, it was proved that, in fact, the other firm produced nothing, but saying they could produce that equipment was sufficient to stop the establishment of this industry then.

This group were encouraged again. They were asked to submit specifications and so on. Eventually, they succeeded in getting a promise of a licence to manufacture a restricted range. They were told a new firm had come into the field, a firm manufacturing a lot of things, who said they could produce some of the equipment. The original group decided they would build a limited factory to produce a limited range. They got a licence to import some of this material and assemble it here while waiting for their manufacturing plant. They found there was a big demand for this equipment in England. I was anxious to interest them in the English market. They said : "Fair enough; we will put up a proposition." Now, when we have a proposition for a considerable enlargement in the industry, approaches have been made from the English side who want them to come over and manufacture in England. They have told them : "Why put yourselves to all the expense of freight from Ireland? We will give you all sorts of facilities."

Here is an industry which, I feel, in spite of my best efforts will be lost to this country. It will be lost because there was far too much procrastination, far too much caution at the outset in the establishment of the industry. Incidentally, they have got nothing in the form of State aid. I hope they may at a later stage, but at present there is no promise. I am afraid that is a general approach. It must stop if we are to have the expansion in industry we so badly need.

If industry is to succeed and expand here, every possible co-operation must be given to and secured from the trade unions. Machinery must be established to avoid unnecessary stoppages that inevitably have to be settled. There is not sufficient co-operation from the trade unions in that regard, sometimes more from the union members than from the trade unions themselves. A great step forward is the prospect of more harmonious relations in the future through the Employer-Labour conference established last year. That is something that should be given every possible encouragement.

Mr. McLaughlin

I come from Sligo-Leitrim, a farming area where the majority of people live on small holdings. There are not many big centres in Leitrim, other than Carrick-on-Shannon and Manorhamilton. Sligo is not as bad as Leitrim. We have some industry in Tubbercurry, Collooney and Sligo itself. Unfortunately, we had the experience recently of a factory which had been in existence for five years being burned down and 300 people being thrown out of work overnight. Nothing has been done since to replace that factory or provide work for those people.

It is very hard to think that there is not even one industry in a county like Leitrim. The Government should realise it is impossible for the small farmers and people in such a county to carry on without the provision of some kind of employment for them. Until a few years ago, the people of rural areas depended on road work, but the pattern of work has been changed by the introduction of modern machinery. We find Department inspectors coming from Dublin directing the carrying out of road schemes that may cost as much as £90,000 for a half-mile of road— £90,000 buried in a daft scheme for a half-mile, or at most, threequarters of a mile of road. Time and again, we, the local representatives, have to tell the small farmers that there is no work for them, that the amount of employment is limited, that the heavy machinery is doing the work. That is a sad state of affairs. Maybe I am wandering a little from the question of industry.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am afraid the Deputy is.

Mr. McLaughlin

I am emphasising the grave necessity for providing employment and pointing out the huge sums of money being buried in roads that would carry present-day traffic for a further few years. Alternative employment should be provided. This is the point I am trying to make: that it is very sad for public representatives to have to meet those people and admit that those huge sums are being thus buried while there is a crying need for the establishment of factories in such towns as Manorhamilton and Grange. This money could very usefully be diverted to such use and it would give very valuable employment.

I have asked questions here about the procedure necessary to start industries in my constituency and was told there would have to be a local contribution. After great difficulty and many appeals, £40,000 was collected in Sligo for the establishment of the factory there. It was burned down. Of course the money is still invested and the shares will be paid, but it is not a great inducement for people in the future to contribute to such a venture. I would appeal to the Minister therefore to try and move more factories into places in my constituency so as to provide employment for the boys and girls who otherwise must emigrate at great loss to the country.

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): My contribution will be very short, consisting simply of two questions to the Minister. The first is : what is the Government's policy, or is there an alteration of policy, in relation to the imbalance of trade between this country and a dozen other countries? I need not give him a list of the countries or of the goods we import in respect of which there is an imbalance of trade. We take, for instance, pollard from Russia. The Minister has a list before him of the countries and the various imports. I have never been quite able to understand why in some cases we persist in trading in such imbalanced conditions. Has any policy decision been made on that aspect of our trading?

My second question is in relation to our position generally in regard to Britain and EFTA. Now that we are out of the EEC, we seem to be gradually drifting into a position of an isolated island in a world of impending free trade, whether the EEC or EFTA. It is clear that Britain's association with EFTA is seriously eroding our trading position and I should like to know if the Government have made any recent policy decision as regards this country, Britain and EFTA.

Mr. Harte

I had not intended to speak but listening to other Deputies, I feel that certain aspects of this Estimate are of concern to me. The Minister may be aware of the position that exists in the Milford area where a factory, established through State grants, locked out 40 employees last week because they joined a union. I do not know whether the Minister has any function in this respect but as a public representative, I feel it is only right he should see that better relations exist between employers and employees in such factories so that no employee will be locked out or dismissed for joining a union. Lots of things can be said for and against unions but nobody can or should subscribe to victimisation of workers for protesting in an organised fashion. If the Minister has any function whatever in this matter, he should exercise it at once.

As a representative of North-East Donegal, I am worried about the figures we have been given by the Central Statistics Office which show that 10,000 left agricultural employment in the past year and that 5,000 jobs have been created in industry. That leaves us with the conclusion that 5,000 of the 10,000 who left agricultural employment have been absorbed in the industrial field and that the other 5,000 have emigrated. In Donegal, we have very little industrial expansion and therefore the conclusion must be that we have sent more people abroad than any other county in Ireland.

Therefore, I should like to see more money being spent in industries related to agriculture. Five or six years ago, for example, an abattoir was built at Carrigans in County Donegal with a fairly substantial grant from the Government. It was never opened. As a man in the meat trade, I feel that abattoir is a monument to very bad foresight. It was built to cope with production in Donegal but, in my humble opinion, it is large enough to cope with the entire north-west of Ireland, including Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh. If the money spent on the building of this factory had been spent more directly on the agricultural community, they might be in a better position to produce more. The factory is situate in a very agricultural part of Donegal. Despite the fact that Carrigans is situate in a highly agricultural area, I venture to say that some, if not all, of the fields in that part of Donegal are not producing the proper grass or the full amount of grass which they could grow. Drainage is the problem there.

Not alone were the Government content to build an abattoir that was never opened, but some months later, they converted it into a tile factory. Three months after it was opened as a tile factory, it was closed down for major repairs. That was three years ago, and it has not been opened since. I welcome any effort on the part of the Minister to promote the erection of factories in my constituency, but lest any more public money is squandered precautions should be taken. A few years ago, a veneer factory was opened in Ards, and very high praise was given to it at that time. Some of the representatives from Donegal were more than optimistic about it, but what do we find? We find that in that factory that got a State grant of £63,000, there are five adult workers. A factory such as that does not warrant a grant of £63,000.

Some time ago I addressed a question to the Minister in regard to a boatload of veneer that left Ards pier for the Continent. In his reply the Minister stated that it was second quality veneer or wood. While the Minister was not perhaps aware of the complete picture as it happened at the time, at this stage he should realise that no one will ship second quality logs from Donegal to the Continent. Some of the cargo exported from Ards factory on that occasion was imported at the Port of Dublin in January, 1962. It was stored somewhere in the vicinity of the city of Dublin and then transported by lorry to Donegal and exported from Donegal. That was what we might describe as legal smuggling and an abuse of the import and export regulations. While it is not the direct responsibility of the Minister, this left this accommodation to the people who are promoting the factory in Crees-lough. In any case the people in the Creeslough district are most anxious to know what the future holds for this veneer factory situated at Ards.

I have been reluctant to ask pertinent questions about the factory in this House, simply because if I asked embarrassing questions, I might accelerate the closing of the factory and I would not like to be associated with the closing of any factory. Whether I am right or wrong, it is my view that this factory is destined to close in the not too distant future. I hope that anything I have said about it will not be misinterpreted by people who do not share the political views I hold, and that they will not accuse the Fine Gael Party of trying to close the factory. It is only right that it should go on record that we are keeping a watching brief on the happenings in that factory at the moment.

The Minister is doing a fine job. He holds one of the most important positions in the Government. No matter what he does, he will meet with a certain amount of criticism. I think he cannot be too careful about the allocation of grants for industries which may collapse in a week's time.

In this country we have a very protected motor industry. I wonder is it good economics to have that trade protected? I wonder do the motorists, the garage owners, and others involved in one way or another in the motor industry, ever stop to think of the amount of money we pay in taxes to protect that industry, as against the number of people it employs? I know for a fact that certain components and motor parts can be bought in the Six Counties; 37½ per cent duty can be paid on the Northern Ireland retail price, and it is still approximately half the retail price in the Republic of Ireland.

That may immediately suggest that the motor traders are fleecing the general public, but that is not so. The motor traders pay more wholesale to the distributors, than the retail price of the articles in Northern Ireland, so it must be the agents or the importers who are doing the fleecing. The Minister, I feel—although some time ago he told me he had no function in the matter—should seriously consider the situation. He will agree that it is not fair that the motoring public, the motor traders and everyone connected with the trade should have to pay and continue to pay and that a situation such as this should exist. It is open to abuse and in my opinion, is being abused by a few and the majority of the motor traders are getting a bad name.

In conclusion, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I should like to say that perhaps you would be more qualified to speak on this matter than I because you pass it on your way home each week. I want to speak about the Muckish sand. Muckish is a hill in the north-west of Donegal and during the emergency the sand played a vital part in industry. The sand was used for glassmaking and I feel that some effort should be made to reorganise an industry to use this glass producing sand. It would provide extra employment in the tailend of my constituency and certainly, Sir, it would do no harm to your constituency.

I should like to take this last opportunity of paying a tribute to the Minister. There is a by-election pending in North-East Dublin and I am fully confident that the Fine Gael Party will secure this seat. If that happens, the Minister in the not too distant future may be sitting on this side of the House, but while he is on that side of the House, it is only right that I should say that he is doing his best and making the best of a very difficult job and I wish him all good luck.

Mr. Dillon

We all wish the Minister for Industry and Commerce well but the best we can wish him is a long holiday from his present obligations and a re-introduction to the duties of Opposition, and that I wish him not only cordially but confidently.

Mr. J. Lynch

Wishing will not make it so, as the popular song says.

Mr. Dillon

That is true, but there is no harm in wishing the Minister well and that we all gladly do. I listened to Deputy McLaughlin today and it struck me, as it often does, how much wisdom comes out of Leitrim. It is true that in a county like Leitrim, there must be something wrong with our way of managing affairs when people so urgently in need of ancillary employment in order to make their holdings tolerably economic should stand by and watch investments of sums like £30,000 and £40,000 in major road works of a very limited extent conducted almost entirely by heavy earthmoving machinery which does not even provide very much employment over the relatively short period involved in the construction work. If you see two or three of these proceeding in a county like Leitrim over two or three years, is it not natural to ask if £90,000 or £100,000 were invested in the establishment of some permanent factory work in this area to provide permanent employment for a number of young people, who otherwise are fated to emigrate in search of work, would not the money be much better spent, leaving the roads a smaller allocation sufficient to maintain them without turning them into major highways, bearing in mind that the traffic in that area will very rarely justify the establishment of roads of a character that might be required in the midlands or other areas of heavy traffic?

That is a point which the Minister should consider with his colleague, the Minister for Local Government. Probably the primary responsibility lies with the Minister for Local Government but I feel that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has a grave responsibility, being generally responsible for employment in the country, to take up with a colleague like the Minister for Local Government a matter of that kind where it seems to him that the efforts to spread employment around generally, and to locate it in areas where it can be integrated with family farms, is being obstructed by the excessive use of public money on works such as those to which I have referred and which do not even involve any substantial volume of employment while they are proceeding.

There are some matters in regard to this Vote which I should like to raise, all of them I think of significance. I see a reference in the Minister's introductory statement to mineral development. Mineral development is a very good thing but I am beginning to get uncomfortable about this whole business. I have seen a number of mineral developments embarked on within the past five or six years and each of them is associated with a very similar pattern. Somebody turns up and says that he has discovered large deposits of some mineral. Usually if you go to the Geological Office, the officer in charge will tell you that the presence of that mineral has been known for at least 120 years but the methods available up to the present have never suggested that the mineral was there in commercially exploitable commodities. The new arrivals, however, have announced that they have some magnificent new methods of detecting minerals and they are prepared to embark on large scale exploitation. The next step is to get a prospecting licence. The third step is that they float a company which is usually called St. Brigid's or St. Patrick's, or St. Fergal's. It is usually associated with a saint and preferably with a saint with an obscure Irish name. The purpose of that is that when you ask who is he, they explain that he is the patron saint of this particular part of Ireland.

The fourth step is that St. Fursey's Mines, or whatever the name is, is not floated on the Irish capital market. It is not floated on the London capital market; it is usually floated in Toronto. Now, Toronto, has a reputation as a capital market. It is very well known and has been known for many years as a stock market on which a great many speculative mining ventures have been floated from time to time. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say it is internationally recognised in financial circles as a gambling counter for highly speculative mining flotations which have taken place throughout the history of Canada for very many years. In Canada, they do not call their mining flotations the "St. Kilda" or the "St. Fursey". The practice there is to call them "Rich Gold Mining Company" or "Golconda Gold Mining Company" and float these shares and then manipulate the market. You then sell your shares and then you abandon the mine.

It is all very well for Canadians to do that in their own country. It is their own business. We have no reason to query that. They may argue that it is in that rough and tumble way that great mineral deposits have on certain occasions been discovered and exploited which otherwise would have remained fallow. That is their business and they understand their own business.

I am getting uneasy about the number of St. Fursey and St. Brigid mines being established in this country which do not last very much longer than it takes to float them and dispose of the shares on an inflated market. I am quite prepared to hear the Miniister for Industry and Commerce say : "Well, what works in Canada works here." If that were his view, I should listen to it with respect. I do not see much evidence of its working.

I have had some experience in this business in an administrative way. When I was dealing with the proposed Connemara plan, I had a mineral survey made of Connemara. It emerged that there was evidence of a mineral deposit called molybdenum around Roundstone. It is a material for adding to fine steel. I sent for a responsible body of mining engineers. When I asked them to go to see it and said : "We are quite prepared to pay a fee" they said "We do not want a fee. If the minerals you think are there in minable quantities, we shall be glad to go and delighted with the opportunity." They reported back to me that the minerals were undoubtedly there but in quantities and type unsuitable for commercial exploitation. They said they would not do it as my agents or themselves. They said : "It simply will not work."

I wish I were as certain that some of these new flotations were as frank as that company. I was amazed, after we left office in 1957, to hear the present Taoiseach, then Minister for Industry and Commerce, say he proposed to have a survey made of this area where there was every chance of discovering valuable deposits of molybdenum. Being the gambler and the publicist he is, there was a hullabaloo in the Irish Press the following morning that this go-ahead Minister for Industry and Commerce was to have the molybdenum deposits which he had just discovered in Connemara exploited—I having finished a protracted correspondence with a firm of mining engineers which said it was there but not in formidable quantity and that no sane man would attempt to exploit it.

I want the Minister for Industry and Commerce to tell us at some stage of the proceedings whether he has addressed his mind to this problem. So far as these flotations were in Canada and related to Canadian prospecting, that is Canada's business but I should not like this country to get the reputation of being a bucketshop paradise.

There have been two or three flotations on the Toronto Stock Exchange involving alleged Irish mining deposits which have gone bust—one of them notably being Avoca and a lot of Irish money was poured into that. I should like to hear from the Minister that he is satisfied no abuse is proceeding here. I know how difficult it is and I know how hard to control it is. Nevertheless, we have some duty seriously to consider our obligations before we allow people to come here and actually get these licences from us to explore and, on the strength of these, to float companies and sell them to investors in Canada at fantastic prices only to have their value disappear like smoke. I should be glad to hear the Minister's views on that general question and whether he thinks any remedial steps can be taken to deal with it.

The second is a very important question which was again brought to my attention this morning in the course of the Árd Fheis of our organisation but which, of course, had been under consideration for a long time by our Government and I suggest by Ministers of the present Government. I refer to the question of control of semi-State bodies. We are getting into a really impossible situation. Very large sums of public money are being invested in semi-State bodies like CIE, the ESB, Bord na Móna, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann and a wide variety of semi-State bodies.

We are drifting into a position where these investments are not protected either by the customary annual responsibility on directors to make their annual report to a body of shareholders or by any corresponding obligation in the absence of shareholders to make an annual report subject to review by Oireachtas Éireann. We are, further, drifting into the position in which Ministers are asserting that they are not to be queried about the affairs of these companies because they have no responsibility for their day to day administration.

When we remember that we now have CIE, the ESB, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann and when we add to that Haulbowline, Nítrigin Éireann, the Grassmeal Factory in Glenamoy, Irish Shipping, Aerlínte, Aer Rianta, and I do not know how many others, and that we are slowly arriving at the situation that nobody knows what is becoming of the money that is invested in these companies, I think we ought to address our minds to the question and resolve that whatever steps are requisite should be taken forthwith to make these companies answerable to somebody and—most important of all—to make it possible for the public to know the facts.

The Minister may reply to me that these companies publish an annual report, the same as any other company does; but there is the difference that an ordinary company, publishing an annual report, knows that that report must come before the annual meeting of the shareholders. If there is anything that requires to be queried, it can be queried there. If it is made the subject of detailed or acrimonious inquiry, naturally all the financial papers will at once cock their ears and the full story will be plastered over the columns of the financial papers and possibly of the daily papers, with the result that the Board of Trade in England or the Department of Industry and Commerce here will proceed to look into the affairs of the company. Ultimately, the directors know they will have to establish in public that their administration of their charge has been satisfactory and effective. Here we are getting into the position that these reports are made and they are never subject to any review at all.

Many people profess to misunderstand our condemnation of the procedure of Ministers in making statements of policy at dinners and dog fights and even in their offices and not coming and making them here. The reason is quite simple. If the Minister for Education calls in a number of Pressmen and reads out a long wad of manuscript below in Marlborough Street, that ends the proceedings. If he comes in here on his Estimate and announces his new policy, if it is a new policy, for education, it is immediately subject to review. He is asked what is new about it; is he not simply saying that he is going to change the name of some of these institutions already in existence and is it not largely eyewash. He is immediately exposed to the kind of criticism and inquiry which ventilate the whole question and satisfy the public mind as to the real truth of the matter involved.

The same is true of a public company. The report is very little use to anybody, unless it has been subjected to effective examination in public. I fully appreciate all the difficulties about setting up a parliamentary committee to deal with that but, to tell the honest truth, I want to suggest to the Minister that if directors of companies are prepared to face bodies of shareholders, I cannot really see why they should be reluctant to face the members of Oireachtas Éireann or a committee representative of the members of Oireachtas Éireann. Certain it is that it is not reasonable—and I feel certain that if the Minister himself were in opposition, he would share my solicitude in this matter—it just is not reasonable any more to be drifting in here and to be asking for £7 million to £8 million of money to invest in an industrial undertaking, when we know that from that day forward it will be impossible to get any account of how the money is being spent.

We are familiar now from the lips of the Minister for Transport and Power with the new formula about an operating surplus. It took quite a deal of inquiry to establish that an operating surplus was a euphemism for an annual loss but if a statement were published in the Press, which had not been subjected to inquiry, that such and such a firm was showing in the last year's operation an operating surplus of £50,000, 99 per cent of the public in this country would assume that that meant that the company showed a profit of £50,000. It means nothing of the kind. It can mean that the company has lost £10,000, £100,000 or £500,000. It is just a purely irrelevant figure which is—I do not think I speak too strongly when I say—produced for the purpose of misleading the public.

I do not believe any Deputy could tell me what the annual losses are of the several State companies at present being operated. I think I am right in saying that the only State company in this country at present which is showing an operating surplus, an honest operating surplus, is the ESB. I think the ESB is carrying on its back Bord na Móna and that without the ESB, Bord na Móna would be in a hopelessly insolvent position. The only reason that the ESB is in that happy position is that it has statutory power as a monopoly and can charge the consumer what it likes. The fact is that it has to do that, not on the basis of using the most economical materials for the generation of power and light, but under an obligation to use the output of Bord na Móna and pay Bord na Móna the figure which Bord na Móna says represents its costs of production, plus a reasonable margin of profit. I think I am right in saying that if Bord na Móna, in the morning, were asked to trade competitively with alternatives to its product, the only products with which Bord na Móna could trade competitively would be briquettes and the turf mould used for horticultural purposes. The use of milled peat for the generation of power is a social decision and is made possible only by the obligation placed on the ESB to accept the milled peat at a price which will remunerate Bord na Móna.

How many Deputies realise that there is only one State body, or semi-State body, at present operating at a profit in this country? Aer Lingus is losing a large annual sum. I do not know what the position is in regard to Aerlínte, that is, the company that operates the transatlantic service. Given the full remuneration of their capital and adequate depreciation on their aircraft, I do not know whether they are making a profit or not. I want to make this clear—I am prepared to go this distance—if we make up our minds in this Dáil to establish an industry or an enterprise for the purpose of providing employment or providing an amenity, I do not insist by any means that it is obligatory on that enterprise to earn what would ordinarily be accepted as a commercial profit, but if it gets its capital from the Government and the Government have to borrow that money at six per cent. and then either buy ordinary shares or lend it on mortgage to the semi-State body, the semi-State body ought to be under an obligation to do two things: (1) to provide adequately for depreciation, and (2) to pay annually whatever charge devolves upon the Exchequer in respect of having borrowed the money which constitutes the capital of the company.

If they do that, I do not expect them to earn money. I imagine, in common prudence, they ought to be able to accumulate some modest reserve but if they are providing adequately for depreciation to replace their equipment when it becomes worn out and are paying the interest the Government have to pay on the capital lent them, I am prepared to accept that they are at least breaking even. I doubt if any of them are, except the ESB, but the astonishing thing is that none of us knows.

That is in respect of the companies which we know to be financed by Government money, such as Bord na Móna, Irish Shipping, Aer Lingus or Aerlínte. What about the companies which are, in fact, financed by money drawn directly or indirectly from the Exchequer which are not supposed to be at all. I should like to ask the Minister categorically has he, or does he claim, the authority to direct the Industrial Development Authority to advance moneys to industrial enterprises that seek capital from them? I want to remind the House that when the Industrial Development Authority was set up, it was set up to promote the development of new industries here. The present Taoiseach, who was then in Opposition, said it was wholly unnecessary and, as soon as he got back to office he hoped to abolish it because all it was charged to do could be done just as effectively by the Department of Industry and Commerce. Then he got back to office and, of course, he changed his mind, and now the Industrial Development Authority is one of the principal instruments for the development of industry here and is discharging a very valuable task, but it was originally set up as a body to underwrite new industrial enterprises and make capital available——

Mr. J. Lynch

The Deputy is confusing it with the Industrial Credit Company.

Mr. Dillon

The Industrial Development Authority was set up to promote industry, working in close association with the Industrial Credit Company, which was primarily an underwriting enterprise. Responsibility was put on the Industrial Credit Company and the Industrial Development Authority to examine every proposition on its merits and we said: "If you are not convinced of the merit of the proposal, then it is entirely within your discretion to turn it down; you are to evaluate the proposal on the basis of its commercial prospect". Recently— that is to say, in the past few years— I have reason to believe that the Industrial Credit Company had proposals submitted to them which they regarded as unsuitable but in regard to which they were directed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to accept contingent liability for the capital, a contingent liability which fell to be honoured, and we are now holding in the Industrial Credit Company a very large part of the equity capital of a shipbuilding firm in Cork over which, as far as I know, we have no managerial control at all and into the affairs of which we have no right, good, bad or indifferent, to inquire. I think the Minister ought to tell us ought we to assume that that liability was entered into by the Industrial Credit Company on the basis of purely mercantile considerations or were they directed by the Minister to undertake that liability and, if so, by what authority?

It is, I think, a most unhealthy thing to set up a body like the Industrial Credit Company, which has all the heavy responsibility of answering for the decisions it takes in administering public money, and then suddenly change the whole basis of operation on which that body was established. It is very unfair for us to step in surreptitiously and to substitute for the commercial judgment of the Industrial Credit Company the political decision of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, a decision he may take in perfect good faith, holding the social advantage of the enterprise outweighs the commercial risk which manifestly goes with it. But the moment the Minister's judgment in that regard enters into the transaction, then the responsibility for the transaction ought to be taken right off the Industrial Credit Company and placed where it belongs, on the back of the Minister for Industry and Commerce for the time being who has given the appropriate direction.

I should like to ask, assuming we have £3 million or £4 million of public money in an enterprise of this kind, how do we ever find out what the fate of that investment is? How do we discover whether in fact the annual debt charges in respect of that capital are being met? Are they being paid by the taxpayer through the Central Fund or are they coming into the Central Fund by way of payments from the borrower in that firm in which the public money has been invested as equity capital? So far as I know, this House has no means of getting that information and I want to say that I think we have now reached a stage when that situation can be no longer tolerated.

I do not deny that this matter is involving anxious consideration here and in Great Britain—they have had similar difficulties—but I am satisfied now, if no one can think up a better plan, we ought to set up a body strictly analogous to the Committee of Public Accounts, representative of this House, which is ultimately responsible for the public finance, and delegate to that body the duty of an annual review of the semi-State bodies in which public money is invested, with a corresponding obligation to present the House with an annual report similar to that furnished to the House by the Committee of Public Accounts.

Now there will be those who will say: "You could not trust such a Committee to act in a responsible and prudent and circumspect way." I presided over the Committee of Public Accounts for seven years. My colleagues have presided over it, and members of the Government Party have presided over that Committee. Remember, whoever presides over the Committee of Public Accounts is under the very special temptation of reviewing these accounts with a critical and captious eye because he has a unique political opportunity of causing embarrassment to the Government to which he is opposed since, by tradition, it is always a member of the Opposition who presides over the Committee of Public Accounts.

We have been operating a Committee of Public Accounts for 40 years and certainly within the past 30 years, I do not remember a single case in which the annual report of the Committee was used for the purpose of making captious or irresponsible criticism of public expenditure, and that, bearing in mind that there was a temptation for the Committee to acquire substantial political advantage by unjustifiable or captious criticism, which they had both the opportunity and the authority to make. Far from that being so, I think on more than one occasion Ministers have found that the inquisition conducted by the Committee of Public Accounts has been of assistance to them; you will find in the reports of the Committee many grateful acknowledgments from the Minister for Finance for the support and encouragement which his efforts to control public finance have received from the Committee of Public Accounts.

Bearing these facts in mind, I think we ought, in default of some better system, to determine that such a committee of the House should be set up, separate and distinct from the Committee of Public Accounts, and that that new committee, constituted from the membership of the House, should be given suitable assistance. Remember, the kind of assistance they would require might not necessarily mean the guidance and direction of the Comptroller and Auditor General. It might be much better to permit the committee to hire commercial auditors to assist them in their investigations because I feel, in respect of these companies, that the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General is not the best instrument for examining commercial accounts.

The Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General is primarily geared for the examination of public accounts, of Government finances, and, just as a commercial auditor is not peculiarly skilled in that branch of accounting, so the Comptroller and Auditor General is not peculiarly skilled in the examination of commercial accounts. I should, therefore, like to see the committee having their own auditors to assist them in the examination of these accounts and in the preparation of a suitable annual report for Dáil Éireann in order to restore effective control to somebody of the investment of these vast sums of public money over which there does not seem to be at present any effective control at all.

There is another matter to which I want to refer. I find it hard to grasp, as I think do many people, who is entitled to grants under the industrial adaptation scheme. It is difficult to avoid apparent anachronisms and yet they seem to me to arise. Take people who are engaged in the dyeing and cleaning business. They apply for a grant to help them to modernise and bring their business up to date, and they justify it on two grounds: one, that they are trying to build up trade across the Border, to take in a wider area and make themselves more competitive; and, two, that they are trying to build up their business to make competition from across the Border less favourable than it otherwise would be. They say: "The people across the Border are doing a postal trade for a very large area, including the north of England and perhaps Scotland, and when the customs restrictions between the North and the Republic disappear, we shall be wiped out unless we are enabled to bring in the most effective machinery we can." They say: "The employment we give is not dramatic but we are in the position to employ 20 or 30 people in a rural area. If we cannot bring ourselves up-to-date, we shall go `bust'. Why should we not be entitled to an adaptation grant as well as everybody else?"

When it comes to dealing with that kind of query, I simply do not know the answer. I did apply for somebody who wanted to set up a laundry recently in my constituency. I applied to Foras Tionscal and they told me they had it under review on a previous occasion and they determined that such an installation was not of a character to attract a grant under the Industrial Development Acts. However, the question does arise: does such a business as dry cleaning and dyeing qualify for a grant under the industrial adaptation scheme? It is true they do not actually manufacture something for physical export but I suppose they could build up an export business in services. I remember the time when Prescotts had their headquarters in Scotland and built up the great dry cleaning business with which we are all familiar from that centre. I do not know why it should not be possible to do the like from a town in Monaghan or Louth, Cavan or Donegal, if the business has made itself up-to-date.

There is a common illusion in this country that the sale of services is a second-rate enterprise. I do not agree at all. One of the most constructive and valuable enterprises that can be established in this country is to give our people the opportunity of providing services for adequate reward and export. If there is one type of service which is peculiarly accessible to export, it is such an industry as I have mentioned. I shall be glad if the Minister is in a position to say whether, in his judgment, such an enterprise would qualify for an adaptation grant, always assuming that it was now in existence and finding increasing competition a threat to its survival, whereas adaptation and modernisation would not only guarantee its survival but restore it to the potential of subsequent expansion.

The last matter to which I want to draw the Minister's attention is, appropriately enough, the first matter on which I ever corresponded with him when he became Minister for Industry and Commerce, that is, the grassmeal factory in North Mayo. I remember when he first became Minister for Industry and Commerce, I wrote him a personal letter to say that I had shortly left the Ministry of Agriculture and that I begged him before he allowed anyone to proceed with the enterprise, to insist on the relevant papers in the Department of Agriculture being submitted to him so that he could make an informed judgment. I knew what those papers said, that no one but a lunatic would proceed with the grassmeal project in North Mayo.

What is the history of this business? When we took office in 1954, this daft enterprise was based on Glenamoy and, as usual, we were facing the problem that here was an enterprise which had been blown up out of all proportion by Fianna Fáil for propaganda purposes. It was the time when the Taoiseach was going to build a biscuit factory in Ballina. There was a by-election in North Mayo and there were to be grass in Glenamoy, biscuits in Ballina; every kind of fraud and propaganda was used. The biscuit factory in Ballina blew up very quickly but we were left with this problem of growing grass for conversion into grassmeal on the bog. Having 12 million acres of the best land in the world for growing grass, we elect to grow grass on the bog. We withdrew to a bog in Bangor Erris on which to grow it. Of course, this was a remote area and it was difficult to find employment and, naturally, this proposal had great attractions from the point of view of providing employment.

Fortunately, at that stage, I, as Minister for Agriculture, wanted to establish a peatland research station. The expenditure of public money had not gone beyond the limits of reason and we were able to adapt any public expenditure that had been undertaken to the development of the area as a research station for the use of peatland and the establishment of a forestry research station on the balance of the land. Deputy Calleary was shaking hands with himself and nearly dislocated his elbow to pat himself on the back for the beautiful peatland research station which he supposed was established by Fianna Fáil in Glenamoy. He did not realise that it was the inter-Party Government who had established it under the most savage criticism from Fianna Fáil who denounced us in all moods and tenses for the folly of our undertaking. The peatland research station in Glenamoy serves a useful purpose and the forestry research that has been carried out there has made possible a great deal of afforestation in the west of Ireland which otherwise could never have been undertaken.

When Fianna Fáil returned to office in 1957, this scheme was dredged up again and we re-established Min Fhéir Teo. in 1957. This is 1963, six years later. The measure of our undertaking was to grow grass on the bogs. Anyone knows that if you throw a bag of slag on the bog, grass will grow there. As anybody living in the middle of a bog knows perfectly well, as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle knows and as everybody else who has lived on the land knows, if you throw a bag of slag on bog, grass will grow and clover also if you put on enough slag. It has taken seven years to start grass growing at Geesala. I believe that the project was undertaken at Geesala largely for the purpose of vexing the former Deputy Lindsay who was born and reared there.

Mr. J. Lynch

If it were outside Deputy Calleary's back door, it would be another reason.

Mr. Dillon

It was outside Deputy Doherty's back door before he dirtied his bib, with the result that that valued representative of North Mayo is in his place. Whatever reason persuaded them to plant this enterprise at Geesala, it has taken seven years to grow the first crop of grass there. "Unforeseeable adverse circumstances, especially the inclement weather in the early part of 1963, has caused the company's grass drying programme to fall somewhat behind schedule." If, in 1957, anyone had taken one bag of basic slag and thrown it out on the bog, the grass would have grown in 1958 but it has taken from 1957 to 1963 to produce any grass at all and then I am told that is due to "unforeseeable circumstances, especially the inclement weather in the early part of 1963 . . . but it is hoped that production of grassmeal will start this summer."

I should be glad to know from the Minister when is the drying of grass to begin and what it will cost? What will he sell the grassmeal for and to whom? It is one thing to sell milled peat to the ESB and require them to pay whatever price is requisite to meet the cost. I think that adds about £150,000, if not more to the annual cost of electricity, but it is swallowed up in the general cost of power which constitutes a charge on industry, transport and everything else but is a relatively small charge. It is quite another matter if you want to sell this grassmeal to compounders in this country and levy the surplus cost on the people who buy compound feeding stuffs for livestock. You can do that and it can be effectively concealed but it is not a good thing to do. I do not know how much capital is invested in this daft operation or what the Minister hopes the ultimate destiny of the enterprise will be but it should not constitute a permanent charge on the livestock industry. It would be infinitely preferable that whatever deficit has to be met annually should be met out of the Exchequer and the people allowed to buy their feeding stuffs at the best price they can secure and not be required to carry a manifestly uneconomic and unscientific operation of this kind as a permanent charge upon our industry.

Finally, I want to ask the Minister this: we have established a body called the Fair Trade Commission. What am I to say to a constituent who says: "I have been all my life in the wholesale grocery business and nothing else, but recently I have been advised by my customers that they can get from newly-constituted groups the merchandise I have to offer at substantially lower prices than I can sell it at and I then discover that these new groups are either groups of retailers or ad hoc groups formed for the purpose of buying wholesale and that the manufacturers operating under tariff protection here are actually prepared to sell their manufactures to these new groups on terms much more advantageous than they are prepared to quote me, an established wholesaler who has been for a quarter of a century in the trade and trading with these manufacturers.”?

I think that man has a grievance and is entitled to say that he does not challenge the right of a manufacturer to quote a wholesaler any price he likes and to relate that price to quantity, but if he quotes that price to one wholesaler, it should be available to all, so long as the manufacturer operates here protected by tariffs or quotas. Can the Minister tell me whether in such circumstances, profitable recourse can be had to the Fair Trade Commission? I suggest that is not fair trade. If you accept the unrestricted rule of free trading in every sense, manufacturers are then entitled to quote any terms they please to anybody in order to get the business. If our Government effectively protect the domestic market, I think an obligation devolves on the manufacturer within that protection to quote universally acceptable terms to those who deal with him.

I do not think you can say to a manufacturer that he must sell one dozen of a commodity at precisely the same price as he offers 100 gross of the same commodity, but I think he should quote prices for quantities ranging from one dozen to 100 gross and that these prices should be available to anybody prepared to deal with him in those quantities. I will not complain if a manufacturer says: "I want to restrict my trading to the wholesale trade and not deal direct with retailers; I shall deal with recognised wholesalers on those terms." I do not think it is fair for him to claim the right to quote one set of terms to one wholesaler while to others, engaged in competition with that wholesaler within a protected market, he quotes terms which may make the continued operation of those wholesalers virtually impossible.

When we speak of these things in Dáil Éireann, they sound almost theoretical but when you come up against this among your own neighbours and realise that a man who has built up a business over half a lifetime may stand in imminent danger of being wiped out through no lack of vigilance on his own part but through the operation of an unreasonable covenant against which he has no remedy, you realise how urgently a remedy should be made available and how hollow it sounds to him to be told that there is a Fair Trade Commission in existence but that its terms of reference do not extend to a situation such as I have described. I should be glad if the Minister were in a position to give me any positive advice in respect of these matters.

We all wish every Minister in an Irish Government well, but the best and sincerest wish I offer to the Minister for Industry and Commerce is an early release by the electorate of him from his present duties and a languorous recess in opposition and the practice of the profession of his choice.

Mr. O'Connor

I take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister and the Government on the efforts they have made to establish industry along the western seaboard, and particularly in my own county. I should like to point out that over the past four or five years, we have had eight new factories established in Kerry. In addition, a fish farm has been established and three others are on the way. The Sugar Company have arranged to establish two processing factories, one in North Kerry and the other in South Kerry. When fully operating, the eight industrial plants will have an employment potential of 1,100. It will be practically all male labour, an important point for our economy. The fish farms will employ up to 120 people. In the initial stages, the Sugar Company's processing plants will employ 600 and eventually the employment potential will be 2,000 people. This will be the most useful type of industry for us because, in addition to that employment potential of 2,000, 10,000 smallholders will be required to supply the factory.

I find a certain element of doubt in regard to whether these processing plants will be the success they are expected to be. On Thursday night, I attended a function in the Great Southern Hotel, Killarney, at which were present representatives of the European sugar processing industry. I spoke to a Swedish industrialist who informed me that, although they started two years after the Sugar Company commenced food processing, their export market last year totalled £12 million. This was mainly made up of potatoes and some fish such as haddock, bass and the other ordinary fish abounding around our shores. That bespeaks a good future for these processing plants.

We in Kerry are looking forward to great things from them. We have made application to An Foras Tionscal for the grants so badly needed to get the plants established. I would ask the Minister to do everything in his power to see that we get them. This is a good proposition for the Department because these plants will be put up by stages. The initial cost will be £120,000 for each plant, which will process the produce of 2,000 acres. It is hoped to reach that stage in two years, when it is expected a further plant of the same size will have to go up to process a further 2,000 acres, and then there will be a third plant. The Department are assured that the plants will grow along with the output. They will not be faced in the initial stages with the £250,000 cost it is expected will be necessary at a later stage. There is no question, therefore, of any serious loss. The small farmers of Kerry are looking forward to a great future from this type of industry.

The eight industrial plants I mentioned are situated in Kenmare, Killarney, Cahirciveen, Tralee and Listowel. They are giving very useful employment and are most welcome in those areas. I would ask the Minister to do everything in his power to induce more industrialists to turn their eyes to the west coast. We have an abundance of labour, particularly of skilled operatives for erecting those factories. Again, I want to convey the thanks of the people of Kerry for the grants which made possible the establishment of these industries.

There is one matter I wish to raise. I do not know whether it comes under the Department of Industry and Commerce, but I imagine it should. It is the question of the importation of machinery ad lib. Some form of control should be exercised, especially when this machinery comes from countries which do very little trade with us. In Cork a fortnight ago, I saw 24 huge mechanised combines and 18 smaller ones outside a store premises there. I have seen large numbers of the same kind around the Inchicore Road and also in Portlaoise last week. Over the past 12 months, we succeeded in harvesting our entire wheat crop with the existing machinery. It would appear that the acreage of wheat this year is much reduced. The necessity, therefore, of importing these huge, expensive machines does not seem to arise. The energies of our farmers are being devoted towards purchasing these machines for which they have not sufficient work. If possible, some rigid form of control should be exercised, and I would ask the Minister to look into it. There is much too much of that machinery. In my area, you may have two men with two such machines in two parishes and one or two others will decide to get into the business. The result is that they tie themselves up in heavy commitments and there is not sufficient business for all. If that is within the ambit of his Department, I would ask the Minister to have the position examined with a view to certain controls.

I would also urge the Minister to give all possible help to fish farms. They do very useful work and give excellent employment in the areas in which they are situated, as well as increasing our exports. People are still looking for grants to set up the type of concrete storage plant necessary for this type of undertaking and I would ask the Minister to give them every help. In Kerry, we have hopes of a very brilliant future. Industry is creeping in and we are looking forward to the time when many of our people across the water will be able to come back home. The plant in Killorglin was financed to a great extent by local people, both in England and America, and I would say there is a lot of money of that sort available for further effort locally.

I would say that the facilities along the west coast generally are not sufficiently advertised. Within the Department, it should be possible to establish a register of towns and villages throughout the country with the numbers available in them for employment in industry. Such a register would mainly comprise those leaving school rolls, because it is the lads of 17, 18 and 19 years who are emigrating. I was amazed recently to be told by a German agent that while we had a particular advantage here up to six months ago, we now seem to have lost it. He said that three German firms interested in coming here have now turned their attention to Northern Ireland. Apparently there are better export facilities from Northern Ireland and I would ask the Minister to look into it with a view to correction at an early stage. I conclude by thanking the Minister on behalf of my people for what he has done.

Mr. Norton

Last year the discussion was taken up to a pretty large extent with the position facing the country through our possible adherence to the EEC, and the debate then was based on a prevalent belief, fostered by the Government, that it was only a matter of time before we were admitted to that Community. The statements from the Government side were made with positiveness and a certitude that made it appear that it was only a matter of months. Unfortunately, the whole situation has changed in such a way that one does not know whether it is for our good or for our bad.

There are some people, with substantial justification, who take the view that the objection by the French has perhaps saved us from bearing hardships on a vast scale and from bearing them before we had made adequate preparations for them. There are others who feel, again with justification, that the hiatus now created in that respect has been such that industrialists do not feel the urge to carry out the reorganisation and reorientation of their industries in the way they felt they should, when our admission to the EEC was imminent.

While we are trying to ascertain what our position is vis-à-vis the European Free Trade Area on the one hand, and the EEC, on the other, many people say there is now a possibility, in so far as the EEC is concerned—it may never materialise—of its becoming a larger organism. Others say it suits the French Government to keep the EEC reasonably small because in a smaller community, France would establish a much more prominent and commanding hegemony. On the other hand, people take the view that the Community as at present composed is not what was envisaged by the OEEC, not what was envisaged by the Treaty of Rome, and that as an economic unit in Europe, it would have many shortcomings, that as a defence of democracy in Europe, it can be of little real value in view of the potential forces engaged in any titanic military struggle.

Here are we an outpost of Western Europe, seeing these substantial economic formations taking shape in a way that may be to our disadvantage. It is clear enough now in so far as the EEC is concerned that there is not likely to be much change in the shape of that Community or in its development, so long as the French Government wield their power in the way they do today. In Great Britain, whose moves in this matter are of vital importance to this small country, there is a growing feeling that Britain will yet abandon any idea of endeavouring to get into the European Economic Community. Some voices in the Labour Party in Britain—voices which have determined policy in the past— have recently said that in the event of a Labour Government being elected in Great Britain, it would be four or five years before the question of entering the Common Market was reconsidered and others have added : "If it is ever reconsidered at all."

It is well known, of course, that in Great Britain there are influential groups who believe that Britain's future, combining her economic future with her political and military future, lies more in the development of her Commonwealth, and the development of trade with new members of the Commonwealth, than it does in Europe, constituted as it is at present. Here are we, a very small country, an outpost of Western Europe, endeavouring to frame a policy in the light of those two economic blocs.

For the moment we need concern ourselves only with what Britain does, not out of any special desire to promote Britain's welfare, but because of the cold economic fact that our future in the economic field is bound up with our ability to trade, on mutually economically rewarding terms, with Great Britain. On examination, relevant economic statistics show that we buy from some of the countries in the Common Market four, five or six times more than they buy from us. No one has so far attempted to offer himself to this community as a person likely to produce any mesmeric change in that pattern of trade.

If we look at our trading arrangements with the EFTA countries, what one might call the Scandinavian Seven, we find there, too, that we buy from some of those countries probably ten times more than they buy from us. So, whatever our trade relationship may be in the future with those countries, and it may be that we will have access to them in the future on a basis which may enable us to sell more, there is the other side of the picture to be looked at. They, in closer association with us, would have many more facilities to export to us and, having regard to the degree of their efficiency and to their long industrial tradition, in a battle between our exports to them and their exports to us, it is hardly likely that we would win for at least a very considerable time.

A new situation is now arising amongst the European Free Trade Area countries. They met in the past week and decided that they will get rid of tariffs between their member countries by the end of 1966. That means, that in three and a half years, tariffs between Great Britain and the other countries of the European Free Trade Area will have been abolished and, as a corollary to that, the other six countries will be able to export their industrial goods to Britain without paying one penny duty.

We are probably the only country in the world which has the right to export to the British markets industrial goods free of duty. By the end of 1966, every country in the European Free Trade Area will have that right, so, to a greater or lesser extent, it means that by the end of 1966, these six countries which are now impeded in their industrial exports to Britain by the imposition of British tariffs against such imports, will enjoy the same advantage we enjoy today. In other words, there will be six more competitors against us in the British markets on terms, with the right to export on terms, what we to-day uniquely retain for ourselves.

I should imagine that will be bound to have an effect on our exports to Britain, especially having regard to the standard of efficiency in those other countries, which could have serious repercussions here, and will have serious repercussions here unless —and I do not say this is by any means impossible—we can bring the manufacturing enterprises of this country to realise the conditions likely to face us, and to adjust their production methods and their machinery of production, in such a manner as to enable them to compete not merely with existing competitors in the British markets, and with British industry in its own market, but with the new competitors as well.

I hope, therefore, that the Government will watch the development of the European Free Trade Area situation, and that the course the EFTA countries have embarked upon will be used as a means of bringing home to our own industrialists the necessity for taking active steps to counter what could be quite a serious challenge to our position in the British markets, even though it is not, from the point of view of Britain's gross imports, a very serious problem so far as her industry is concerned.

The Minister referred to the increase in the gross national product last year, and said it had increased by 2½ per cent., as compared with 1961. We are all happy to see an increase in the gross national product because, in the long run, that determines the size of the cake that will be available for distribution among us all. An increase in the gross national product is, therefore, a development which should be welcomed, and I have no doubt it is welcomed by all concerned for the wellbeing of the nation.

Having regard to the generally low value of our national product, an increase of 2½ per cent is not sufficient to enable us to attain that standard of expansion which is so necessary if we are to move up to, and be in closer association with the more highly developed industrial countries in Europe. There must be no letting up, and no spirit of self-satisfaction because we increased the gross national product by 2½ per cent. Whilst, as I say, everybody will feel pleased at the increase in our national product of 2½ per cent last year, it affords no grounds for complacency and no grounds for the dissemination of a feeling that everything is good because the gross national product is increasing by what is relatively a low figure.

Some other figures given by the Minister are revealing and show how dangerous is our balance of trade position and how necessary it is to be evervigilant in watching our imports and exports. The Minister reported that in 1962 our exports fell by £6½ million and that our imports increased by £12.3 million, which means that there was an increase of £18.8 million in the deficit in our visible trade in 1962 over 1961. The Minister said that the total excess on our visible trade with the world for 1962 was £97.7 million and unless we are to run down external assets which have been earned the hard way, we have to make up that £97.7 million by increased tourism and increased dividends on foreign investments and by payments to residents here of remittances and pensions from overseas.

The fact that our balance of payments situation can go further wrong to the extent of £18.8 million in 12 months is an indication of the need for vigilance and in particular underlines the necessity for continuing the export drive in every possible field. Indeed, allied with the necessity for expanding the export drive is the necessity for developing our tourist potential because of the fact that the tourist here, particularly the overseas tourist, is as valuable to us as a good exporting industry. In fact, the tourist industry in present circumstances is virtually as valuable to us as the entire cattle trade. It is a knowledge of the part the tourist industry plays in our balance of payments that must make us as tourist-minded as possible and see that every and any step we can take to encourage tourists to come here, and to encourage our emigrants to spend their holidays here, must be taken if we are to derive full advantage from the financial potential which tourism offers.

I was glad to hear the Minister refer to industrial expansion and that during the past year a number of new industries have been established and applications received from other groups for the purpose of establishing further industries here. To use the Minister's words he said, referring to these new potential industries:

These undertakings have been established with the participation of industrial interests in the US, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Denmark and Switzerland.

That is a fair cross-section of the world with which we are now participating in the establishment of new industries in Ireland.

I welcome this fact and this record by the Minister and I congratulate the Government in at last being led to the point at which they recognise that there is nothing rationally sinful or treacherous in endeavouring to establish an industry in this country for the provision of work and wealth for the Irish people in co-operation with foreign technical know-how and foreign capital. It is much better that our workers should work in Ireland for a firm controlled jointly by Irish and foreign capital than that they should be driven out of the country through economic pressure and compelled to work in other countries in which they have no choice about who owns the capital and where Irish participation in capital is sadly lacking.

There was a time ten years ago when if anybody suggested, as I had the temerity to do in 1955, that we could do with foreign technical know-how and foreign capital to develop industries which we were incapable of developing because we had not got the required technical know-how, it was hailed by some so-called pure-souled politicians as an effort to sell the nation. Now, what was an effort to sell the nation eight years ago is an occasion for joyous announcements by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Of course there is no question of selling the nation in importing technical know-how, making goods here which we cannot make on our own and supplying goods for our own people which we have to import.

As I said, it is better to have the young and virile of our people working in Irish factories than sending them to all parts of the world to earn a living which they have not been able to get at home. The more of them who work in Irish factories, the wealthier this nation will be, the stronger will be its economic fabric and the greater the standard of prosperity it will be possible to provide. We can gear our people up to the level at which the producers predominate and to conditions which will enable us to bear the burdens today of the weight of taxation, which must be borne in any community which wants civilised living.

If the Minister reports next year and the year after that there is still further participation by a number of Irish firms with foreign groups, that this is for the purpose of establishing industries which are not here already and that these industries provide decent wages and conditions for our people, the whole country will applaud it and the Fianna Fáil Government need not resort now, because of the kindly forgiving people who live in Ireland, to apologising for the criticisms they indulged in in the past when anybody suggested a development which they realise now is the main source of our industrial expansion. Let us have more and more factories to make goods which our people do not produce now and let us have decent wages paid in them. That is the only road to real prosperity in this country. We are a simple people; we do not deserve to mix among civilised communities if we think there is any other possible way by which we can establish a basis of prosperity that is not available to any other country in the world. A little adult reasoning on this matter would be helpful in guiding our footsteps through this jungle of industrial development.

The Minister said that the Committee on Industrial Organisation has produced a number of reports on a number of industries. I think something like 24 or 28 industries, in all, have to be surveyed. A number of such reports have been published, he said; a number are nearing the stage of publication and others are something further away from that stage. In any case, in the course of the next few months we should see many more of these industrial surveys. The ones we have seen so far are pretty grim reading. They do not disclose a consoling situation in any of the industries. If we look at the report on the textile industry or at the reports on the motor car business or the reports on the boot and shoe industry, I think we will probably say, if we read these, one after the other, without some light entertainment in between, that it is a pretty grim picture of the industrial position.

It is better to have the truth in these matters so as to know the real position. There is nothing more pleasant than illusion. It is one of the most pleasant injections one can give but it has rarely been the cure for anything. It is very much better that we should know the truth about our industrial development so that we can repair any of the fences that have broken down and equip ourselves to meet whatever situation calls for remedy.

What is being done in each of these industries to set up Adaptation Councils for the purpose of dealing with the problems laid bare by the Committee on Industrial Organisation? Has anything been done in these different industries? Has the Minister any reports of what has been done? Is there any drive or evidence of drive, either now or developing, which is calculated to enable these industries to face up to the rather grim problems which are unfolded with such clarity by the Committee on Industrial Organisation?

It is at this vital point that we shall succeed or fail. We shall never succeed with just pious hopes that people will do certain things and that if they do them satisfactorily, everything will be all right and we can live happily ever after. That kind of policy is very good for fairy tales but it has never been a reliable guide for industrial development. Knowing what is facing us by the growth of these two economic blocs in Europe, I hope the Minister will take any and every action open to himself and his Department to get these industries which have been the subject of surveys to face up to the situation as revealed by the reports of the Committee on Industrial Organisation.

I should like to hear from the Minister when he is replying what exactly he is doing in that respect. I am not accusing him of doing nothing. I am sure he is as concerned about the matter as I am. It is not sufficient to be concerned about it. Where is your action? We have to ensure that the people intimately concerned in the workshop, factory, and at the directors' table all realise the necessity of meeting a situation of that kind. I think that not only would the country, and particularly the workers, be helped if the Minister could reveal what has been done or is being done, but the fact that the Minister was taking a keen and fundamental interest in the problem would encourage many others in industries which have not yet been surveyed to face up in a like manner to dealing with their problems, in the knowledge that other industries have had to do it and that there is a way in which it can be done. In that way, success by the first group may act as a beacon to encourage others to follow in the same path.

The Minister referred to the Córas Tráchtála market surveys. Here, I should like to say that I think Córas Tráchtála are one of these new excellent organisations that have shown an excellent pioneer spirit. They were set up and their representatives sent out fortified more with faith in what they were doing than with knowledge that they could do it. As a result of their surveys in different countries, I think they have been able to put manufacturers here in touch with potential foreign markets. The work they have done in that field has been good. I was surprised recently when I discussed with a manufacturer here the possibilities of his selling his product abroad that he was unaware that he could get some information from Córas Tráchtála as to what they had done in the Near and Far East and other countries. This person did not seem to know they had done anything more than make inquiries in Britain.

The fact that it is still possible for a person not to know the scope of Córas Tráchtála worthwhile activities is evidence, I submit, of the necessity for Córas Tráchtála to advertise or get over in some kind of fashion the fact that they have made these market surveys and that they would welcome inquiries. Such advertisement or publicity should be repeated from time to time so as to attract for service by Córas Tráchtála many firms which, through the work of the Córas Tráchtála organisation, could probably be put in touch with potential markets abroad.

I have nothing but admiration for the way in which Córas Tráchtála have done their work and for the way in which they have been able to make contacts for Irish industry abroad. My main complaint is that they should not hide their light under a bushel but, instead, should make their existence and the extent of their knowledge known to those whom it can probably benefit by the making available to Irish industrialists of the information that has been gathered abroad.

The Minister referred to adaptation grants and the establishment of Adaptation Councils in industry to meet the challenge of the Common Market, on the one hand, and to foster the effort to develop, on the other. I must say that, whilst a lot of work may be done which does not get the right publicity, I do not see anybody screeching with enthusiasm about the establishment of these Adaptation Councils. You see an occasional pedestrian reference to it in the papers as if it were of no real importance whatever. So far as my reading of the papers is concerned, it certainly never gets first place in any prominent speeches delivered at banquets and other such functions in the city and elsewhere.

I think the adaptation grant and the Adaptation Council are two of the vital pivots on which the reorganisation and reorientation of industry can hinge. I can imagine if there were no provision for adaptation grants that there would be a howl for them. I can imagine, if there were no provision for the establishment of Adaptation Councils, that people would say they are a vital necessity to permit of the readjustment of industry. Now there is provision for the grants; now there is provision for the councils; but I suggest to the Minister that he should follow up the fact that these facilities are available by pressing them on people who have not yet availed of them.

The Minister has said that while in the beginning he was disappointed and that very little advantage was taken of these facilities, he was glad to say that there had been considerable improvement in the position. He said that of the applications for State grants that have been made, approximately one-third relate to capital expenditure programmes exceeding £50,000 in each case and over one-half of the total cases relate to capital expenditure programmes exceeding £25,000 in each case. That is like a question that would be put to a school boy: "If that is so, how many applications were received?" It seems to me that it would be much simpler to put down half a line of typing to the effect that x applications had been received. To give a sort of algebraic expression of this kind and more or less suggest that we can go home and work out how many applied, is not to deal with the situation fully.

The Minister ought to tell us from how many industries he has received applications for adaptation grants and in how many industries or firms he has succeeded in having adaptation councils set up. These are vital figures. If the entire community is willing to make adaptation grants available in order to assist industries to meet the new dangers and their new commitments, we are entitled to ask them what they are doing to avail of the grants and to say to them that if they do not avail of them it is quite likely that many of their workers will lose their jobs and have to work overseas because of the fact that advantage was not taken of the facilities afforded by legislation.

The Minister referred to quantitative restrictions and indicated that a number of these had gone and foreshadowed that more would go and that such as remained would be treated to a process of liberalisation in the matter of quantitative imports. I should like to ask the Minister to state the commodities in respect of which quantitative restrictions have been abolished; the commodities in respect of which quantitative restrictions still remain, and the future programme for the maintenance of quantitative restrictions on the residue of cases in respect of which the restrictions have not so far been abolished.

The Minister made reference to the mining developments in this country. Of course, everybody will be pleased if we can discover minerals either in a hard or a liquid form but I am concerned at the moment with base metals found in the ground. We know of the developments at Tynagh which apparently, at this stage at all events, hold out some promise but I understand that there is virtual suspension of activity at Allihies in respect of which high hopes were held out at one time that the minerals there would lend themselves to commercial exploitation and their development would offer employment to a large number of people.

I do not wish to refer at any length to the situation at Avoca as I understand from the Minister that he has had a survey team exploring the situation, that the team have now presented a report and that the Minister is engaged in examining the matter. I should like to know from the Minister if he would give the public some information as to when he hopes to complete his examination of the survey team's report and whether, from what he has found so far, there is in his view a likelihood that the mines at Avoca will be reopened under State auspices or on the basis of a State enterprise operation. There are many people interested in the question, particularly in the areas surrounding Avoca. While Deputies could theorise on the future development of the Avoca mines it would be much more satisfactory if some positive statement could be made with the authority of the Minister which would enable the local people to see whether or not there is a prospect that Avoca can again get on its feet and provide, as it did at one time provide, very substantial employment for the people in the area.

Mr. Donegan

The Minister has indicated that he felt that the past year had been one of achievement. I do not feel that the evidence indicates that it was. The Minister pointed to a six per cent increase in production, to a potential increase in employment of 5,000 and indicated that there were other factories which, when completed, would eventually employ a further 7,000 people. The words "potential" and "eventually" were used deliberately.

It is necessary to remind the Minister that during the same period, 18,000 persons left the land and that it is absolutely essential that there should be an increase in industrial employment because, even though our desire would be to have more and more employed on the land, having regard to the pattern of modern farming, we may be faced with a reduction in the number of persons so employed.

There is another question, to which the Minister did not make reference but which is very pertinent, the question as to whether or not the new employment to which the Minister referred was employment for girls or for men. In my constituency and in the area close to it, there has been an increase in employment for girls but there is very little opportunity of industrial employment for men, particularly for young boys, even for those who have attended the local vocational school and are well fitted for such employment. The Minister might indicate just how many of those that he hopes will eventually be employed and just what number of the potential that he has indicated exists— I use the Minister's words, which are very indefinite—will represent real employment of men who can rear a family in decency and a real increase in the national income.

The reports of the various committees of industrial organisation, into which I do not wish to go in detail, indicate that if we went into the Common Market, there would be considerable industrial unemployment. If we are to combat that evil, it is vitally essential that the improvement indicated by the Minister should be much greater than it is. Deputy Norton referred to the situation and I think the danger to people's employment has now increased rather than diminished by the fact that there may be a period in which, one way or another, we shall be aligned with EFTA before we eventually join the Six. Whatever way it goes, it is quite obvious that, if we are to maintain our industrial employment, it will be necessary to have this upsurge, an upsurge which, in my view, has not been indicated by the Minister but has been broadly glossed over in figures which would have been better employed, to my way of thinking, had they been used to give us the greater detail to which I have referred.

Reference was made during the Budget debate and also in this debate today to the fact that it seems to be easier for a foreign-based industry to come in here and the foreign industrialist to get a grant and loan than it is for the ordinary existing industry to get a grant or loan for adaptation purposes in order to preserve its workers in employment. I do not care how the Minister and the Government argue. The truth is it is much easier. There are specific reasons why it is much easier. If an industrialist comes in here he is setting up a branch industry. His first action is to promote a private company. He is on virgin soil, as it were. He has given no debenture to any commercial bank or to any financial institution. These are the first things the existing industrialist will be asked for if he goes to the Industrial Credit Company for a loan: can he give a first debenture and, if he says he cannot, and if he is committed to a commercial bank, he will not be received with the same open arms as if he were, like the foreign industrialist, coming in here on virgin soil. That is the first reason.

The second reason is that, while existing industry can apply for an adaptation grant if it is a question of a new extension, it cannot get a grant for what might be termed on a strict accountancy view repairs and renewals but which are in fact adaptations for the advancement of the business itself and the workers' interest therein. How we will get over that is a matter for the Minister for the time being. I believe there are many cases in which industries prepared to expand were prevented from doing so because of the policy of the commercial banks to provide only one thing, namely, working capital. The position of these industries is that any extension must come directly from profits. Profits in this country are not large enough to provide new extensions. It is the first and major duty of the Minister to find some way to make these loans and grants available to existing industry. I believe the way to do it is by way of loan guaranteed by the Minister. I believe that is the only way in which to do it. The situation has been further irritated because of the retrospective element now in the corporation profits tax increase. I was speaking to an industrialist last night who had made plans and ordered machinery for an extension to his factory. He now finds he has quite a sizeable figure to find in retrospective corporation profits tax and that will come out of the money he meant to use for the expansion of his industry. It is quite wrong that that should be the position.

It is a good thing that foreign industrialists can get grants and loans but it is a pity that existing Irish industries cannot. There is a pattern in relation to loans to foreign based firms which needs some alteration. The pattern is that a large loan having been granted, a few years later a further, larger loan is necessary. I do not want to indicate individual firms but there is certainly one at the moment which will find itself in that position shortly. The Minister is in an unenviable position inasmuch as, when that stage is reached, large numbers of employees are depending for their livelihood on the particular industry requiring this second injection of capital. The Minister is in the position that, grants and loans having been given, the foreign-based industry can lop off an arm and withdraw from this country altogether, without any grave material loss to itself.

That happened in a particular industry, a semi-agricultural industry. Again, I do not wish to give names, but that is the position in which the Minister finds himself. The situation might be improved if advantages were given, such as a reduction in income tax and greater incentives for the export of goods. Some of the incentives given are now being reduced progressively by the Minister for Finance. That is a retrograde step. If we want people to come in here and establish industries here, because it will pay them to produce here, we will be on a far safer wicket as compared with the situation in which the Minister finds himself—I do not attach any blame to him for it—with a gun to his head and the possibility of 1,000 people going out of employment unless he "divvies" up a second time. I do not believe there should be any necessity for a second injection of capital. After all, when one is in the sphere of millions, surely the examination of the project is so detailed that all the eventualities are covered? Subsequent difficulties of the kind to which I refer should not arise.

I have the gravest fears that there will be need in the future for further unexpected and unforeseen injections of capital where it was believed, in the first instance, that a smaller sum would do the job. It is a question of what slide-rule to employ. There are several slide-rules one could employ, but I think the first should be profitability and the easy availability of the raw materials required at prices we can afford to pay. It is a difficult situation to have a large injection of capital in an industry where the raw materials are coming from abroad. The raw materials of these heavy industries are largely controlled by, perhaps, two or three institutions in the whole world and the price at which we get our products may not be the real price at all. It may be the selling price to outside competitors and may bear no relation to the price at which these people sell to their own institutions. Therefore that is the first necessity. If we proceed, with the best will in the world, on the basis of how many jobs we can create as the first and most important thing then we shall surely fall by the wayside, on the basis that we must get an industry that has good profitability and that we can from the first to the last operation from raw material to finished product, control it.

I wonder about the Minister's statements in relation to Min Fhéir, Teoranta. Without looking at the figures again, I remember the report in regard to this project. The usage of grassmeal in this country at that time was 8,000 tons and it was used as a source of carrotene. Of course, synthetic carrotene was just as good in fact and in fact in the trade in which it was used, the animal feeding stuffs line, the truth was that as well as selling the pigmeal to the pig you had to sell it to the human and for some unaccountable reason, the green colour seemed to sell it. That was one of the main reasons, and still is, why grassmeal is used. I know that the export trade in grassmeal is a very "chancey" operation indeed and when on a commercial basis you reach cut-throat competition with someone in Deputy Tully's constituency on the best land in Ireland, with the best modern machinery, pound for pound and quality for quality, the latter will beat the socks off anybody operating in Mayo bogland, a place I love very much, and so with Lieutenant-General Costello in Gowla. Why the Minister is so enthusiastic about it I do not know but I have enough experience at this business to know he is wrong and if he takes a trip to Mayo, he will find that out for himself.

The question of the manufacture of nitrogenous fertiliser here was debated at great length and there is no point in going over the ground again except to reiterate the hope that this fertiliser will be available at world prices and that the Minister will—I know he personally will try to keep his word every way he can because he is a decent man—keep his political word that there will be no question of restriction of imports of nitrogenous fertiliser.

I want to close by paying tribute to the operations of Córas Tráchtála. I have personal experience of their efficiency and energy and of the work they have done in a general way on the market growths already referred to. It is an excellent institution and I would join with Deputy Norton in saying that there are probably many people in the country and in business who think perhaps that it is a very large institution which is not of any value to them in their line. There is no doubt that this institution is one of the great successes and is of value to a great many people and this value and this approach of theirs is something we should cherish and which, as Deputy Norton suggests, should be advertised.

I had mentioned before the Minister came in this question of jobs for men. It is much more difficult to create a job in industry for a man at a wage that will enable him to live and rear his family than it is to create a job for girls. However, the job for the man is the job we want and I would suggest to the Minister that he should indicate to us if there are any plans for industry apart from that announced by Lieutenant-General Costello for the manufacture of goods the raw materials for which come from our agricultural industry. This is the age of the packet. This is the age of the can and of the frozen food. If that is so, then surely we here must have considerable opportunities in that regard.

Perhaps the Minister might regard Lieutenant-General Costello's schemes as outside his ambit and that they could be more appropriately discussed on the Estimate for the Minister for Agriculture. I do not think that is so. When it comes to packaging and processing I would say that is the responsibility of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and there is something which if it could be developed would be certain of continued success because conclusions could be based on information that was stable and likely to remain stable. I am aware, for instance, that one of the most unstable things at the moment is agricultural prices but when it comes to the packaging of vegetables, and so on, which we are discussing that hardly arises. The question of selling products under such names in the larger centres of population seems to obviate this difficulty. If the Minister could indicate whether he has any plans in that regard apart from what we have heard from another source it would be of value.

Mr. Sherwin

I did not intend to speak this evening but I was tipped off that the debate was closing.

Mr. J. Lynch

That is more than I was told.

Mr. Sherwin

I have just one small point in mind which I mentioned before. I wonder can the Minister do anything about the selling of junk goods. When I mentioned this before, the Minister's answer was: "Pay more for the goods." That is hardly the answer because I do not consider myself any better off than the average worker. I buy what the average worker buys and the average type of article bought by the worker is the type that collapses when it has been a week in use. Take umbrellas, for example. An umbrella with a bakelite handle will crack in two within a week and the struts must be made of twine because inside a couple of weeks, they are bent up and a new umbrella is needed. I have seen people buying shoes with little fancy leather work which breaks inside a day or two. There is nothing to stop what I call this junk being sold.

Once goods are produced, whether you buy a lot or a little, they ought to have a certain life. The worker can buy only what is cheap. At one time a person could buy a cheap article which would last for months or even years, even though regularly in use. Now it is weeks or months. Tins of blacking used to have a clip which, when turned, would remove the lid. They now fail to lift the lid—they do not work. Everything is junk although it has a lovely appearance. It pays to buy expensive things but the ordinary people can afford only the cheaper goods. I wonder if the stuff I referred to is produced for home consumption only or if it is exported. If it is, we shall not export very much because I am sure anybody who is stuck once will not buy it again. People depend on price and quality when buying. I believe, before goods are put on the market for home consumption or export, a sample should be submitted to a group of experts who should be satisfied that it will give reasonable life or wear. To produce goods of the type I have described is nothing but deception. If we want to encourage exports, we must produce goods of reasonable quality. I do not suggest they should last forever but they should have a reasonable life.

In my opinion, our best markets lie where there is a large Irish population as in Britain or America. These people may have a taste for, or a leaning towards the products of their old home and this offers a better chance of expanding our exports. The Minister should, therefore, make certain that the goods come up to standard and it is also his job to see that exports get publicity. We must advertise. As in politics, if you are out of the news, you are out of votes: if you want to sell goods, you must continue advertising them.

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

The general tenor of the debate has been largely constructive and there have been few carping criticisms. Most Deputies who spoke made their points sensibly and I am grateful for that.

The first speaker was Deputy Cosgrave who began with the reference to industrial relations saying that we seemed to be conscious of any shortcomings in that respect only when a serious strike threatened or was taking place. I have referred to this subject on a number of occasions and, as the House knows, it is easy for people to talk about the desirability of reviewing industrial relations and of amending legislation on the subject but I am sure they also realise it is a different matter when it comes to implementing such legislation.

Following the serious strike in the autumn of 1961, the electricians' strike, and immediately on the advent of this Government to office, there was undertaken by the Government in the different Departments interested in industrial relations, a review of our existing legislation. Shortly after that, it was happily announced that it was intended to hold an employer-labour conference. I intended, even if this conference had never been set up, to consult with the partners in industry before any proposals for legislation were presented to the House. When the employer-labour conference was established, I announced that, while the review which was commenced by the Government would continue, it was hoped that, arising from the conference, a new code of industrial relations would emerge that could be implemented in legislation by the Oireachtas.

Unfortunately, and I suppose understandably, the measure of agreement on one aspect of the matters discussed at the employer-labour conference last year was limited. As the House knows, working parties were set up by the conference to discuss and report on different matters but the sub-committee dealing with industrial relations did not report as expeditiously as the other three. When it did ultimately come back to the plenary session of Conference, it was not found possible to get that unanimity in the matter on which proposals could be based for a new code of industrial relations.

Meantime, we had the case of the Educational Company of Ireland against Fitzpatrick and others in which the Supreme Court ruled that certain action taken by a trade union to enforce union membership was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided that since there was written into the Constitution the right of freedom to organise in groups and freedom of association, the converse also applies and, therefore, a person could not be forced to join an organisation against his will.

Soon after that decision, the Taoiseach and I had consultations with representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and a working party was set up to see how the law could be put back into the constitutional position in which we understood it to be before the Fitzpatrick case decision. On the basis of the recommendations of that working party, legislation was proposed and is now being prepared. Over and above that, we still have two main outstanding matters for attention in relation to trade unions generally. First of all, there is trade union law as opposed to industrial relations machinery, that is, trade union law dealing with the organisation of trade unions themselves, their functions and powers. As the vice-president of Congress recently stated, the unions in this country are too fragmented to enable them to achieve their proper purpose and one of the matters that must be remedied is the undue fragmentation of union representation.

I have had consultations with Congress on this matter and they have informed me that they have set up a working party and that its first report will be submitted to the forthcoming delegate congress. I hope the ICTU will deal with the matter expeditiously. I appreciate that the existing pattern of trade unions has been fabricated here over a long number of years and it is not easy to eradicate any defects from which it may now suffer. Congress is aware of the defects but have intimated to me that they will tackle the matter themselves and will try to evolve a system that will make for better administration of trade unions.

On the other side, we have the industrial relations machinery which has been reviewed by the Government through the aegis of the parties interested. I now have brought my thinking in the matter almost to finality. I am still hoping for proposals from the Employer-Labour Conference that could be adapted to whatever legislation would be necessary. I said recently that time is going fast. Trade unions and employers' organisations have achieved a certain influence in their respective spheres. Trade unions in particular have achieved a powerful position in the economy of the country. I also said on that occasion that responsibility consistent with that influence will have to be exercised as well. I do not wish to go ahead independently of the trade unions or of the Employer-Labour Conference with legislative proposals. But if conditions dictate that in the public interest, then I must, even though, as I have said, I will consult with the trade unions and the employers' organisations in advance. I hope it will not be necessary for me or for the Dáil to take independent action in this matter. It would be far easier for the Dáil to enact whatever legislation would be necessary with the agreement of both parties.

Deputy Cosgrave mentioned the system that operates in two countries in particular, in Sweden and in the Netherlands. Broadly, their system is that employers and workers get together and work out a system of wage rates that will apply over a given period, the employers and the trade unions being in a position, so to speak, to deliver these agreements, to enforce them, or take whatever consequences the Government impose for non-enforcement. The purpose of the Taoiseach's recent proposals to both unions and employers was to achieve something along these lines. First, to have this review he proposed every two years of the rate of productivity and to relate wage increases to that rate of productivity, so that the employers will pass on a reasonable share of increased earnings to the workers and the workers will enjoy the fruits of their productivity and so increase the standard of living gradually and in a set pattern.

One of the problems in that connection will be to deliver such an agreement when it is arrived at. In other words, Congress and the respective unions on the one hand, and the employers' organisations, on the other, would be in a position to ensure that any agreement arrived at would be adhered to by both sides. Apparently, they have achieved that position in Sweden and the Netherlands. It would be necessary to achieve something approximating to that position here if we are to have these phased wage increases consistent with increases in our gross national product.

I should not like to dwell at any length on these questions. As I said, it is easy to talk about the necessity to change the law dealing with industrial relations and trade unions. But one must have the goodwill of both sides in industry. Unless one has that, it would be difficult for any Government to operate whatever legislation will have been passed by the Oireachtas. As I have said, it is not much use waving an Act of Parliament in front of a man on strike and saying: "It is against Section 25 of this Act for you to be on strike and not to be working". Even if you got him back to work on that basis, you could hardly expect much productivity out of him. One has to be realistic about the difficulties which have to be faced when one speaks about the amendment of trade union and industrial relations legislation.

The next very general theme was in connection with industrial grants. Deputy Cosgrave raised it in a very mild way. He repeated the point Deputy Donegan mentioned just before I rose to speak, that there is a belief that foreigners can get grants for the establishment of industry more easily than native people. I want to repeat —I have said it over and over again— that nothing could be further from the truth. The legislation this House passed enabling Foras Tionscal to give grants to industrialists, whether to establish new industries or to expand existing industries, is available to all, irrespective of whether they are native Irish, foreign, or native Irish in association with foreign interests.

I have said—and I think I proved conclusively on the last occasion I spoke on this subject—that, if anything, the preference, if there is a preference, is in favour of the Irish person. On the last occasion I spoke here in connection with the amendment of the Industrial Grants Act and the Undeveloped Areas Act, I had figures which proved conclusively that that charge was unfounded. I gave the figures of the number of Irish people who got grants in their own right and of the number of foreigners who got grants with Irish participation and the amounts in both cases were in favour of the Irish people. It is very unfair of Deputies to come into the House and repeat this untruth over and over again. It is possible they have heard a complaint from an odd Irish group whose proposal for an industry, in respect of which they claimed a grant, did not proceed.

As Deputies know, Foras Tionscal have an onerous task to perform in this respect. Their primary function in operating these Acts is to satisfy themselves that the industry has a reasonable prospect of success and of giving permanent employment. It would be very easy for Foras Tionscal —and perhaps laudatory to an extent of the Government in power—if grants were given more liberally. I have stated previously, and I repeat now, that it would be far more disastrous for a particular town or area to have established in it an industry that failed all too quickly. The news would go out that an industry in that particular area was unlikely to succeed, and prospects of getting an alternative industry would be very limited. On that score alone— apart from the fact that this is tax-payers' money designed to promote employment of a reasonably permanent nature—it is only right that Foras Tionscal should examine every proposition with extreme care and not make grants available unless they are satisfied on that first point.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 7.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 28th May, 1963.