What I have to say now is, I think, relevant to the Deputy's interjection. Deputy Cosgrave, in referring to the NIEC comments, remarked on the very considerable sum that has been expended in recent years on industrial grants and other inducements and suggested that the time had arrived when a more critical appraisal should be made of our grants system. I think the time has arrived. Indeed, it arrived a couple of years ago and the Industrial Development Authority were instructed at the time by me to inquire into the effectiveness of the grants system. When I say "effectiveness" I mean to inquire into whether we were getting full value for the type and amount of grants we were giving.
The Authority commenced a review of some industries. Naturally they were not expected to report on individual industries. What was expected was a global report with emphasis, perhaps, on individual weakness or strength in some cases. Unfortunately, that review was interrupted as a result of the establishment of the Committee on Industrial Organisation and the necessity to implement the recommendations of one of that body's first interim reports in connection with adaptation and rationalisation generally. Since then there has been a formal review carried out and the Minister for Industry and Commerce will introduce in the very near future a new Industrial Grants Bill which will give effect to one part of the review. I cannot comment on it now in any great detail because the Bill is not before the House, but I can say that one provision in the Bill will deal with the desirability of setting up industrial estates. I do not want now to confuse this with a concentration of industrial activity in any one area. In the past we have had some difficulty in inducing existing manufacturers producing worthwhile competitive goods and giving worthwhile employment to find more desirable premises, premises which would make for more efficiency. Even with the grants, some firms were deterred from taking on the extra expenditure involved. At the same time we had inquiries about the possibility of building advance factories on certain sites, but the difficulty was that our grants system could not apply to such a form of industrial development. The new Bill will, I think, deal with that aspect of the problem. As well as that, there will be this more general review carried out.
The second suggestion of the NIEC is that we can achieve this employment-intensive growth——
...by the speedy implementation of a manpower policy so that shortages of particular skills, or shortages of labour in particular areas, can be remedied as soon as possible.
As I indicated in speeches before the election, both inside and outside the House, the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Administration Arrangements for Manpower Policy has been received. It contains a series of recommendations designed to set up the administrative framework for the implementation of an integrated manpower policy.
The Report, which will be published in a week or so, is at present under consideration by the Government and by the Departments concerned. And the Government decision on the recommendations contained in the Report will be completed as soon as possible. It is hoped then that a Bill relating to industrial training, incorporating the Committee's proposals, will be introduced at an early date. As the House is aware, for the first time a Parliamentary Secretary has been appointed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce with the express function of dealing with this manpower policy and ensuring that the implementation of that policy will be expedited.
In this connection Deputy Cosgrave made some mention of the means whereby re-training can be carried out. I have given some thought to this and have come down on the side that An Cheard Comhairle are, perhaps, the best vehicle through which this re-training can be done in association with the vocational schools. As Deputies know, we have a big number of committees, councils and other such bodies dealing with the various parts of the implementation of our economic development programme. I think we should do our best to avoid, where possible, any further proliferation of these organisations. Even though the terms of reference of An Cheard Comhairle do not cover re-training as such—they are confined to making proper provision for training new apprentices—in my opinion, it would be better, although I do not know what the Government will decide, to extend the functions of An Cheard Comhairle to cover re-training, particularly since vocational education interests are represented on it and it is through the vocational system we can achieve a great part of this re-training.
The third point made was that this progress could be made by raising public investment, to which the Report added:
...though we recognise that in the light of the present high and buoyant demand, of pressure on resources in building and construction, and of the rapid increase in public investment in recent years, the scope for doing so at this stage may be limited.
Since the Report has been published the Capital Budget figures for 1965-66 have also been published. As the House is aware, this Budget provides for a total expenditure of £103.72 million. This is an increase of £5.91 million over the amount provided in 1964-65. In the sum provided last year there is the special expenditure, something in excess of £3 million, for the acquisition of the B. and I., which, though in new ownership, is not really a new asset. Nevertheless, the money had to be provided. If we exclude that, the provision in the Capital Budget this year exceeds the provision for last year by no less than £9.4 million, or an increase of more than ten per cent. This figure is considerably greater than the projection in the Second Programme.
As I indicated in my Budget statement, the financing of this large programme will be difficult. We do not expect to be able to rely on our own sources of investment, for example, national loans, to the extent perhaps of more than £42 million or £43 million. Therefore, we will have to look to other sources to find that money. I am sure it will be forthcoming.
The fourth suggestion made by NIEC for achieving greater growth was:
...by using some part of the annual increase in productivity to reduce prices and thus to make possible an expansion in sales and open up new employment opportunities.
I have been stressing that aspect of our development effort for many years as Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Report continued:
If the full benefits of rising productivity accrue directly to the factors of production rather than indirectly by way of lower prices, there is not likely to be a sufficiently large improvement in competitiveness.
What they have suggested is one of the fundamental facts of economic life. It must be taken into account in any negotiations for wage settlements by employers and workers. The key to raising the competitiveness of our goods, and thus to create more employment opportunities in industry, lies in the establishment of the proper relationship between the development of monetary incomes and greater productivity. We must make a choice between the level of incomes and the number of jobs we must have. It is obvious we cannot have both at the very high level we would desire. This key principle adumbrated by the NIEC is fully accepted by the Government. The fact that it is proposed by the NIEC, in which there is a joint participation by representatives of employers and workers, makes it seem reasonable to look forward to the application of this principle in future wage negotiations.
Deputy Costello took advantage of this debate to expound some of the contents of the Fine Gael policy statement Towards a Just Society. A peculiar thing about Fine Gael is that, if they see some worthwhile idea and adopt it, they seem to convince themselves it was their own idea; and anybody else who has the same idea is accused of borrowing it from Fine Gael. This was particularly noticeable when I was Minister for Industry and Commerce. Time after time, coming in here with proposals for legislation dealing with industry or the Estimates for my Department, I was told by speaker after speaker from Fine Gael that it was they who conceived the idea of industrial grants. This was continued notwithstanding that they were told repeatedly that the Industrial Grants Act, 1956, was only a pale follow-on of the original conception of industrial grants enshrined in the Undeveloped Areas Act, 1952. This assertion continued to be made right through the general election. I was at least pleased to know that their present spokesman for industry and commerce in the course of this debate modified this claim in some respects— though not fully because they still seem to claim credit for the conception of industrial grants—that they were not known in this country until the Act of 1956. Incidentally, it might interest Deputy Corish to know that Deputy Donegan claimed it was a Fine Gael Minister who introduced the Industrial Grants Act. I think Deputy Corish will agree it was the late Deputy Norton who introduced it.