Vol. 244 No. 7
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £3,121,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1970 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of sundry grants-in-aid.
On a point of order. Would the Ceann Comhairle say whether, in fact, we are discussing the Estimate proper or only the Supplementary Estimate for £3,121,000.
Only the Supplementary Estimate.
And every section of the Department is involved, which is surprising.
Vote 40 deals with An Foras Tionscal, mainly.
I thought An Foras Tionscal was gone.
This Supplementary Estimate is necessary to meet excess expenditure on certain subheads of the Vote which could not be foreseen when the original Estimate was framed.
A sum of £114,650 was provided under subhead A to meet the cost of technical advisers, representatives abroad and other personnel of the Industrial Development Authority. Due to the expansion of the authority this amount has proved insufficient and a further £16,250 is now required. The balance of the £20,000 provided in the Supplementary Estimate is made up of an ex-gratia payment of £3,750 paid to the estate of a former member of the Fair Trade Commission. The excess on subhead B.2 arises from the expansion of the Industrial Development Authority and the necessity to acquire additional premises to accommodate the extra staff with consequent increases in expenditure on telephones et cetera.
In the case of subhead C—Advertising and Publicity—the sum of £4,170 provided in the Book of Estimates has proved to be inadequate. Expenditure to date has exceeded £6,000.
The Estimate for 1969-70 was reduced in the expectation that advertising under the Mineral Development Acts would be lower than in the previous year. This reduction did not materialise and in addition advertising in connection with the Merchandise Marks Acts has been greater than anticipated.
The total amount provided under subhead J for An Foras Tionscal for 1969-70 was £12,000,000. Expenditure to 31st January, 1970, came to £11,180,000. It is anticipated that expenditure up to 31st March, 1970, will reach £15,000,000. The increased expenditure is due in the first place to the inherent difficulties in the framing of estimates of annual expenditure by An Foras Tionscal. These difficulties derive from various circumstances in the timing of claims for payment of grants and the number and size of projects which may be approved for grants in any particular period. In the current financial year An Foras Tionscal is faced with exceptionally heavy outlay in respect of a number of large new industries for which substantial grants were approved. In addition, expenditure on the industrial estates at Galway and Waterford has accelerated because of the increasing number of applicants for accommodation in these estates coupled with an increase in building costs.
Expenditure on technical assistance under subhead M has been greater than anticipated. It is expected that a further £100,000 will be required to discharge claims which are likely to be lodged before 31st March, 1970. The technical assistance scheme is designed to encourage and assist firms to improve the efficiency of their organisations. Under the scheme grants are available towards the cost of engaging consultants to advise on the improvement of efficiency in production and distribution. Grants are also available towards the cost of visits abroad by representatives of firms to study aspects of industrial and distributive organisation.
The national productivity year which was inaugurated by the Taoiseach in November, 1968, is organised and run by the Irish National Productivity Committee. The Government approved expenditure of £92,000 towards the running costs. A provision of £51,000 was made in respect of 1968-69 and £41,000 for 1969-70. As a result of the unavoidable deferment of the opening date, expenditure in 1968-69 amounted to £28,000 only and the balance of £23,000 has been carried over into the year 1969-70. Provision in the Book of Estimates for 1969-70 was £41,000 so that a Supplementary Estimate for £23,000 is necessary. In the broadest terms the programme—or the Move Campaign as it is popularly known now—is promotional and directed at two different audiences: the decision makers, comprising 4 per cent approximately of the population, and the rest of the community. The purpose of the campaign is not to set up new structures to influence the decision makers; rather it is to supplement and support the organisations and services which already exist.
The provision for receipts arising from the Minerals Development Acts under subhead U4 was shown in the Book of Estimates at £416,000. These receipts are likely to fall short by about £47,000 due to unexpected setbacks arising from labour and operational difficulties.
The gross amount required in this Supplementary Estimate is £3,201,000. There is an offsetting saving of £80,000 on the provision for shipbuilding subsidy under subhead P.1 which brings the net requirements to £3,121,000.
I recommend the Supplementary Estimate to the House.
I am sure the Minister will agree with me that this year our discussion of industrial affairs was unsatisfactory because we had a whole series of bits and pieces. We had extremely important bits and pieces such as the Industrial Grants Bill and now this Supplementary Estimate, but it would have been far better if it had been possible to discuss the whole framework of industry at one time. However, the introduction of this Supplementary Estimate gives us an opportunity to discuss the various facets involved here and also our present situation so far as Industry and Commerce is concerned.
The Deputy will appreciate that the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce has still to come before the House and that this Supplementary Estimate is confined, in the main, to Foras Tionscal grants.
I am merely remarking on the fact that it is a rather unsatisfactory situation.
So long as we do not start discussing Industry and Commerce as such.
There is the fact that advertising, publicity, Foras Tionscal, technical assistance and national productivity year are involved here. Foras Tionscal brings in industrial grants and various appropriations-in-aid so it is really a very wide discussion.
The Chair does not want to limit the discussion in any way except in so far as the Supplementary Estimate is concerned in the main with Foras Tionscal grants-in-aid and whatever else may be tied in with that. There will be an opportunity to discuss the full Vote at a later stage.
I was merely referring to the unsatisfactory nature of the matter. However, whether or not it is unsatisfactory we can discuss what is in the Vote before us.
In relation to Foras Tionscal grants I should like to make the point that we are now merging Foras Tionscal and the Industrial Development Authority and, of course, we on this side of the House believe that this is not sufficient and that, in fact, we should have merged Córas Tráchtála and the other industrial organisations into one body, one governing body, one administrative body, which would mean that industrialists who were applying for grants such as we are now voting supplementary money for would not have the irritating experience of having to jump several hurdles, of having to go to the Industrial Development Authority, to Foras Tionscal, to the Industrial Credit Company and set up a whole complex application, each particular facet of which must fit into a matching grove in some other State organisation, before they got to the stage of enjoying a grant or enjoying the other facilities they might wish to apply for, such as industrial credit from the Industrial Credit Company.
I believe that duplication could be very easily avoided and that work could be done much faster if the policy of the Fine Gael Party, namely, the regrouping of all the numerous State services into one industrial development corporation, were put into effect. It has not been put into effect. We on this side of the House have no objection at all to the voting of this money for Foras Tionscal. We merely want to make the point at this stage that we feel it would lead to greater efficiency if all the numerous State agencies were grouped in one body.
Having made that point in relation to the policy of my party, I should now like to discuss the question of re-equipment grants for which portion of this money is being voted in subhead J. The up-to-date position, as I have ascertained from the Minister by Parliamentary question, is that when we passed the Industrial Grants Bill it went to the Seanad at Christmas and the Seanad complained, very volubly, I understand, about being rushed into passing this legislation. Yet, according to the Minister, we are still not in a position to pay out re-equipment grants.
That does not come under the Supplementary Estimate, by the way.
Re-equipment grants?
No. Adaptation grants, perhaps, but not re-equipment grants. As I told the Deputy the other day, I think it is expected that payment will be made in about two months.
If that is so, and if we are not voting money for re-equipment grants, the Minister is spared my criticism until a later occasion. I must stay in order. It appears to me that this Supplementary Estimate is quite vague then, because there is no information available to a Deputy here that re-equipment grants are not being dealt with. In fact, before the setting up of re-equipment grants, because of the activities of the Opposition on this side of the House who sought to have them established, adaptation grants and new factory grants were always grouped under the one heading.
I should like to make it clear that adaptation grants are involved and re-equipment grants are not.
Adaptation grants were, in fact, the Minister's very limited approach to existing industries before we kicked him into changing them to re-equipment grants which is a far more global approach.
I am trying to be helpful.
The Minister is being very helpful to himself because he is avoiding a certain amount of criticism.
To an ignorant person like myself the difference between the two words does not appear to be great. It may be great to the Department of Industry and Commerce but to the ordinary man there is no great difference.
The Minister is no ordinary man.
I am afraid the position is that there was a great difference, a difference which did not suit Irish industry at all. We succeeded in convincing the Minister that there should not be global disqualification of certain industries, as was the case under adaptation grants, and that we were not tied entirely to export industries because the defence of jobs was just as important as the creation of new ones, and the defence of jobs which did not involve the production of goods for export in freer trade conditions was important because there could be a very serious loss of employment if something was not done about it. This side of the House kicked the Minister —that is merely an expression I use; I do not mean physicially——
Urged.
——urged the Minister, and successfully, to change from the very limited adaptation grant to the re-equipment grant.
I should have thought that adaptation would ineviably involve some element of re-equipment.
Having been a civil servant, the Deputy will know——
I do not ever remember jostling words around in this particular fashion.
All right, but they were jostled here for a good while over a period of some four years.
The debates have become more sophisticated now.
I should like to discuss the question of the small industries grant now. In my work as a Deputy I have found that what happened in the case of the adaptation grants is now happening in the case of the small industries grants. A firm which went into the cabinet-making business is now employing 18 people instead of the one employee with which it started off and, because it is now employing 18 people, it is disqualified. I do not know why. The employer was merely told he could not get a small industries grant because he was in competition with others, and so on and so forth. I do not think it is good policy that there should be a recurrence of what happened in the case of the adaptation grants. There was a long history. A bakery could not get an adaptation grant. A laundry could not get one. Now, in the case of the small industries grants, a cabinet maker cannot get a grant. How many more global disqualifications are there? How many more agitations will we have to carry on to get someone who is disqualified into the category of being, at least, able to apply? Small industries giving employment and creating new jobs should get their grants.
It is legitimate to discuss the degree of failure in regard to grants. The Minister indicated on the Industrial Grants Bill that the number of failures was 10 per cent initially but, by getting some other industry to take over, the failure rate was reduced to 4 per cent. No one relishes naming particular industries here and I, for one, have always eschewed doing so. It is true, however, that in some cases where the failure rate of 10 per cent was converted into a failure rate of 4 per cent by the installation of another firm the second occupant was not nearly as important as the first from the point of view of the economy and the employment potential. The Minister, the Industrial Development Authority and An Foras Tionscal have to compromise but one can pay too high a price for compromise from the point of view of the economy and the employment capacity. In one particular instance the initial applicant would have employed male labour in the order of 400 or 500 men. The occupant who succeeded him employed girls exclusively and that in a town where female labour was quite scarce. That sort of thing militates against the Minister's statistic and the end result is not as good as it might appear to be at first sight.
We have then the case of Potez. Potez is a household name now. The four walls still stand. The position is highly unsatisfactory. I understand the Minister cannot take over the property. It would appear to me that the grant was not properly applied in this case. Sufficient safeguards were not demanded. I think some stricture should be written in so that assets would be available should production not commence or cease within a certain period. No stricture was applied in the case of Potez obviously and so the debacle goes on. I am sure the Minister and his predecessor tried to get some way out of this and I hope the efforts will continue and a way out will be found. What is done is done. There is no point in trying to make political points out of this now.
I believe the failure rate is higher than the Minister's statistic. I believe it is more unsatisfactory than the Minister's statistic would seem to prove. This is a position that could be improved by a change in the approach to the giving of grants. There is necessity for a closer appraisal than that carried out in either the Devlin or the Buchanan reports. When large grants are in question there should be a most detailed appraisal of the infra-structure of the situation so that we will know exactly where to establish the industry and what the manpower potential of the areas is.
Entry into the EEC is important in this respect. Grants should not be given to industries which might be less than viable in the EEC conditions. Employment must be long term if a grant is to be justified. Permanency of employment is most important from the point of view of risk capital and we must bear in mind at all times the likely changes which may occur on our entry into the EEC. There are two figures I should like to give the House, figures indicating our weakness as far as the manipulation of our own affairs is concerned.
We have employed in industry here 200,000 people, or 18 per cent of our labour force. In Britain 38 per cent of the labour force are employed in industry. We have here a tariff and duty situation which gave us a sort of Shangri-La. It was possible for people to negotiate wage demands in industry, not on the basis of what the community could afford but on the basis of what they could force their employer to give. He, in turn, duly applied for a higher level of tariff or a lower degree of quota on the goods which were competing with him from abroad, paid his workers and we all lived in a well-insulated, warm atmosphere.
That will no longer be the case when we go into the EEC. A very doctrinaire socialist—the Right Hon. Barbara Castle—produced in Britain, with direct regard to Britain's industrial situation if they went into the EEC, a prices and incomes policy which did not succeed. It only partially succeeded. In Britain where they could not even dream of applying for membership of the EEC there was a change over to a situation whereby, apparently, as far as industry, the balance of payments and everything else are concerned they have achieved at least a position in which they can apply. We here were insulated against that sort of exercise but we are no longer insulated because our industry will be subject to the full blast of British competition in 1975.
It is far tougher than that because it is quite clear that as tariffs are reduced a stage is reached where they do not matter any more and, again, there is a question of dumping. When goods produced here are sold the end cost includes many factors such as advertising, transport and many other costs and when proof is needed as to whether or not there is dumping this is particularly difficult. Therefore, in a situation in which there is a tariff of 10 per cent or 15 per cent on some commodities, our industrialists here will face a very severe blast of competition in 1971 and 1972. In such a situation we have got to examine our whole industrial structure and ensure that our industry prospers and that more jobs are provided. Only 4 per cent of the work force in Great Britain are engaged in agriculture. With their cheap food policy for the industrial worker it paid off to subsidise those people to bring up their incomes to something comparable to the industrial worker.
That meant that we had to export to Great Britain our butter at very much lower than cost price. When that changes and when the Common Market agricultural policy is applied to Britain, even though they will get some years to adjust themselves, our food prices will go up but not as much as in Britain because we were not insulated by the Queen's subsidies to farmers.
Our costs over the years went up more than Britain's. In 1963, for instance, Britain had an increase in costs of general consumer items of about 1¾ per cent. Ours was 2½ per cent but by the time we reached 1970 our annual increase was about 5½ per cent, whereas in Britain the increase was only 2¾ per cent. Industrially this could not be a worse situation for us at the moment because it means that our workers are all demanding more pay because they find it more difficult to live and this means that the cost of our goods in competition with British goods is at a disadvantage. However, let us look at what will happen when Britain enters the Common Market. Various pundits are putting the increased figure at anything from as high as 30 per cent to as low as 18 per cent. When food prices increase 25 per cent it is estimated and accepted in a British White Paper issued last week that there will be a wage increase of around £5 a week. The very best industrial situation for us would be if our industrial worker had fewer pound notes than the British industrial worker but was living better.
The tide has being going against us in that regard over the years, due principally to the cheap food policy in Britain, but the tide now could change and the reality of the Common Market could lead to the removal of the disadvantage under which industry now suffers.
One must consider where we are going at the moment as far as remaining competitive in the export of our goods is concerned. The Taoiseach indicated, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce in reply to questions last week clarified, that the sort of income increase that could be afforded in this country this year was 7 per cent or 30s a week, whichever was the greater. Now we have awards of 23 per cent in the case of paint workers and awards of that order are not uncommon at the moment. This means a weakening of our competitive strength and a situation in which the export of our goods becomes less significant.
We may as well face the truth about this matter. Price control, as applied by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in this regard, has not worked and I believe it is impossible for it to work. I should like to instance one experience I had of a businessman, well known to you all, whose name shall not be mentioned, who told the story about price control and when you had to buy eggs from the ladies of the parish because nobody else would buy them. You always suffered quite a severe loss on the purchase of those eggs but you could not pay them any less because they would not accept any less. It was the same with tea. When matters became so bad that you could not tolerate it any more you reduced the quality of the tea and charged the same for it. That was in the days when all the shops in Ireland mixed and blended the tea themselves. This is the story of a good, decent businessman who had to face up to realities.
He charged a bit more for the omelettes.
This is just a fact of life. This happened. We are now in a situation in which our competitive position has been harmed by a consumer price index which, let us face it, is incorrectly compiled. The consumer price index has two facets to it which most of us who have been here for a long time know all about. You have a list of goods and then you have got the amount the ordinary family uses. Deputy Cosgrave puts down a question every three months on the consumer price index, which appears in the Official Report, and which is very useful to us to see what way the cat is jumping. When you look at it you see in the list of goods various items which when they were compiled many years ago were in common use and now are not. The fact is that the increase in the cost of living for the ordinary person has been far greater, based on his ordinary pattern of consumption over the range of goods desired than any figure in the consumer price index.
This is something again which in relation to those grants will be a disincentive as far as our competitiveness is concerned. I do not want to go into a general debate on this matter but we are voting a large sum in grants and, therefore, we have got to look at whether or not such sum will bring the reward we need. Of course, it is quite true that when we go into the Common Market there will be advantages as well as disadvantages. While the cost of food may go up——
The Deputy is trying very skilfully to engage in an economic debate, referring occasionally to these grants. I have already stated that there will be an economic debate on the Department of Industry and Commerce. The Deputy must refer to the grants now.
The Deputy has been here for 16 years——
The Deputy has done very well so far.
Some of the methods of getting around the Chair have been beaten into me.
The Chair is equally aware of what can happen.
The Chair is also aware of the haste on this side of the House to get to South West Dublin where there is important work to be done.
I was informed that there was to be a discussion on the general and Supplementary Estimates. I was prepared for such a discussion. The House will understand my predicament.
The Deputy will have another opportunity later to discuss these matters.
At the moment we spend 25 per cent of our earnings on food. Under Common Market conditions we will spend 40 per cent of our earnings on the same amount of food. Some of our industries could be adversely affected. The cost of cars, refrigerators, domestic appliances and electrical goods will all go down. There will be competition for our existing factories and motor assemblers.
On the subject of advertising and publicity, we, on this side of the House, accept the Minister's explanation that there is need for the supplementary grant. The Minister has given us the reason for it, namely, that there was more expenditure on advertising under the Mineral Development Acts than was estimated. This was done to allow objections to be lodged. We are not worried about the situation in regard to technical assistance. Such assistance is absolutely necessary and will bring our industry up to the necessary degree of efficiency.
The Minister inaugurated National Productivity Year in November, 1968. This has been a reasonable success. At the time, with a general election in June, 1969, I was suspicious of the motives behind this move. It might have been considered a good thing to have us all very interested in the promotion of Irish industry and working hard to expand such industries, while at the same time allowing ourselves to believe that the Fianna Fáil Party were somewhere at the back of it. I am not sure whether that had any effect on the hustings on a certain day.
Surely the Deputy would not attribute such base motives to the Government?
Present company excluded, I would attribute very base motives to the Government. It did not really matter whether or not it was an election year. It was a good exercise to go out to try to sell Irish productivity and expansion of industry. We on this side of the House have no objection to the subhead referred to.
Coming now to the offsetting saving we have on the shipbuilding subsidy, I wish to say that we all have a very great interest in the maintenance of Verolme shipyard in Cork. The interest arises from Votes here from time to time of large sums in subsidies for shipbuilding. All over the world similar assistance was being given. We either had to let the industry die or follow the pattern. Perhaps the Minister would explain the present position at Verolme dockyard. I am aware that this is an Appropriation-in-Aid and that there is a saving of over £80,000. In order to help the people employed at Verolme we would like to understand the present position there. The Verolme company in Holland has been aided by an older shipbuilding company with the intervention of the Dutch Government.
Is the Deputy seeking an explanation of the offset?
Yes. Why was the money not spent?
This is not a discussion of the Verolme dockyard.
We know where the money was saved but perhaps the Minister might give us a further explanation. The situation seems to be that the Verolme concern has been aided by another company in Holland. We would like to know more about the situation and about future employment in the dockyard.
My main contribution will be on the general Estimate which I understood was coming up today. I wish to express the hope that the re-equipment grants will be paid at an early date.
I sympathise with what Deputy Donegan has just said. It is unsatisfactory that, through no fault of the Minister, we have not had an opportunity of discussing the departmental Estimates of the Department of Industry and Commerce. They have been coming up piecemeal on very important matters such as the IDA and again we have this Supplementary Estimate this afternoon. We cannot discuss at great length the general policy lines of the Department of Industry and Commerce. There is important work elsewhere in the city which could have an important bearing on policy here at some future date.
On page 2 of the Minister's speech in relation to An Foras Tionscal it is stated:
These difficulties derive from various circumstances in the timing of claims for payment of grants and the number and size of projects which may be approved for grants in any particular period.
The Minister speaks about a heavy outlay in respect of a number of marginal industries for which substantial grants were approved. It might help our discussions here if these projects, which are responsible for such a large amount of extra money being sought, were actually listed. Perhaps the Minister was attempting, very wisely, to avoid a general discussion on these projects at this stage.
There is more to it than that. I am precluded from giving such information until the end of the year.
Will we have this information by the time the general Estimate comes to the House?
I am not certain when the Estimate will be reached.
Could I ask the Minister to arrange as rapidly as possible for his Estimate to be presented? On our side we are very anxious to get to his Estimate. The Minister could say that we should stop talking on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government but that is also a very important area. We are very anxious to discuss some of the underlying principles of the Department of Industry and Commerce at present and a discussion as soon as possible would be helpful.
We have no opportunity to speak at length on this Estimate but I noticed that in regard to advertising and publicity a sum of £4,170 proved inadequate and that expenditure to date has exceeded £6,000. Evidently this increase resulted from extra advertising needed under the Minerals Development Act. It seems highly paradoxical that the State should be involved in this kind of advertising under our arrangements for minerals exploration here and that in fact all the enterprise involved in mineral exploration is in foreign hands. While it does not come precisely within this Estimate may I say that it corresponds to other weaknesses in our economy that this important area should be totally in foreign control. It is a serious situation. While there is a part for foreign enterprise to play in any new undertaking it is time the State itself embarked on mineral exploration at least in one or two areas. There is nothing revolutionary in this idea; Michael Collins suggested something similar half a century ago and he was no revolutionary in that sense.
It seems to be another Bantry Bay exercise when we find ourselves arranging for all the advertising and legal facilities and then standing back and allowing foreign enterprise to take the cream of the profit. The general criticism one could make of the new moves regarding the IDA and An Foras Tionscal and their amalagamation under a general industrial development authority is that all industrial policy in the State appears now to be satisfied merely with the provision of more jobs. Nobody appears to worry very much any longer about who controls the jobs, who owns the capital or whether there is any Irish control or direction in these firms. While we can accept mechanical improvements made in legislation such as the incorporation of An Foras Tionscal in the new IDA, the amalgamation of grant giving facilities and promotional activity, the fact is that this is neutral legislation in that in our industrial policy we now appear to have given up the battle to ensure that economic control, to some extent, would remain in our own hands. This is not the appropriate place to discuss this matter at length but there are certain warning signals in our economy indicating that we are steadily approaching the point of no return in relation to control of important assets. Grant aids to new industry at the moment provide roughly on average, 2,000 new jobs per year——
Eleven thousand seven hundred——
But an average per year of about 2,000 new jobs. I know we could vary it for different years but it is around that figure. The problem is that we are on very shaky ground even where we make the best grant giving facilities available when so many of the new jobs are in foreign hands. Basing expansion solely on the extension of foreign subsidiaries in this country is very doubtful economic wisdom and if this policy is adopted to a large degree and if we pin all our basic hopes on this kind of development we risk terrible failure at some future stage, in our dependence on foreign markets. I do not propose to go into detail on this but the Department and the agencies they set up must consider this growing problem of foreign control in retail outlets, manufacture, property and in many traditionally Irish-owned areas. The Department must also consider the growing possibility of larger free trade areas in the future.
We have always looked with a cold eye on Common Market developments and it would be best to continue in that attitude in the future. It could be argued that there will be something inevitable about it, should Britain go in, seeing the dependence at this stage of our economy on Britain. The argument will probably devolve on the kind of relationship that will exist with the new Common Market area but it would be the height of nonsense to think that there is any new salvation, any new prosperity to be found in this large market area.
I consider the Minister's Department to be the most important Department and the Minister will be glad to hear that had this Party secured a majority in the last election his Department would have been the major Department, responsible for devising and implementing a national development plan. These are the things that could have been——
And represented by Dublin North-Central.
I happen to be just the shadow of a shadow of a shadow. We do not have shadow spokesmen but what I am saying is that the Minister's Department would have been a most important one. We regard the Department of Industry and Commerce as the Department that has greatest responsibility in the government of a country with the problems this country has. However excellent improvements may be in legislation setting up amalgamating bodies to see that the aid that the State gives to industry is improved and that we make more discriminatory the grants we give to ensure that they are given to industries with a future and so on, if the Department stands aside from the growing threat of foreign control of the home market then, in effect, we are largely handing away taxpayers' money. This is an unfortunate trend in the figures relating to grants given. The export consideration means that in too many cases—in the majority of cases in the last figures I read—we tend to give more grants to foreign-controlled firms than to home-controlled firms. The Minister may say that winning exports is the real job and that this, to some extent, in relation to new industries is inevitable, but allied to the growing threat of foreign control of the home market, it is something we must look at once again.
I hope the Minister when we come to the Estimate will consider this matter. I have addressed several questions to him over the last few years on the subject and the departmental attitude is to see no grounds for alarm particularly in the areas cited at present. The Opposition is in the predicament that our figures and knowledge cannot be exact. I have a question down for tomorrow in regard to how many hotels have come under foreign control and there are many other areas where Irish enterprise should be self-sufficient and should need no aid from abroad to manage its own affairs. I can see the point where we are attempting to gain certain markets that foreign participation may be necessary but this criterion seems to be going overboard very rapidly and official policy appears to be to give grants on the basis that the only quid pro quo will be a job for a grant. There are more serious things at issue.
One must question how secure the job will be and how much benefit accrues to the community from that extra job. An extra job can be provided at too high a cost if it is not based on a secure foundation. This is something we must ponder especially if it is a job not controlled largely within this country. In such a case the taxpayers' money is not being spent wisely nor do we give the man who gets the job a very secure future. These are questions that I hope we shall have an opportunity of discussing in more depth when the Estimate comes along because there are quite a number of points that we must raise. It is all right to improve, as the Minister is doing, the legislative framework under which his Department and their several agencies operate but this Department cannot be neutral in the important matter of providing new jobs and seeing that control is maintained in this country. I am not saying that any of us today can depend exclusively on an unadulterated Sinn Féin economic policy. This may not be possible in today's world, especially in today's Europe. However, I do not know of any country which embraces as fully as we have been doing recently a policy of total dependence on other countries. I feel this is an erroneous and rash policy, yet several Government Departments—indeed it is in our economic policy in general—appear to be embracing it without reservation.
The Minister's enthusiasm and expertise are most gratifying. Here we have a dedicated Minister dealing with the creation of employment and the building of the economy.
Recently great emphasis has been put on the need for industrial development away from the greater Dublin area. When a new industry is mooted for Dublin people are inclined to throw their hands up to heaven and say: "Not Dublin again. Send it elsewhere". Every Deputy wants to see decentralisation but it must be done according to the pattern laid down which is designed to ensure that this city is not denuded of its industries. We must face the fact that, whether we like it or not, the drift to the city will continue. That is the pattern all over Europe and in the United States. It would be wrong to tackle this problem from the negative point of view, to feel that by starving Dublin of industry people will be driven out of it to other places. This will not happen. Since the Industrial Revolution people have headed for the big cities and made them even bigger still. People may have a less satisfying life in a city, but they still persist in living there. We do not live according to a mathematical formula. We are all human beings and we do things which are not logical. To live in a rural area near an industrialised town where one could have employment would be the ideal thing, but it is hard to reach the ideal state.
Dublin has certain natural advantages for industry. It is the finest port on the east coast and the east coast is the one nearest to Britain and to Europe. All the time there are manufacturers and industrialists wanting to come to Dublin because from here they have a short sea route to Britain and to Europe. The Government's policy of having growth centres is a good one and we all support it, but we must support it in the belief that the growth centres are viable and will become part of the local scene. We do not want to have ghost towns because we forced manufacturers to go to certain places which were not suitable as industrial centres. I am not suggesting the Government have done this.
We are delighted that the growth centres in Waterford, Galway and Shannon are progressing and expanding. However, we must face the fact that there are three-quarters of a million people living in the greater Dublin area and employment must be found for the working population there. This will get bigger all the time and I cannot see the movement to Dublin changing in the lifetime of any Member of this House unless there is heavy emigration, and, thank God, that is unlikely.
The Minister is responsible for small industries. I feel that Dublin has a place in this small industries policy, too. Deputy Donegan spoke about the Verolme dockyard in Cork. This is a fine undertaking. We wish it well and hope that it will benefit the economy of Cork to a much greater extent as it progress. However, in Dublin we have a much older shipyard than the Verolme dockyard and over the years it has turned out many fine vessels. Although I am sure it benefits from some State grants, it is purely a private company. I think it is in the Minister's own constituency and I know that his attitude to it has been one of friendly helpfulness. I feel that the Dublin dockyard could turn out coastal vessels and indeed fishery protection vessels.
The Chair is slow to interfere with the Deputy because of previous references, but of course this would not be for this Estimate. It would be for the main Estimate.
I do not want to transgress the Rules of the House but when the Minister is considering grants for industry he might consider that the Dublin dockyard is capable of building the hulls and the superstructure of corvettes. They could be fitted with their armaments elsewhere. We must give Dublin its niche in the shipbuilding industry. Knowing the Minister's deep concern with small industries I hope he will do everything possible to help the Dublin dockyard. With increasing affluence many people have turned to yachting and there is a great future for yards all over the country as well as in Dublin in the building of yachts and other small sports boats.
If I mention Ballyfermot it is incidental and has no political connotation.
I thought this would not come up until after the election.
Whether one is a Dubliner or not, if one goes to Ballyfermot and sees industries such as Semperit and Fiat one must say that here we have done something worthwhile. We have built a housing estate and provided employment for people on their doorsteps. This is the Dublin and the Ireland we want to see, where our people can live in proper conditions and work in proper conditions for proper wages.
I want to compliment the Minister not just on this Estimate but on his showing over the year and on his drive and dedication to furthering industrial expansion. I appeal to him to dispel any suggestion or feeling that somebody somewhere has said: "No more industry for Dublin." We still have unemployed people in Dublin and to carry out a policy of expansion we must create more jobs. I feel that task is in the right hands. I want to refute the suggestion that Dublin is over-industrialised. We still have unemployed people and we are concerned that the youth of the city leaving post-primary schools will find employment in their own city.
As we have been reminded, this Supplementary Estimate is required mainly as a grant-in-aid to Foras Tionscal. All of us in the House are extremely anxious that everything possible will be done to encourage the establishment of new industries and the expansion of existing industries. It is for this purpose that the Minister is seeking approximately £3 million extra.
It is amazing, regardless of the way the Chair has restricted the debate on this Estimate, how the Deputy opposite was able to bring in the south west of Dublin, Ballyfermot and the other areas of that constituency which I had the honour to represent for many years and in which I was very pleased to be able to encourage the establishment of some industry. Even though I am on the fringe of it now. I am concerned about the amount and the nature of the employment that should be provided there.
There are many matters which restrict the development of industry in that area, into which I am sure the Minister will look, particularly in relation to inadequate services. I hope he will have regard to this when he is deciding about grants. He may decide that some of the money provided here will be used for ancillary purposes which would enable industries to be established in an area where there is considerable unemployment.
When we publicise and advertise certain inducements for the setting up of new industries or the expansion of existing ones, I submit there should not be the immense amount of niggling about them afterwards which I am afraid there is. This debate is in respect of grants by Foras Tionscal. I thought we got rid of Foras Tionscal last December. Perhaps the Minister will refer to this when replying. I thought Foras Tionscal went with the passing of the IDA Bill. However, that is only beside the point I am trying to make. In the IDA Bill we provided for grants for areas outside the scheduled areas, if that is what they call them.
Growth centres.
No. Anyway, it means the underdeveloped areas get one size of grant and what are regarded as the developed areas get another size of grant. In the case of a developed area such as Dublin, first of all there is a 25 per cent grant and then, under section 34, there is an additional possible grant of 30 per cent under certain conditions. I had quite an extraordinary experience since the passing of that Act in regard to an Industry which fulfilled practically all the conditions set out in section 34. In a discussion prior to the application going to the grants board I was told: "You cannot hope for anything more than 25 per cent." I asked why and pointed out that this was an industry whose business would be 100 per cent export, would use only Irish material, and would provide practically 100 per cent male employment. I asked what the yardstick was and I was told: "You know there have been big changes."
I asked what the big changes were and I was told: "The period for the tax relief on exports has been extended. This is an additional relief that must be taken into account."
We were not told that when discussing the IDA Bill here. As I have said, it is wrong to have propaganda which deceived people coming in here. If we are to induce people to come in to establish new industry or to expand existing industry, we must mean what we say and what we set on paper. If there is a possibility of a grant of 45 per cent in certain areas if certain conditions are fulfilled, I do not think there should be any great argument about it. If there is, it is wrong.
I do not like to interrupt the Deputy but is he speaking of a very large industry with a grant running into some millions of pounds?
No.
Not that big?
Nothing like it. It is surprising that this should be the attitude. I want to make it clear this is what is said prior to the consideration of grant applications: applicants are being asked not to anticipate the possibility of the higher grants; they are discouraged. I should like the Minister to look into this because it is vitally important that our propaganda should be believed. It should be fairly well spelled out what industrialists are entitled to. There is no mention of the additional asset of the extension of the income tax relief period when we were passing the legislation to which I have referred and I should hate to have it brought in now as an obstruction, if you like, to industrialists who measure up to all the qualifications required.
Deputy Donegan mentioned the EEC and the effects of EEC membership and he related this quite rightly to the suggestion of whether grants should be given in future to industries that perhaps have no hope of surviving in EEC conditions. This is important. I do not know whether a full assessment has been made by the Minister or the Department as to which industries are likely to succeed in EEC conditions when we get in, and it looks as if we will get in. There are other aspects of this matter on which I should like the Minister to comment. For instance, if we get into the EEC will we be allowed any longer to give the type of grants we give at present or will we be allowed to continue present grants? Perhaps that may not have been fully taken up but it is important that we should know whether we will be allowed to go through with contractual arrangements already made. Because we may not be allowed to continue grant assistance, is there not a great urgency now to do the maximum amount of this sort of thing while we can still do it? After all, we have still 65,000 unemployed.
It is 67,000.
The number fluctuates. It is in the 60 thousands most of the time. Of course some of these people are unemployable but there is still a large number unemployed and emigrating. It is important that the maximum employment opportunities be provided. We know these opportunities must be provided in industry. We know what has happened in EEC countries in the last ten years. In France, the working population on the land has been reduced by 50 per cent. They have had to be re-employed in industry. We have to be concerned that the same trend will be allowed here—fewer and fewer people employed on the land.
Reference has been made to the location of industry and I hope certain industries will be directed to various parts of the country. There are inducements to attract industries to various parts of the country and that is quite right. I have my own feelings about growth centres and about giving special grants and facilities to industries in these growth centres. At the most, there or four growth centres in the whole country may be essential to provide the basic services required by industry here. This is a small country and the distances they would have to travel for these services are quite small. Therefore, I would be in favour of a limitation on inducements for industry in growth centres. In the original Estimate there was a provision for half a million pounds for the establishment of industrial estates. In itself, that is an extra grant towards the setting-up of industries in an industrial estate. Why should any firm get a greater amount of State aid solely because it sets up in an industrial centre? Surely an industry set up in a rural part of Ireland, where employment is needed and whereby the whole economy would be improved by its location in that area, should be entitled to a greater grant?
With regard to technical assistance and advertising for industry outside the country, has the Minister ever thought of trying to get some of this work done on an agency basis? We are setting out to do this by ourselves as a State Department. The Minister might look into the suggestion of paying some agency or some individuals to bring industry to this country. I have in mind the operations of one very successful Deputy of this House who went out and acted as an agency in bringing industry to quite remote parts of this country. I am sure he will make a contribution to this debate. This type of person should be compensated and rewarded for his effort in the same way as we have to pay for this service through the people we employ in IDA. I do not know how difficult it would be to decide who was responsible for getting what in this way. I do not consider that the only agency capable of bringing industry to this country is IDA or that it is necessarily even the best agency. Their efforts could and should be supplemented. All of us hope that this Supplementary Estimate will assist towards bringing more industry to this country and, indeed, assist firms here who are anxious to expand.
It is wrong that people who are given grants should have a hard and a long fight to be paid. We should have the money to pay them promptly when they have the work done. Furthermore, we should have a good system of examining an industry to ensure it has fulfilled the conditions under which it has got the grant and then we should pay it as soon as the work has been done.
I find myself substantially in agreement with practically everybody who has spoken in this debate. Deputy O'Leary said we are very much inclined to lean on outside assistance for the setting-up of industries here and that we are very generous and lenient towards non-nationals. I agree with what he said in that respect. A lot of money has been expended through IDA to aid foreigners to set up industry here.
I know of quite a few cases where they have come here and started an industry and set up, shall we say, a vested interest in a particular district. Beyond providing a certain amount of employment they totally failed to do what they were supposed to do—to set up an industry here for export purposes. That matter requires the Minister's most urgent consideration.
There are two definite criteria that should guide the Minister in relation to the disposal of any funds being voted under this Supplementary Estimate. An industry based on raw material should have prior consideration. The siting of an industry in an area where there are not existing industries and where a measure of employment is sorely needed—this means practically every rural area in Ireland today—is indeed to be welcomed particularly in view of the syphoning-off of people from employment on the land. These people make their way to Dublin, for example, where there is already a massive unemployment problem and they may end up on the emigrant ship. Then, again, our accession to EEC is debatable. Through the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, we have tied ourselves practically entirely to the British economy. The British have been trying, for a considerable time, to get into the Common Market, and now, when they can go in, everybody says we must do likewise—but it so happens that Britain does not now seem to want to enter EEC.
We need to take a very clear view of where we are going, industrially, in this country. We cannot go wrong if we base our economy on small industries, in rural sectors as far as possible, based on raw material. I do not know that I accept the Minister's idea of industrial estates. It may be the beginning of a new phase in Irish industry in an effort to prevent the concentration of industry in one area but, as against that, it gives a priority to one area over another area which is undesirable. I do not believe it will achieve the object of maintaining the people in the areas where they belong, which is so necessary in industrial life here. The only way to achieve industrial stability and real prosperity is to employ our people in their own areas.
Deputy Clinton mentioned an industry in his constituency. I want to refer to an industry in my constituency, without naming any names. It is in a small town, with a population of about 400, where there is no industry and where the people depend on the growing of corn, beet, and so on, and perhaps there is a little railway employment. A small industry was secured for this town, based on raw material. The industry is small in the sense that it employs 25 to 30 persons and, in full production, might employ 45 to 50 persons. The parties concerned were under the impression that they were getting the full grant of 45 per cent, or whatever it is. Their plans were made, the factory site bought and when they were ready to build the factory they were told that they were entitled only to 21 per cent. When this happens to a big industrial combine, although it may upset their plans, it does not affect them to the same extent, but the case I mentioned concerns a small industrial undertaking where capital is limited and which is entirely dependent on the resources of the State for help. This is something the IDA should do.
That is just one case in my own constituency and I am sure there are many parallel cases throughout the country. I accept that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has given a new breath of life to Irish industry. He has moved away from the idea of trying to turn Ireland into a country like the United States or an industrial country such as Great Britain or the Federal Republic of Germany. However, he must keep a careful eye on the situation. Capital should not be made available to foreign industrialists so long as there are people in this country with initiative, verve and drive to start industries on their own. When the Minister was introducing the Supplementary Estimate he did not give us any information but, knowing the Minister as I do, I think he would wish to have the thoughts and ideas of Deputies in relation to industrialisation. That is only right and proper.
I listened to this debate with great interest. All who contributed said something of value to which the Minister should give the fullest consideration. I do not know whether my humble contribution is of use but, having said all I want to and not wishing to be out of order, I shall conclude my comments.
At the outset I should like to convey my appreciation and that of the people of County Kerry for the efforts the Minister has made in the direction of industry to our county. We have a number of very successful industries, mainly German, and we have more coming in. However, a much more energetic approach has to be made to German industrialists to make them aware of the facilities that are available. About three weeks ago I was in Germany myself in the heart of the Rühr and I spoke to a number of people in the Darmstadt Junior Chamber of Commerce. I was amazed to find none of them was aware of the facilities available here. I do not think this is the fault of our agents our there because I know they have tried by every means in their power to get the necessary publicity across but for some reason it is not getting to the essential people.
As a result of my discussions with them I had two Germans in Killorglin on Saturday last and I think they will establish a small industry in a nearby place, Castlemaine. Some effort must be made to get to the people who are prepared to come. I was informed that all of the major industries in Darmstadt, and there are about 600 of them, are faced with a problem in that they have no way of expanding, they cannot get any more ground near their existing factories. If they get ground in other parts of Germany they are faced with the problem of labour shortage and they are now trying to find ways and means to solve their problem because at the moment they are not able to manufacture even 50 per cent of production necessary to meet the demands of the available markets.
When I explained the position in our own country and told them of the number of very successful German industries here they became very interested. I mention this to bring home to the Minister the position that obtains. While our agents abroad are doing their best a more positive effort must be made to inform industrialists of the situation that exists here. There was a doctor attached as adviser to the Darmstadt Chamber of Commerce and she was not aware of the position here. I asked her to come across here so that we could show her the successful German industries already here. I hope that the Minister will extend an invitation to her to come here because I think she would be a great help to us in getting industries here. There must be many other places throughout Germany in the same position and it is important that we make contact with these people and explain the position as it obtains in this country.
One of the previous speakers mentioned he was rather opposed to the idea of industrial estates and I am of the same opinion. One of the very good German industries we have in Killorglin, Liebeg Pfungstadt, was brought to the three industrial estates and they had not the slightest interest in them. From their experience in their own country most German firms do not want to get into an industrial complex again, and we can use this to our advantage in our efforts to get these people out to rural areas. German industries have no interest in setting up among a group of other industries and the Minister might bear this in mind. They are interested in getting into our small towns and villages provided the necessary labour is available. They like to get into scenic areas, into areas where there are facilities for bathing, shooting and fishing and these we have in plenty. We should use this to our advantage and try to get those industries spread into our rural areas.
There is another reason why we should avoid building up industrial estates and I have explained this many times in this House. To take the example of my own district of Killorglin, or any part of Kerry, if a person has to leave his own town or village and go to some other place the natural place for him to go is London because probably his family and relations are there. None of them is interested in going to Cork, Shannon or Galway for that matter. This is one of the reasons why we should desist from building up industrial complexes to which our people will not move.
The Minister might have a look also at the small industries programme. Many outside small industries have been turned down, particularly in the joinery trade, and these industries could contribute to the export position of the country if they were allowed to develop on their own but because we already have an oversupply of this type of industry, they are being excluded. Unfortunately, this contributes to increased costs of houses and other buildings because of having to bring local material to other parts of the country whereas if they were allowed to produce locally, a great advantage would ensure in developing the local area and in keeping at home those people skilled in the trade instead of having them in foreign fields.
There are many other small industries employing four or five people. A full examination of the position particularly throughout the west should be made with a view to developing these industries. While speaking to a very old man in my own town of Killorglin I was amazed when he informed me his father had told him that about 90 years ago there were 165 industries of one type or another in and around the town, some of the smaller ones employing two and three people. When one thinks of that number and considering that we had nothing there for years before we got the recent industries, it would appear that the position needs to be considered. These small industries kept the villages and towns along the west cost ticking over many years ago.
There is room for development. We have an intelligent population. Almost every child, particularly along the west coast, receives secondary education. This is a great asset in industry. Up to 60 per cent of the personnel working in the clothes factory in Killorglin have either the intermediate or leaving certificate. They continue to work in the factory where they get very good money. It may be said that they do not need secondary education for such work but the fact that they have had the education is a great asset and makes for good machinists and production staff. Also, the fact that they stay at home is a real help.
There should not be any great problem in getting outside industrialists to set up here if we make that little extra drive within the different organisations to bring in the industries and to develop local ones in as far as is possible.
I shall endeavour to deal with the points raised during the debate. A number of similar points were raised by Deputies. Deputy Donegan again found it necessary to make his ritual remarks about the policy of Fine Gael but I will not go over that ground again with him except to point out that the amalgamation of CTT with the new IDA would not help in the least to reduce difficulties for applicants for industrial grants because, in the vast majority of cases, CTT have nothing to do with this.
What about ICC?
It would be just an additional appendage which would not help at all. The ICC are a different matter. The Deputy mentioned CTT as one that should be brought in. This is a theory on which Deputy Donegan has been sold but he ought to examine it a little more closely.
What about ICC? Why do you not take that in?
As I have said, that is a different matter. Arrangements have been made for close liaison there but I merely want to make that point.
One point raised by Deputy Donegan as well as by a number of others, including the last speaker, Deputy O'Connor, was in relation to the operation of the small industries scheme. Deputies are concerned that some types of industry are being excluded from this scheme. This is true but I should like to make it clear to the House that, originally, manufacturing industries of any kind were not excluded but the stage is being reached in certain cases where, to admit any further ones, would simply have the effect of building up one Irish firm at the expense of another Irish firm so that there would be no gain to the economy. Obviously, it would be bad business if the State were to bring about that situation so where there are exclusions this is the sole reason for them.
The Minister tried that with adaptation grants and after three or four years we succeeded in getting him to produce the re-equipment grants which did bring in more people. The same thing will happen with small industries grants. The Minister will give in after a while.
I do not wish to argue this out with the Deputy but his statement is not factually correct in regard to adaptation and re-equipment. Deputies referred to joinery in particular and I should like to ask the House to consider what would be the position if the small industries division of the IDA were to assist every applicant whose business was joinery. The result would be that firms all over the country would be assisted in this way with a loan much smaller than the capacity of these firms and this would obviously not be of any benefit to those firms that we were nominally assisting and, of course, the cost to the taxpayer would be substantial with no return. I do not wish to see any particular line excluded but we must be realistic about this. Furthermore, in regard to any particular form of industry, it is always possible that the assessment of the IDA is not accurate. I am of course prepared to have this assessment checked because the information available to them may not be as accurate as it should be. Indeed, the regional development of the IDA will, I hope, help to give more accurate information of this kind particularly in relation to small industries.
Deputy Donegan and other Deputies referred to the consequences of our entry into the EEC. I do not propose to depart any further from the rules of order than was done by any of the previous speakers, but reference was made to increased costs arising in this regard and I would just say this much: we have been hearing and reading recently of certain estimates or guesstimates, as I said here before, of what might be the consequences for Britain of entry into the EEC.
I have not seen much reference to an estimate or guesstimate which I also read about but which does not seem to have got a great deal of publicity, to the effect that if Britain had been in the EEC from the beginning the average weekly wage there now would be £5 per week more than it is which, so far as the other estimates are relevant, is also a relevant estimate. However, talking about relevant estimates I am probably straying a little far from relevance to this Estimate.
If I may return to the questions that were posed in relation to the Verolme dockyard in Cork, perhaps I should remind the House that approximately two years ago certain moneys were voted for that yard to implement a changed policy in regard to it. That changed policy envisaged the continued operation of shipbuilding but it also envisaged the expansion of the activities of the yard into general engineering work.
I am glad to say that the shipbuilding programme of the yard is quite satisfactory at present, but I am even more pleased to say that the general engineering work of the shipyard is progressing very favourably; indeed, the yard is making strenuous efforts to obtain work on the export market and is having some success. One of the large limiting factors in the expansion of this aspect of its activities which is regarded as being much more viable in the long term than shipbuilding is the non-availability of certain skilled tradesmen. The company have advertised extensively in Britain as a result of which quite a number of Irishmen with these skills have come home and are working there but quite a number more could be used in Cork and if they were available they would enable the activities of the company in this regard to be very greatly expanded. The company have an excellent training scheme but this is a much slower process and, as I say, the largest limiting factor on expansion is the non-availability of skilled workers.
In regard to the Verolme Company in Holland, I should like to make it quite clear that I know of no reason whatever why any of the workers in the yard in Cork should fear for their jobs arising out of the recent developments in Holland. There was some suggestion, and I should like to confirm it, that the Verolme Company in Holland is now to a great extent subject to the control of the Dutch Government, but I repeat that I know of no reason arising out of these developments why anybody in Cork should fear for the future of his job. On the contrary, it seems to me from the information available that the prospects are extremely good for the future of the Verolme yard in Cork.
Deputy O'Leary raised the very important question—one we have discussed a number of times and in particular when the IDA Bill was going through the House—of foreign control of Irish industry. Again I do not intend to go back over all of this ground but I think I should say that, first of all, anybody who has the responsibility which I have as Minister for Industry and Commerce in weighing up the possible lines of approach to the provision of new jobs in industry has got to consider the extent of foreign ownership, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the necessity to create new jobs rapidly. There is no choice of alternative methods for achieving full employment in the same time. The choice is that of achieving full employment in the reasonably near future by following the policy which we are following or of following a policy of much greater reliance on our own resources not only financial but technical and marketing. In that situation the choice the Minister faces is to get full employment as fast as possible or to put off the achievement of full employment for many years and perhaps never achieve it.
In those circumstances I do not think there is any real choice. We must ensure that we get full employment here as fast as we can. We are concerned with Irish men and women and enabling them to work in Ireland. This does not mean that we simply close our eyes to dangers which may be inherent in foreign dominance of our industries, but this situation can be grossly exaggerated and the risks can be greatly exaggerated. Obviously as situation in which we were dependent on one or two key industries which were controlled by one foreign country would be a most unhealthy position in which to be, but this is not our position. The bulk of our industry at present is Irish-controlled. The bulk of new industry is foreign-controlled, but the spread by nationality of control is substantial so that there is no one country which has a dominant position in the establishment of new industry in this country.
Furthermore, the IDA are providing special services for the development of Irish-controlled industries with the greatest potential for growth in order to encourage and assist in practical ways the earliest possible expansion and growth of those industries. In addition, State companies are being urged to diversify into different activities of manufacturing industry with some success, as I hope the House will learn in the not too distant future. It seems to me that the policy we are following in order to deal with the problem with which we are faced is the policy most likely to give the best results as well as being the policy which the people most want us to follow.
Deputy Moore raised the question about the allegations that Dublin has too many industries and that the rest of the country is being denuded of them. This is a very difficult problem.
I do not think Cork is getting a bad run.
There are people in Cork who think it is. I should like to make it clear that this is largely a question of balance. As I said in this House on a previous occasion, if our only problem were to get full employment in the fastest possible time the course we should have followed would have been to develop Dublin and nowhere else. We could probably have a Dublin twice or three times its present size without giving any great incentives with all the people working in it but, of course, we would not have Ireland as a country as we know it. This policy would not, therefore, appeal to any of us. We must recognise because of the sheer size and facilities available in it Dublin attracts industries without any great effort or incentive being made by the State.
If we are to have an overall balance in our economy—I am thinking here in social as well as economic terms—then something has got to be done to counteract the natural attraction of Dublin. This is being done. The House is well aware of the additional incentives being given. Nevertheless, this does not mean that we are preventing industries setting up in Dublin. Any industry that wishes to do so can go to Dublin, the only control exercised is in regard to the availability of incentives. Some industries have been set up in Dublin without any assistance from the State. There are certain kinds of industries which will not get assistance in Dublin such as industries largely dependent on female labour—which is already scarce in Dublin—and in particular which would not entail any great capital expenditure which would mean that the promoters would be at no great loss if they were to pull out.
I want to make it clear that any worthwhile industry coming to this country which for very good and sufficient reasons cannot be located anywhere else except Dublin will, of course, get assistance—it will not be turned away. In fact we want to develop certain kinds of industry in Dublin. We have extended the small industries programme to Dublin on a more limited scale than the rest of the country. It would not be of any great assistance to Dublin or the rest of the country if the small industries programme were to be applied on its full basis in Dublin. One of the most obvious limitations is the one I have already mentioned—the employment of female labour. I want to make it clear that the object of doing so is to get a reasonable balance of economic and industrial development in the different parts of the country.
Deputy Clinton raised the point about the disappearance of An Foras Tionscal. The Bill which this House passed some time ago provided for its amalgamation with the IDA but the actual operation of that depends on ministerial order and it is planned that it will operate as from 1st April next.
I do not know the details of the case about which Deputy Clinton complained although I suspect what may be the background to it but if the Deputy would care to let me have details of the particular case I shall have it examined and I will let him know what was the reason for the decision which he said was conveyed.
I should like to confirm that the new industry grants are not given— certainly in any kind of substantial case—where there is any doubt about the viability of the industry under EEC conditions. Deputy Clinton raised the question about whether our industrial incentives will be allowed to continue in the EEC and whether we will be in a position to honour our contractual arrangements in the EEC. I do not believe for one moment that our contractual obligations would, could or should be in any way interfered with. The question of how long our incentives could continue in the EEC is one which would be the subject of negotiations but there is every reason for these incentives to continue, having regard to the fact that the basic policy of the EEC is directed towards the assistance of less developed regions in the community. I do not want to go into this in detail at this stage except to say that that aspect of it will be a matter for negotiations but as far as I can see and hope these particular negotiations should not be too difficult.
Reference was made to the unemployment figures and the fact that they fluctuate. They are, of course, affected by industrial disputes and they also include a number of smallholders. The real test, as far as I am concerned, is when one looks at the number of workers available with a view to the setting up of an industry. In a number of places we have found that even though the figures seem to show there are unemployed people in the area in practice there are not. We require, for the purpose of industrial development, more realistic statistics on unemployment. I do not mean the existing ones are untrue, but they are compiled on a basis which, when applied in practical terms for the provision of labour for a new industry, do not work out. Efforts are being made in this regard but it is a matter of importance that this should be done. Any Deputy concerned with the location of a new industry in his own constituency will probably have found that there is a big discrepancy between the numbers on the live register and the numbers actually available for work.
Would the Minister agree that the manpower surveys were of value?
They were of very considerable value. Indeed, the Drogheda one highlighted why the figures were not real in relation to the problem I am talking about. For instance, the numbers of married women who would take only part-time work, who were not available for full-time work, and a number of other factors were highlighted and, as the Deputy knows, other surveys of the same nature have been carried out and it is hoped to extend this considerably in the near future.
A question was raised by Deputy Clinton about using people on an agency basis to bring in industry from abroad. He referred to another Deputy —I know he was referring to a Deputy on this side of the House—who has been very successful in bringing industries into his own constituency. The suggestion was that people who did that kind of work ought to be paid for it. I know that the Deputy concerned is doing it at his own expense.
I examined this possibility quite some time ago and I concluded that it would not be feasible. One reason for this was touched on by Deputy Clinton when he mentioned the difficulty of determining who, in fact, was responsible for bringing in the industry. There is another aspect of it that is not alone difficult but dangerous and that is that if you had such a system you could well find that an agent of that nature would be paid a commission on the grant that was being given and would be very tempted to ensure that the grant was at least sufficiently large for the purposes of the promoter with some little addition to it that might cover his commission or add to his commission. The IDA has never done this kind of thing but one or two experiences they have had have indicated the real dangers that exist in this concept. It seems to me that it is not a practical proposition.
I would agree with the Minister there.
A question was also raised by a number of Deputies about industrial estates and some Deputies expressed scepticism as to their value and others, in a subconscious paradox, talked of their being an unfair advantage to the areas in which they were located. If they are an unfair advantage, then they are an advantage. The same Deputies said they were not an advantage to anybody.
In my view, the position is that for certain kinds of industry they are an attraction. Deputy O'Connor—and he has personal experience of this—mentioned certain kinds of industry that would not go near an industrial estate under any circumstances—I can think of a number of reasons for this—and some of them are located in his constituency. I am also aware of a number of cases in which firms would not come here except to an industrial estate because, first, the facilities were available in the industrial estate, the services were attractive to them but, secondly, it meant that they were dealing with a possible pool of labour of persons who were used to the industrial tradition and the firms felt that they did not have to break new ground in this respect.
It is a basic difference in approach between one firm and another. You get both types. We should serve both types. But, I should like to make it clear that such advantage as there is in having an industrial estate does not lie in the expenditure on it. A firm coming into an industrial estate and taking a factory there on a rented basis gets the factory at a subsidised rent but the amount of the subsidy is precisely equated to the amount of capital grant they would have got if they bought the factory. So that, there is not any real advantage in that way to them. There are certain advantages to certain types of firms. As to whether it is unfair to give this advantage to one area and not to another, I suppose if we were all to try to achieve absolute justice, we could do it and in this field alone that I am speaking about at the moment, we would end up with far fewer people employed in the country. It is a question of living with the problems as they exist and trying to achieve more industrial development and more jobs in any way that we can. I do not think the provision of industrial estates can be said to reduce the number of jobs in the overall economy. In fact, quite clearly, it increases them.
Areas which are fairly adjacent to industrial estates but not sufficiently adjacent to benefit directly are areas where the people worry most and who, in fact, on the face of it, have most reason to worry, but some areas from which complaints come, and which were represented in the debate today, have not really any justifiable complaints at all because they are not being affected by the industrial estates and they are doing all right with the other kind of firms which do not want industrial estates.
I would suggest again that Deputy Esmonde, as in the previous case I have mentioned, might give me details of the case to which he referred. I could not identify it from what he said but I will inquire into it and get in touch with him if he does so.
Deputy O'Connor thought that we should have more intensive advertising in Germany. It is true that there is a considerable potential there. Deputy O'Connor may not be aware of all the activities in this regard by the IDA because many of them occur in a very specialised field. One can understand that in this kind of business advertising in the daily newspapers is probably the least effective way for the IDA to advertise. They are trying to get at a much more limited market. Therefore, their efforts are concentrated, in so far as advertising is concerned, on business, banking and economics journals, through the banks and through chambers of commerce, industry, and so on. Deputy O'Connor, understandably, may not be aware of the extent of their activity. Nevertheless, having said that, I do think that there is a considerable potential there. In fact, I had intended to go to Germany on the kind of operation that Deputy O'Connor may have had in mind, towards the end of this month, but I have found it impossible to do so for reasons which arose over there as well as over here but the matter will be pursued, if not by me, at least by the chairman of the IDA. I can assure Deputy O'Connor that Germany will not be neglected in this operation by the IDA.
I think I have covered, so far as I can, all the points that were raised and I thank the House for a constructive debate on the Supplementary Estimate.
Tá cead agam ceist a chur ar an Aire nach bhfuil?
Má tá sí gairid.
Nílim ró-chinnte. Tabharfaidh mé freagra más féidir liom.
Beidh sí gairid. The Minister spoke about the Verolme dockyard and I am grateful to him for letting me know finally what the pronunciation is.
I would not swear to that pronunciation.
Let me ask the Minister the question and I hope he will not give me a technical answer. How much of the £2½ million that is voted for shipping in the Vote for the Department of Transport and Power this year will, in fact, go to the Verolme dockyard?
I am afraid I would require notice of that question.
This is what happens every time I ask this kind of question. I am inclined to think that the lot of it goes to the Verolme dockyard. It is a very high rate of payment for employment.
The Deputy has asked his question.
