asked the Minister for Industry and Energy if the operations of the National Enterprise Agency are being discontinued by him; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
8.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - National Development Corporation.
7.
asked the Minister for Industry and Energy if the establishment of the National Development Corporation is a priority in the Government Programme; and, if so, when it will be operational in 1983.
9.
asked the Minister for Industry and Energy if he will establish the National Development Corporation under a company framework such as the Irish National Productivity Council or Kilkenny Design Workshops in order to allow it to function immediately.
10.
asked the Minister for Industry and Energy if the Government expect the National Development Corporation to be a major vehicle for job creation; and, if so, the type of projects he envisages being undertaken by the corporation.
11.
asked the Minister for Industry and Energy if the National Development Corporation to be set up by him will be a holding company for the following commercial semi-State companies; Irish Sugar Company, Irish Steel, NET, INPC, ESB, Ceimicí Teo, Bord Gáis Éireann, Bord na Móna and Aer Lingus; and if decisions on these matters have been taken by the Government.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 together.
The Programme for Government provides that the National Development Corporation will be established as an early priority and will be a major vehicle for job creation through investment in new commercially viable projects in areas such as natural resources, advance technology and import substitution. The commercial State bodies listed by the Deputy, with the exception of Aer Lingus, will also come under the aegis of the corporation.
Consideration is at present being given to the statutory and other measures, including the corporate framework, required to establish the corporation. It is not possible, at this stage, to indicate a precise date for commencement of its operations.
In the context of my consideration of proposals to establish the corporation, I am also looking at the operations of the National Enterprise Agency to determine how best these might be integrated into the activities of the corporation.
I want to compliment the Minister on the great whitewash job he has done on five questions in a row.
Congratulations or the converse are not in order at Question Time.
He attempted a whitewash job on five questions in a row but he did not answer any of those in the middle at all. I hope you will bear with me when I try to extract some information in relation to the questions I specifically asked. Has the National Enterprise Agency stopped its activities as of now, yes, or no?
No, it has not. Generally speaking, it is my thinking that its current activities should continue with a view to those activities being integrated into the National Development Corporation as soon as that body comes into being.
With regard to Question No. 8 would the Minister accept that the National Development Corporation was a priority in the Government's programme? If the Minister accepts that it is still a priority would he not consider setting it up on a company basis?
It is priority but it is very important to establish it on the right basis. The previous Government were very careful in the terms of reference they drew up for the National Enterprise Agency. We have something useful to work on there. It is a lesson to the present Government that one must be very careful in drawing up the terms of reference of this body because there is a serious danger that it could just waste money. I am sure the Deputy is aware of the many problems that have arisen in the public sector as a result of hasty, well-intentioned but, ultimately, ill-judged investment decisions. I am determined to set up the National Development Corporation on the very best basis. The Deputy has raised a reasonable question. He asked should we not proceed with a private company? While I would not rule that out I tend to lean against that type of proposal on the basis that it does not allow the House an opportunity to discuss the terms of reference in a way I believe it should. That was one of the defects of the National Enterprise Agency and one of the reasons why it has not had the public understanding it should have had in its work. Its terms of reference were never discussed in the House under any of the Governments which presided over it. There have been more than one. That was because there was not any statutory basis for it. It was set up under the procedures the Deputy referred to. My preference for the National Development Corporation is that it would be set up on a statutory basis as soon as possible. That means it cannot be brought into operation immediately but you will have a better product in the end.
Would the Minister not accept that it is quite possible to set it up and operate effectively on a company basis?
I do.
I know that the Minister is probably not serious about the National Development Corporation and he does not see it in the light that some of his Government colleagues see it. If the Minister was serious about it he could set it up tomorrow morning with two £1 shares by civil servants in his Department, if they had quite clear thinking about what the National Development Corporation was going to do, what the objectives were and what areas they would cover. It is not an idea that has crept up in the last day or week. It is stillborn since the mid-seventies. For a Minister to say here now that they are not clear in their minds what the objectives are, what projects it might do, it is quite clear to me, to the House and everybody concerned that the Minister and the Government are not committed to the National Development Corporation.
I have allowed disputes from Deputy Reynolds and a speech from the Minister.
That is not a question.
I have allowed a speech from each side.
The Deputy is required to put his comment in the form of a question.
Question Time is not a time for speeches from either side.
What the Deputy says is correct. This body could be established on a company basis and could be given the money to spend on that basis but that would not be adequate. It is important that there be proper discussion of precisely what limits are to apply to the way in which we spend money. From many years of activity in this area by State enterprise we have ample experience to realise that there must be proper criteria, that otherwise the whole effort would be a disaster. I do not think Deputy Reynolds would wish to push the Government into making ill-judged decisions in what is a very important area. We must establish the National Development Corporation on a proper basis so that it can earn a good reputation for itself. It is hardly fair to criticise me in any way for wanting to take the decision in a deliberate fashion so as to arrive at the right decision.
Can the Minister tell us in terms as simple as possible what he visualises as being the difference between the National Development Corporation concept and the National Enterprise Agency concept? Secondly, what advantage does the Minister consider the National Development Corporation concept to have compared with the National Enterprise Agency concept which would justify his demolishing a structure that was established firmly with the agreement of employers, trade unions and Government in favour of this new and rather mythical concept?
In the first instance, the difference is that the National Development Corporation would have a supervisory role in regard to existing State companies whereas the National Enterprise Agency have no such role. That would give the corporation an advantage in that they would be in a position to ensure that existing State company resources were used to act in partnership with whatever new projects might be established under the aegis of the National Development Corporation. There is no question of demolishing the National Enterprise Agency. As I said in response to Deputy Reynold's original question, I would envisage the agency continuing to operate and to integrate their activities in due course with the National Development Corporation.
I have further supplementaries.
May I take it that the Deputy is going on to another point?
There are a few other points.
The Chair is concerned that we do not have repetition.
I need a lot of information. I had expected to be given simple answers to my questions. Instead I have not had any answer but we all know the reason for that. Can the Minister give one or two simple examples of projects the Government envisage carrying out under the aegis of the National Development Corporation and which cannot be carried out under the aegis of the National Enterprise Agency? Would he not agree that the Kilkenny Design Workshops and the Irish National Petroleum Corporation, for example, were not hindered in any way from developing the role that this House intended them to develop as a result of their being set up under a company framework which was followed afterwards by legislation?
I have not ruled out finally the possibility of proceeding under the Companies Act. However, I have indicated that there are disadvantages in proceeding in that way. The Deputy may disagree but that is his right. The House will recollect that I have tended always to take the view that we should try to debate matters here before going ahead with them. If we were to proceed in this instance under the Companies Act we would be at the disadvantage of having gone ahead before the matter could be discussed in the House. That is not a very good procedure to adopt without there being good reason for it. Deputy Reynolds asked what the corporation might do that could not be done by the National Enterprise Agency. One example is the entering into joint ventures with existing State companies, something that the National Development Corporation in their supervisory capacity could do more easily than if the agency were involved.
The Minister talked about the criteria and the terms of reference of the National Development Corporation. He knows that this is part of the Government programme because it is Labour Party policy. Is the Minister telling the House now that the terms of reference and the criteria envisaged by the Labour Party prior to their entering Government are not acceptable to him and to the Government?
If the Deputy reads the joint programme he will find that the terms of reference are quite general. If one were setting up a company one would need to set out the details to a much greater extent than is either possible or desirable in such a programme. I do not see anything wrong with the joint programme in so far as it goes. It sets out a very ambitious and sensible approach to the creating of jobs in, or with the aid of, the public sector but it does not spell out the detail that it is now my responsibility to spell out.
Has the Minister any idea of the number of jobs the National Enterprise Agency-National Development Corporation are expected to provide in the next 12 months?
I could not give a figure in that regard. Until such time as the corporation are in being and the various projects can be examined, one is not in a position to give any forecast on the number of jobs that might be involved. I do not see any point simply in putting money into this body to enable them to create jobs that would not be viable. Any jobs they create must be ones that can stand on their own after the initial State input. None of us could envisage precisely the type of jobs or the number that might be involved in this framework. Of course the National Development Corporation could create any number of jobs they wished by simply spending the money and without regard to the viability of the jobs created. If they were to proceed in that way they would not be likely to last for more than 12 months. We are interested in a National Development Corporation that will create jobs that will last.
How many jobs is the Minister talking about?
One cannot give a figure in that respect because a proper market assessment would first have to be done of the projects. The NEA have done a considerable amount of work on a number of possibilities. That agency have been working for more than a year and a half under the terms of reference drafted by the previous Government but they have not created any jobs yet. Neither, so far as I know, have they been able to put a figure on the number of jobs that might be created. I intend to use that work but I will not be drawn by the Deputy into putting a figure on the number of jobs that would arise in 12 months until such time as I am convinced that any job created is viable.
I will allow only one more supplementary on this question.
Would the Minister not agree that the problem today is a lack of projects and not a lack of agencies or new structures and that it is a matter of indifference as to when or whether this new body will be set up since they will be no more than yet another layer of bureaucracy? If the name of the game is projects, we have ample agencies to undertake them but it is clear that the Minister is talking in terms of using a legislative framework to extend the period during which the Government might be pushed into a position of setting up the corporation. Just as what happened in a previous Coalition, we can expect the details to be announced on the day another election is called. Incidentally, why are Aer Lingus not included in the list?
The list is the one that was drawn up between the parties coming into Government. Presumably Aer Lingus were excluded because they operate in the transport rather than in the industrial area. There is a role for the National Development Corporation and that role is in the type of project that has long-term potential but a slower rate of return than the normal private sector investor would be interested in. The State can get involved in such projects because it can wait longer for a return than the private investor can wait.
Surely the area of transport is an obvious area in that regard.
The agency that we have is capable of doing all that.
I have allowed the final supplementary.
The Minister is trying to convince the House that the situation is otherwise.