This is an enabling Bill. We see its parallel in this House three or four times a year, when permission to spend certain amounts of money has to be sought as the extent of the previous permission is reached. From that point of view there is no objection to this Bill and no criticism of it. If we are to continue our policy of giving grants for new factories and grants to existing factories, and if we reach the permitted expenditure of £100 million, it is necessary to come to Parliament to get permission to spend more.
I welcome the fact that £100 million has been asked for this time rather than a smaller sum, which would mean coming back to the House again at an earlier date than will now be necessary. There is no objection at all to this Bill from that point of view. It enables us to discuss how this £100 million is to be spent. I intend to discuss the spending of that money and the giving of grants.
The application of this money is something that should be discussed here in depth, and in all seriousness. We must remember, in relation to the IDA, that the authority were not accepted by the present Government when they were instituted by the inter-Party Government of 1954-1957. The then Opposition spokesman for Industry and Commerce, an ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce, said that if he got back into power he would remove the authority completely. However, when he did get back he did not do so. This man was Minister for Industry and Commerce twice afterwards, and Taoiseach once, but he did not do anything about the IDA except to expand them.
I appreciate the work of the officers of the IDA and of the authority. I accept that that authority have been subject to Government policy. Government policy and direction have always been present in regard to the IDA. Very often, such Government policy and Government direction have been shrouded in a cloak of absolute denial in this House. Everybody connected with industry in any way knew that policies were being directed in a political manner and for the political advancement of the Government. That is not to say that the moneys spent by the IDA in giving grants did not do good. The officers of the authority did a good job. There were some failures. One spectacular failure which comes to mind was that of the Potez factory. This failure was not the responsibility of the IDA, but of the Government and Cabinet decisions made, in my opinion, with a view to keeping happy a select number of people who seemed to have allied themselves with the Fianna Fáil Party and the Government as industrial entrepreneurs of a rather dubious kind, giving them advantages to which they were not entitled. The main work of the IDA was good, and I hope it will continue so.
Since I became spokesman on Industry and Commerce, I have been responsible within the House in trying not to criticise anything that might be in question. I have tried not to destroy the hope of a job or an opportunity for a job anywhere in the country. I am sure the Minister will concede that to me. I have never taken political advantage of anything that might, perhaps, not have succeeded in its entirety. Politically, I have been too kind and gentle in that regard. I was criticised in a certain periodical for my attitude.
In relation to industrial grants, the Fianna Fáil Government and their Ministers refused for years to create a regional policy. They refused to admit that they ever suggested that a factory should go in one place rather than another. Everyone knows that they made such suggestions, but nobody can prove it. The Government refused to produce a proper regional policy for the whole of Ireland, including the Minister's constituency, in order to bring the various parts of the country into line with each other and in line with the proper development of the country. There is a table in the Preliminary Statement on Regional Industrial Plans for 1973-1977 which shows the population changes for various regions. In the years 1966-1971 there were increases in the various regions as follows:
East
|
7.1 per cent
|
South-West
|
2.7 per cent
|
North-East
|
2.7 per cent
|
South-East
|
2.6 per cent
|
Mid-West
|
1.7 per cent
|
There were reductions as follows in the following areas:
Donegal
|
.5 per cent
|
Midlands
|
.8 per cent
|
West
|
2.3 per cent
|
North-West
|
4 per cent
|
I conclude from that that the policy of the Government in relation to industrial grants was faulty over the years. They did not accept that it might have been possible 20 or 30 years ago to maintain the west at the level of services that were then the minimum services that could be provided for the population and, at the same time, to allow the east and the more prosperous areas to develop naturally, or even with greater grant aid, and pay for the fact that the people in the less well-off areas could not afford to provide those minimum services for themselves.
If we are to rely on industry for most of the jobs and rely for most of the tax from income tax and indirect taxation derived from earnings in those jobs, we must accept that the minimum services of guards, hospitals and roads and all the other paraphernalia of Government, which becomes more involved day by day, must be provided. We cannot afford to leave the snipe-grass country to look after itself any more. The level of taxation in the prosperous areas of this country will be such an impediment to personal advancement that people will not accept it. We will find ourselves in a most invidious position because of our lack of regional policy in industry.
We are now deciding to permit the Minister and his Government to spend an extra £100 million. We should have a regional policy. The party which I represent produced such a regional policy some time ago. It was very aptly named. It was a policy for people. The table on population for 1966-1971 which I have quoted, draws attention to the fact that that particular policy was aptly and properly named.
I would refer the House to the Preliminary Statement on Regional Industrial Plans, 1973 to 1977, page 1, where it states:
Regional development aimed at achieving a reasonable balance in opportunities and incomes between all regions of the country is a priority aim of Government policy. Industrial development is the principal instrument available to us to correct the present regional imbalance within Ireland and between Ireland and the more affluent countries of Europe.
This is the Government whose industrial policy it was for the best part of the last 30 years to say that they would not interfere in the location of a factory.
They came into power after the Industrial Grants Act, 1956 and the Finance (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act, 1956, which introduced two main incentives which are still there, that is freedom from tax on new exports and industrial grants. When they got their hands on those two pieces of legislation they continued to deny that they would ever suggest that there should be the allocation of a grant based on the need for jobs in a particular place. It is only after what was a very successful referendum that we have a preliminary statement regarding this.
The first page tells us for the first time that in times of worry the Government can sometimes change their mind, at least on paper. The paragraph following the one I have just quoted states:
The Government have now endorsed the IDA approach, which is consistent with the long-term objectives of the Government's regional development policies as published.
When did they publish those policies? In this report the Government are extremely careful to see to it that no votes are lost to them, that it will be to some extent a milk and water report and one which will not indicate that there is a necessity for a factory in one place which might result in the loss of votes in another.
The report points out that the plans for giving grants were prepared on the assumption that Ireland will be a member of the European Communities from January, 1973. I suggest with the inevitable increase in costs within the EEC, the imbalance to which I have referred, and the fact that the poorer areas will still need the minimum infra-structure of hospitals, buildings, roads, et cetera, will further exacerbate the fact that the people of the east have all the opportunities. The people of Louth and Dublin will no longer be able to carry on their backs a population that has not been aided to the stage where they can properly take their place as taxpayers. Tax will be from now on largely on income rather than on property. Rates have reached the stage where, as everybody knows, we are at the point of no return. If we are to have this taxation situation there has got to be what this party have insisted on over the years and eventually brought out a long policy document thereon, a proper accent on the development of the undeveloped areas of our country.
The conclusions which parallel with the conclusions in the Government White Paper on the EEC are modest in relation to the net number of jobs to be produced from 1973 to 1977, but even so they are factual. Industries very often came here which were not high capital intensive industries but this will not go on very much longer.
Our target for net extra jobs, almost all of which will be aided by grants, from 1973 to 1977 is 38,000 jobs in the manufacturing industry, an increase of 16.7 per cent. The estimated increase from 1966 to 1971 was less but of course it is a period of one year longer. It seems to me that we may still not be doing enough and it may require the fillip industries will get from Common Market entry to succeed in introducing the number of extra jobs we really require.
I now come to the point of whether or not the Government threw away the Buchanan Report in relation to grants for industries or whether they had any regard for it. One of the advantages of such a report is that you may not like it when you get it and there may be some severe criticism of it. For instance, in County Kerry the total activities of the Buchanan group appear to have been a chat with the county manager. They did not undertake a very intensive investigation of County Donegal either. At least Buchanan came out pretty clearly where he felt there should be capital in the way of grants applied and there should be an indication to industrialists when they should go.
The preliminary report is a Government one but is the headline on which the Industrial Development Authority will have to spend their money for the next four years. When one goes to Table A1 of this report one finds, under interim advance factory locations, Donegal, Ballybofey-Stranorlar, Ballyshannon-Bundoran, Carndonagh and Letterkenny. The exception is Donegal town. This brings in everywhere in County Donegal and means that the people who read this report and decide that their town is being left out are left at a considerable disadvantage criticismwise by the Government. If you are from Donegal it is very hard to criticise a report which indicates that you will have advance factory locations in possibly six different locations. Buchanan was far more specific. I have often said I would not go the whole way with Buchanan but I would agree with him that hard things had to be said and that he was prepared in certain cases to say them. In the west, for instance, we are to have advance factory locations in Ballina, Ballinrobe, Ballygar, Claremorris, Mountbellew and Swinford. In the South-west at Cahirciveen, Dunmanway, Listowel and Skibbereen. These are wide-reaching lists of places that are not easily open to criticism. At the same time it is doubtful whether this report is the sort of thing we would expect at a time when hard things may have to be said and hard decisions may have to be taken.
I should like to refer to the net regional growth targets for manufacturing employment for 1973-1977. These are given in percentages and, of course, if a lesser number of jobs are there the percentage can be greater if you are putting factories in, but my belief is that this report was, to some extent, produced in time for the referendum. I believe it does not come down strongly enough on the various places that should be developed and that a lot of the manufacturing job targets given at page 12 are lists of places and jobs which are politically easy for the Government to announce because they will insult nobody. You do not get a specific number of jobs for each town; you do not get a straight statement that a town has lost 500 jobs in the last 20 years and that there should be something done about it; you do not get a straight statement that a town is not suitable for a certain type of industry. You get, at page 12 for instance, in respect of Donegal, groups of towns—Ballyshannon, Bundoran, Donegal, Glenties and Killybegs. They are meant to get 500 new jobs. Letterkenny, Lifford, Milford, Ramelton and Rathmullen are to get 850 new jobs. Buncranna, Carndonagh, Moville— Gaeltacht areas—1,000 new jobs. I defy anybody politically to criticise that and gain votes. I defy anybody on the Government side to read out that list and lose votes. That is why I believe this is a milk and water type of document and something that has not got the bite in it that we need to have if we are to face up to EEC competition.
You get the same sort of thing in the north-west where jobs are really needed. Ballisodare, Collooney, Dromore West, Easky, Enniscrone, Sligo are to get 900 jobs and Ballymote and Tubbercurry are to get 250. North Leitrim, including Manorhamilton, is to get 200 jobs and then there is Ballinamore, Boyle, Carrick-on-Shannon, Carrigallen, Drumshanbo and Mohill— 350. I defy the Minister to read that out and lose a vote and I defy anybody to criticise it and gain a vote but it is not what we want. If there has to be a straight statement that perhaps Sligo should be a very decisive growth area and if that was to lose certain votes in Leitrim it is the duty of the Minister and the Government to say so and to say exactly what they are going to do about people who might have to move from Leitrim to Sligo. Instead of that, we have had a nice conglomoration of places that should get new jobs as a result of the expenditure of grant money and that is it. The list becomes extraordinary. It includes one marvellous definition—the Ring towns— Bandon, Clonakilty, Fermoy, Kinsale, Macroom, Mallow and Youghal— 1,000 jobs for those towns. That is not specific enough. There is no mention in this preliminary report, which I admit is only a preliminary report, about the type of industry that is likely to come in, no mention of from whence it is to come, no mention of what level of grants there should be in relation to jobs. I think it is a disappointment.
The fact that we must vote an extension of the amount of money we can spend on grants without reference to Parliament is a normal operation in this House, an operation that all of us have seen many times. From that point of view there is nothing against it. In relation to the other factor, which is that exemption from rates can be, by order, extended by the Minister to certain individual areas, this is only sensible also.
Mention is made in the explanatory memorandum of the town of Clara. If something happens in a town and you want to give an extra little help to a new industry or an extension of an old one I do not see any reason why such a measure as the exemption of rates should not be within the Minister's power. That again is welcome no matter who the Minister might be. That is a procedure that should exist in all legislation.
Having said that, I want to say that I am disappointed by the preliminary report. I am disappointed that it did not meet up to the challenge of the EEC, that it was not more specific, that it did not indicate what types of industry we were likely to attract, that it did not go into the question of whether there would be more men or more women employed, that it did not go into the question of the number of people seeking employment each year and whether they were male or female. From every point of view, it appears to be in respect of an excellent institution for which I have the greatest regard —the IDA—a report that was foisted upon them, or requested from them in time for the referendum which, happily, has gone the right way.