This is a Bill which makes available, so to speak, a maximum of £30 million for the purpose of industrial grants. It appears to me to be a formidable amount. While I have no objection at all to giving the Minister the Bill and approving of the idea of making industrial grants, what we should be concerned about is the manner in which these grants are applied and the use which is made of them for the greater benefit of the economy. It is very important to ensure that Irishmen and Irishwomen will obtain employment in their own country.
This is a short Bill in its format, which merely extends the limit of the amount of the grants to £30 million. There is no alteration in the administration of the grants. Two years ago we did have some changes made, that is, in the Act of 1962. In that particular Act, there was a further extension of the grants to areas outside of what were scheduled as the undeveloped areas. There was an extension of the £250,000 to one-third of the cost of the fixed assets to be given in the undeveloped areas. The same grants could be applied in other areas under the same conditions with two very important provisos: (1) that there were sound economic reasons why the industry could not be established within the undeveloped areas and (2) that there were other exceptional circumstances.
I suppose many areas could plead exceptional circumstances in an application for the type of grant I have described. I assume that exceptional circumstances would be circumstances of unemployment or of emigration. There always has been a case for the development, as such, of industry in the undeveloped areas and in the rural areas generally but a case can also be made for certain of the areas outside the undeveloped areas. While we welcomed an extension of the grant to parts of the country other than undeveloped areas two years ago, I do not believe it serves the purpose which the Minister intended and which the House hoped it might serve. The Minister will appreciate it is very difficult for an area that has the possibility of an industry being established therein to say to a foreign industrialist, for example: "You will get this grant." In the undeveloped area, they can say positively that this grant is available, but the application of grant outside the undeveloped areas is conditional and must be submitted to An Foras Tionscal before there is a final decision. From my experience, industrialists who come to this country want quick decisions and many of them are not prepared to do business with any town, village or city outside the undeveloped areas when they are told that they may get the grant or they may not get the grant. In the undeveloped areas, the people who are interested in the establishment of an industry say: "Yes, you will get A, B, C or D." That is a good thing.
One of the criticisms I have of this system of industrial grants is what I consider a wrong description. I do not think "undeveloped areas" is the proper title for those which are, say, west of the Shannon, or even for any part of the country. I think the Minister should decide to change the title of that particular Act and change that term to "development areas". It must be recognised that there are areas which need to be developed. They could not strictly be called developed areas but they are areas that are capable of development. I suppose one can say that all the area west of the Shannon needs to be developed to a greater extent than in recent years. But in the other areas in the east and south and midlands, whilst they have benefited overall, it is also true to say that there are many towns which have not had the advantage of this industrial development.
I do not want to weary the House with examples, but the example I give is the one I know best, that is, the County Wexford area, in the matter of industrial development. It is recognised in statistics published from time to time as a county which suffered greatly from emigration during and after the War. It has a special problem in the matter of the flight from the land. County Wexford has by far the greatest proportion of agricultural workers and, again, it has been recognised that employment in the agricultural industry for agricultural workers has decreased very rapidly over the years. In that particular matter, they have a very special problem.
There is another aspect I should like to mention. Whilst unemployment figures for a place like County Wexford are not shown by the employment exchange, they are shown under emigration because when a man on any part of the east coast, or in Dublin or the midlands, becomes unemployed, it is a relatively simple matter for him to emigrate. Therefore, one should not take the unemployment figures as such because when a man or woman becomes unemployed in certain areas of the country, the facilities are fortunately, or unfortunately, easy for them in the matter of emigration.
I am trying to impress upon the Minister and the House my original suggestion that we should approach the industrialisation of this country from the point of view of the ability to develop industry in certain areas. The main towns of County Wexford— Enniscorthy, Gorey, Wexford and New Ross—have not participated in this industrial drive. I do not think the people there are any different from those in any of the other counties in the Provinces. I think it is true to say that in four of these towns the local people have made efforts towards industrialisation but these efforts have not been successful in that, apart from New Ross, the three towns, Wexford, Enniscorthy and Gorey, have not had new industries established over the past five or ten years. In one particular area in Enniscorthy, several attempts were made and it seemed that some industries would be lined up, but whatever happened—and I certainly do not know—the industries were not established.
I think a place like Wexford town, because it is capable of development, ought to be given special attention. It is certainly not an undeveloped area in that it has many thriving industries, but it has lost its population. It is capable of development in that it has all the facilities and amenities and, above all, it has the skilled labour. A town such as that should be compensated in some way for the loss of its harbour, whether that was the fault of this Government, the last Government or Governments during the past 15 or 20 years. The fact is the harbour is gone and, to maintain the population there, the Minister, if he decides to develop areas like this all over the country, should give special attention to them by reason of what they have to offer.
I should like to speak on the broader aspects of this Bill. The Minister has referred to adaptation grants. These adaptation grants were introduced some time ago as an encouragement to industry in this country to prepare itself for membership of the EEC, or for some sort of free trade throughout Europe or throughout the whole world. The Minister, in his Bill of 1962, offered 25 per cent of the cost for schemes of enlargement or for the adaptation of industrial undertakings, for plant, equipment and buildings. In his speech today, he does not seem to be too worried about the fact, which he mentions, that for these adaptation grants, he had applications from only 362 firms.
I referred to this last week in the discussion on the 15 per cent surcharge and I said I thought it was a great reflection on Irish industry to say that only 362 firms, out of a total of 4,000, had shown any keen desire to make the necessary changes in order to gear up their industries for free trade, which the Taoiseach tells us is coming in 1970, or perhaps before that. I do not think the Minister gave the House enough information. I believe, therefore, in his reply, without mentioning any specific names, it is his duty to tell the House and the country what type of industries are included in these 362 firms that have applied for adaptation grants and, above all, how many workers are involved. Perhaps these 362 firms are the biggest of the 4,000 odd industries we have in the country; perhaps they are the smallest. But what we are concerned with is what Irish industrialists who are offered these grants are doing to keep their industries alive and above all to keep their workers employed.
The Minister has confirmed the figure I guessed at last week when he said approximately 4,000 firms could have availed themselves of these adaptation grants, which were to be available up to the end of this year. Now, the position we find ourselves in is that only 362 firms out of the 4,000 have decided to avail themselves of what we consider to be this very generous offer. The Minister must indeed be very disappointed, certainly not encouraged, by this inaction of Irish industrialists. He has decided, 15 per cent British surcharge or not, that these grants will be extended to 31st March, 1966.
We all, I think, share Deputy Cosgrave's sentiments when he inferred that this surcharge may be—in my opinion, it definitely should be—a warning to Irish industry that if it does not pull up its socks, if it does not decide to get up to date, to re-equip, to change its methods, it, and indeed the Irish economy as a whole, will be left very far behind.
This is a formidable bill, one of £30 million to be paid over many years, and I do not think that the review one would expect of Irish industry, when the Minister comes to the House for an extra £10 million, should be only the contents of two pages of foolscap. I asked the Minister certain questions last week with regard to the report of An Foras Tionscal in an endeavour to get information from him as to how many adaptation councils had been established. He could not give it to me. He said it was not the function of An Foras Tionscal to give this information.
I submit there is an obligation on the Minister to tell the Irish taxpayer, and in particular the members of this House, on an occasion such as this, everything there is to be known about industry, including the number of men at work and their prospects in future years. The Minister has not said a word about what progress there has been in rationalisation. Last week, when questioned about the motor assembly industry, he confessed to the House that out of 15 firms, only one had applied for an adaptation grant.
We are concerned about the workers. One of the reports of the Committee on Industrial Organisation stated that in the event of free trade, practically all these workers would be rendered unemployed. No matter what progress Irish industry may be making, thousands of those workers, if that situation occurs, will be rendered unemployed and there will not be any alternative employment for them.
There is a Buy Irish campaign to which we all subscribe. I do not think Irish industry should again fall into the trap, so to speak, of assuming that a Buy Irish campaign and consequent greater sales on the home market will be an answer to their problems or to those of the nation. They must still make efforts to ensure that the foreign markets are preserved, because, again as Deputy Cosgrave emphasised, the home market alone will not solve the economic and industrial problems we have at the present time.
I should prefer to see industry in this country in the main established by Irish people with Irish money. The people of any city, town or village where there are prospects of industries being established by Germans, Turks, Britons, Greeks or Americans, would welcome the idea, but more emphasis should be placed on the establishment of industries by Irish people with Irish money. The information we have been given in the recent report of An Foras Tionscal shows that the emphasis is not on the establishment of industry by Irish people with Irish capital but that there is a preponderance of foreigners. The Minister should make some comment on that.
All we in the House have got is the information contained in this report. I feel sure the Minister has much more information and figures than those given in the report. Since the Industrial Grants Act was introduced and brought into operation, the report discloses that the total grants paid up to 31st March of this year amounted to £8½ million. Of that, German industrialists got 25 per cent for 30 industries, British industrialists got 17½ per cent for 25 industries, United States industrialists got 8 per cent for 13 industries, Potez and Verolme got 17½ per cent of the £8½ million and Irish industrialists, in respect of 75 industries, got 25 per cent.
I do not feel happy about that type of balance. There were 75 Irish firms involved and they must be relatively small if they could command only 25 per cent of the grants while 30 German firms got a similar proportion. I believe the State, through the Government, must make greater efforts to see that more industries are started here with Irish capital.
It seems obvious that with the generous grants and the equally generous loan facilities available, far too few Irish industrialists, or those living in Ireland who have money, are prepared to invest here in industry. Perhaps it is not possible for them to establish the type of industry that would last and give valuable employment, but I believe it is the function of the Government to establish industries. They have done it successfully during recent years and I mention the Irish Sugar Company as an example, particularly the recent extension into food processing.
I suggest we could engage much more in this branch of industry. The British 15 per cent surcharge does not include foodstuffs. Therefore, in present circumstances, if we wish to build up a market in Britain not subject to the surcharge, there is no better way to do it than in extending our efforts in the canning of food and its export. I would therefore urge on the Government to use our natural resources, our agricultural produce to ensure an expansion of our exports and in an endeavour to get a permanent market in Britain for processed foods.
I do not think the Minister was fair to the House in that he did not give full information, which must be available to him, in the matter of employment. Over the last number of years, the Minister for industry and Commerce in particular has had the task or the honour, whichever you like to call it, of opening new factories. We are frequently told that this is an industry in which so many thousand pounds have been invested, that it will employ 30 people at the beginning and after ten years will have reached the maximum employment figure of 500 men. We have never had a review of such forecasts. How have such forecasts worked out? The Minister has a responsibility to the House to justify the expenditure of this £30 million by placing it against the number employed in the industries. He should be able to say whether these forecasts of projected employment have been realised or not, whether there is a likelihood that after a few years in operation, the maximum employment figure will be realised.
The report for the year ended 31st March, 1963, estimated that the total investment, that is, the investment by the Government, by foreigners and by our own people, was £43.7 million. It was also estimated that when these industries were in full employment, they would employ 26,310. The report for the year ended 31st March, 1964, states that a total of £48.1 million will have been invested by the Government, by foreigners and by Irish nationals and that employment will be provided for 28,040. The difference in investment, therefore, is £4.4 millions for an increase in employment of 1,730. That seems to be a formidable expenditure for the employment of a mere 1,730 people. That is one of the reasons why I say the Minister in looking for this extra money should leave no doubt in the minds of the people that it is being well spent and applied in the right direction.
The Second Programme for Economic Expansion forecasts that we will get something like 7,800 new jobs by the year 1970. That figure will not be nearly enough to meet the needs for employment here at that time. Deputy Cosgrave and others have referred to the fact that against that figure must be placed the rural depopulation which is taking place. Whether we like it or not—and we do not like it—the flight from the land continues. It varies from year to year but, in any event, it seems clear there still will be people who will become unemployed on the land and who can only look to the establishment of Irish industry for their employment.
There is also another factor that has not been mentioned, that is, the numbers who are at present employed in the building industry and who may not be employed in it in 1970. I would hope that everybody employed in that industry now would be employed in it in 1970. But we are hoping—maybe it is a false hope—that the housing programme will be completed long before 1970. At least, we are hoping that the bulk of the houses now required will be completed by 1970. Therefore, we will have a problem on our hands. Builders' labourers and even skilled craftsmen will not be able to find employment in Dublin or elsewhere. The figure mentioned in the Second Programme for the number of new jobs by 1970 is not realistic and certainly will not provide the need that undoubtedly will be there in 1970.
I have no objection to giving the Minister this Bill but I think he does himself a disservice—certainly he does the country a disservice—if he does not give a more detailed review of Irish industry and tell us what steps the Government intend to take if Irish industry, now offered assistance to adapt itself to free trade, does not avail of that assistance. He should also tell us what it is proposed to do for the workers, in the matter of retraining and severance pay, who find themselves rendered unemployed by the negligence of some of our Irish industrialists.
