Deputy O'Malley is in possession and has 30 minutes.
Estimates, 1983. - Vote 49: Industry and Energy (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion.
That a sum not exceeding £213,365,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1983, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Energy, including certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain loans, subsidies, grants and grants-in-aid.
—(Minister for Industry and Energy).
I want to deal briefly with four or five topics which come under the energy side of this Estimate. Unfortunately in the time at my disposal I cannot deal with them adequately but will raise some points in relation to them and hope the Minister will be in a position to reply.
I would like to say something about the Geological Survey which is in a state of flux at the moment. Apparently a task force was set up some time ago to make recommendations on what should be done when the Geological Survey move to their new headquarters. It appears the steering committee to which this task force were in the process of making recommendations have not yet reported but there were indications on the lines which their report might take. It appears those recommendations have been pre-empted by an extraordinarily rapid movement in the reorganisation of that side of the Department. I wonder if this is wise and, if it is a matter of which the Minister is not aware, he should make inquiries about it and see that less haste be followed in this instance until particularly those from abroad who were asked to look into this matter and make recommendations have an opportunity of doing so. This brings up the question which was dealt with as recently as yesterday by the publication of the report of the Advisory Committee on the Public Service who bemoaned the fact that the relationship between the general civil service and what is called the professional or technical civil service was still as far from solution as it had been several years ago. What is happening here is an effort to ensure that the technical or professional civil servants are kept at a remove——
I should have stated at the beginning that the debate on this item will conclude at 10.30 p.m. and there is an order admitting the Minister at 10 p.m.
Is that an order of the House or an agreement?
It is an order.
I do not mind cutting my contribution short if it will facilitate Deputies.
We will see how it goes. A few Deputies want to make short contributions.
I thought I should make the House aware of what the position is under the order of the House.
I want to move from the Geological Survey and their position within the Department to the general mining position. The last evening I heard the Minister of State make some typically optimistic and happy noises about mining. I want to point out to him that there is no time I have known when less satisfaction could be expressed in regard to the position of mining here.
I got some up-to-date figures recently from people involved in mining. The number of exploration licences today is half what it was five years ago; the number of people employed in exploration is half what it was five years ago; and the amount of money being spent on exploration has shown a marked decline in the last year or two. Contrary to the satisfaction expressed by the Minister of State the position is the opposite. I quote from column 1473 of the Official Report of 14 June when, after mentioning all the closures of mines in the last 12 months, he said:
However, the continued confidence of so many companies in Ireland's potential to produce further commercial base and metal discoveries is heartening.
I wonder if he spoke to any of those companies because every one of them express the absolute opposite to confidence in Ireland and Ireland's ability to produce anything. In particular they express their frustration and anger at the financial arrangements that exist here in relation to prospecting and subsequent exploitation of a mine if it is found.
I had intended to bring with me tonight to quote some paragraphs from it, the chariman's statement of a public exploration company, Oliver Prospecting, of which the chairman is a Dr. Waldron. Their annual report for 1982 issued last week and is available to the Minister and the public. In it the chairman reviews the present position in Ireland and ends by saying that their duty to their shareholders makes it incumbent on them to make their further investments in the United States of America and not in Ireland, although they are an Irish public company, and he explains why. He said even if they find something they do not know where they stand.
How long is it since any Irish mine made any genuine profit? How long more is it going to be? I want to remind the House that we are fortunate to have the largest zinc mine in Europe and the fourth largest zinc mine in the world and it is losing money. They have had to renegotiate their borrowings and they are in an unhappy situation to say the least. There is another ore body surrounded by them at the same site in Navan which was debated at great length in this House six-and-a-half years ago. The debate went for almost the entire month of February and some of March 1977. Unfortunately but for the fact that I had to go to the United States for Saint Patrick's Day we might have continued the debate into April. It was a very instructive debate and every day we learned more and more. I began to make forecasts. For example, I forecast that that particular ore body would not be in production by 1980, three-and-half years later. That was a cause of great merriment and scoffing at the time. I forecast that there was a distinct possibility that the £9.54 million agreed to be paid over in 1976, and which was subsequently ratified by legislation, would be wasted money so far as the Irish taxpayer was concerned and that it was a totally misleading concept to think that an equity holding in something as speculative as that could be of any value to the Irish Exchequer. That was laughed at and I was told we would have enormous dividends in time to come. We are here this evening six-and-a-half years later, and if we could be guaranteed that our losses were only £9.54 million would we not be lucky? There is still no planning permission six-and-a-half years after that money was paid over.
A Cheann Comhairle, could you imagine anyone paying £5,000 for a house if there was no planning permission, or £5,000 for a plot on which to build a house if there was no planning permission to enable you to do so? This very substantial sum of money — and, of course, it was very much more substantial in 1976 than it is today — was paid over in these circumstances with disastrous results. We have, perhaps, the worst example of a bad commercial decision ever made here. There were others where a great deal of money was lost, but it was lost after the event and frequently through circumstances which were beyond people's control, or through unforeseeable circumstances.
This money was invested not in the company incidentally, but handed over privately to the shareholders for their own personal benefit. It was not invested in the company and the country has seen the sorry result. Until such time as a particular system of return to the State that is fairly precisely forecastable is produced here, it seems unlikely that we will ever see the level of exploration we had here in the seventies. If there was nothing else I did in Opposition, I would wish to work out some system whereby on return to Government — I do not think we would need to enact it; I think it could be done administratively — we could hand out to exploration companies coming here looking for licences a set of the circumstances under which they would do their exploration. It is the uncertainty, above all else, that is causing the drift away from this country and from the exploration here and the loss of interest in mining or exploration in Ireland——
More than that.
——the constant uncertainty exhibited now by an Irish public company publicly saying in their chairman's statement that they now propose to invest in the United States rather than here although their commitment is to this country.
I want to deal briefly with the question of Whitegate and what flows from it. As recently as in today's papers we have had an indication that a price increase of 7p a gallon for pertol is being sought by the oil companies. We had an indication from the Minister of State last week that there would be a reduction of premium petrol of 20 US dollars a tonne on 1 July from Whitegate. If you combine the two together, the net effect is an increase, according to my calculation, of 3.25p roughly per gallon in the price of petrol.
To say the least of it, this is extremely disappointing. I presume the companies place most of the reason for it on the weakness of the púnt in recent months as against the US dollar. I am entitled to ask the Minister, and he in entitled to ask the companies, what their attitude is at the beginning of each year to buying dollars forward for the year. They know they will have to pay for oil in dollars. They know fairly accurately what their requirement will be because they are able to forecast it to within 1 per cent or 2 per cent. They can cover their dollar requirements quite cheaply in the course of the year. The cost to them of covering them forward for a year works out at about one-third of 1 per cent per month, which is relatively negligible if you take into account the difference in the interest rates between Ireland and the United States.
This problem has been added to by the devaluation in March. It has been made greater from that point of view. It is very disheartening and discouraging for the Irish consumer of oil, much as his consumption has dropped in recent years, to find that alone in Europe he is paying more for oil. Here we are talking in terms of increases within the next couple of weeks rather than decreases, when decreases are being passed on everywhere else. In present circumstances we are entitled to complain about that.
The Whitegate situation has improved considerably. The diseconomy, as it is called, is much smaller that it was six months ago. In this debate we are entitled to information on the present state of play as between the Government and the Commission on the question of the legitimacy or otherwise of the mandatory offtake from Whitegate. The Commission wrote an unusually strong letter on 1 February last, I think, pointing out to the Government under five or six different headings why, in their opinion, the arrangement made with the oil companies was in breach of the Treaty of Rome.
Obviously long since the Government will have replied to that. The House is entitled to know what the position is. Are the Commission satisfied now, or will they refer it to the court in Luxembourg? If so, has it been referred, or what is the present situation? The whole question of the future of Whitegate and the security it affords us, is very much bound up with what will happen in relation to this.
I want to ask the Minister what is the present position about the proposed pipelines for natural gas to Limerick and to Waterford. In November last, the previous Minister for Energy, Deputy Reynolds, told Bord Gáis Éireann to go ahead with those pipelines and to have the construction carried out in 1983 in order that supply would be available to these cities in January 1984. No work has started, and we are coming towards the end of June 1983. There is really no possibility of supply for those two cities in the first half of 1984 and it may well take a good deal longer. BGE were prepared to do this work, and I wonder why it has been held up, and when it will start. These are only the first two of several spur lines which will have to be built off the main pipeline between Cork and Dublin.
When Deputy Reynolds spoke on this Estimate the week before last, he asked various questions about the extension of that pipe to Northern Ireland. Although the Minister of State purported to deal with the energy aspects of this matter, he did not reply to those queries at all, or give Deputy Reynolds that information. I invite the Minister when he is replying tonight to do that.
I want to draw to the Minister's attention a development which has taken place over the past six to nine months. We have had the ESB and the Dublin Gas Company both advertising very extensively, electricity in the first instance and gas in the other instance, and inviting the public to consume more and more. The advertising is really aimed, I suppose, at trying to maintain or increase the market share of each of these forms of energy. Does the Minister consider that that kind of useless advertising is in the national interest? Both of these companies have expended large sums of money on advertising and it simply has the effect of increasing energy consumption and trying to get more members of the public to consume one type of energy as opposed to another. From a national point of view, it is immaterial which is used. The use of gas is probably preferable from the national point of view but I do not think that two bodies like this — one a semi-State body and the other up to very recently in receipt of a substantial State subsidy running to many millions of pounds per annum—should be allowed to do that. I recall some years ago they tried it and I stopped it then but I notice they are at it again.
On the question of alternative energies, the Minister of State spoke for some time about this the last day. I found it particularly disappointing that all the emphasis tended to be placed on forms of alternative energy that seem as a result of the experience of recent years to have no real prospect for this country. He said most of our resources were being expended on wind energy and small hydro. With regard to small hydro, some years ago when the ESB were asked to identify such possibilities, the best one they could identify was the weir above O'Brien's Bridge between Clare and Tipperary. They put a unit there at a cost of about £½ million and its capacity is one megawatt. If that was the most advantageous one, it does not speak very highly of the other possibilities of what is described as small hydro because that is so small as to be totally negligible. If we are going to have these at less than a megawatt it does not seem worth spending much money on them because we would want to have hundreds before they would make any appreciable difference to the overall situation here.
On the question of wind power, where most of our admittedly rather limited resources seem to have been spent in the last few years, we had a session in late February or early March here where the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, was answering questions rather laboriously for some days. I think the Minister was engaged in parliamentary reform elsewhere.
I was on an industrial promotion trip in the United States.
I am sorry. It was a laborious session because about half an hour was devoted to Deputy Reynolds, Deputy Flynn and others dragging information from the Minister of State in regard to each of 13 wind generators all around the country. However, it was worth it because it transpired at the end that all 13 of them were broken down, that the ESB had no confidence that any of them would ever work and that as soon as the wind got above x miles per hour they tended to crack up. They were unsatisfactory generally and there were environmental problems associated with them also. In the light of that experience, neither of those two forms of alternative energy have much future in realistic terms. They may, theoretically, be very attractive but they are not realistic commercially. Perhaps it would be better to spend a much higher proportion of our resources on wave energy of which we are fortunate to have probably the greatest resources in the world along our west coast. Very little money if any, has been spent on it and prospects for this country are far better than they are in these various alternative fields. Biomass is not very promising either. It has been discovered, as a result of the work done, that even to establish a very small station would require tens of thousands of acres and the station would still have a capacity of less than five megawatts.
The potential of wave energy is enormous but the technical problems are also enormous. We have an obvious advantage here and it is something on which we should be spending money. That is why I was a little taken aback to read in the newspapers the other day that we spent £¼ million on a solar demonstration model in Fota Island, Cork. There is no future for solar energy in this country. If every day was as sunny as today has been we might have a future but there are few days like that. Why waste such limited resources on that sort of thing? We should leave that to the people who will benefit from it. It is in their interests to develop it. We can buy the technology when they do but why spend money on something like that rather than spend it on something in regard to which we have the greatest advantage in the world and, therefore, have the greatest vested interest in promoting? Other countries will not spend money in promoting this because there is no point in their doing so. Do the Italians spend anything on wave energy? They do not; they spend it on solar energy. But we seem to do the opposite although we have all the possibilities in relation to waves.
I wish to say a few words about the Shannon Free Airport Developement Company. We had a debate on it here recently and I made some suggestions at the time. I should like to put one of those suggestions briefly before the House for the consideration of the Minister and especially for the consideration of the board of the company who are struggling to meet the challenges and the difficulties that beset them in that region at present. They should now establish a marine development division within the company to plan and to co-ordinate the development of the Shannon Estuary, which is one of the most valuable natural assets we have. It is certainly that region's most valuable asset. However, it has been insufficiently planned and there is a lack of co-ordination and co-operation in that region. It needs a new, outside body and Shannon Development have proved themselves ideal in this respect to take on the necessary work to have it developed.
Is the Deputy referring to its fishery potential or as a port?
As a port and its development for heavy industry and the other kind of developments which would be part and parcel of its development as a major deep water port for Western Europe. It is the finest deep water port in Western Europe and we are fortunate that we have a company like Shannon Development who would be more than willing to accept that challenge. It is relevant to the present problems there and if the challenge were taken up and this opportunity grasped, the Shannon Development Company would do it excellently and it would make an enormous difference, not just to the region but to the country. When one thinks of the expenditure, for example, that the Dutch and Belgium governments had to engage in in the building of large, essentially artificial, harbours and the relatively small expenditure that would be involved in the development of this great natural harbour, it would be a great tragedy if it was not undertaken in a co-ordinated way. Unfortunately, the various local and interdepartmental divisions have been allowed to hinder its progress up to now. If over the next few years we allow this opportunity of developing it to pass, we will not be thanked by future generations for being so remiss.
Would the Deputies please bear in mind that the debate concludes at 10.30 p.m. and that the Minister is due to be called at 10 o'clock?
I want to say a few brief words, firstly, about Clondalkin Paper Mills and to remind the House that the Government have expended approximately £1.7 million on the acquisition of this mill as a going concern. That acquisition took place approximately six months ago. I am disappointed that there has been no indication up to the present that any appreciable progress has been made towards arranging the reopening of that plant for the purpose for which the Government acquired it — namely the production of paper. One point seven million pounds is a very heavy amount of public money to be lying idle, tied up in that premises and plant. I calculate, on an approximate basis, that the holding charges on that money would be in the region of £4,000 a week, so that every week that goes by an extra £4,000 of public money is wasted, put to no purpose whatsoever.
I urge the Minister to ensure that that potentially productive asset, whose product is so urgently needed all over the country — local government service, semi-State service and so on — is produced at Clondalkin. They have the machinery and the skilled manpower are standing by, waiting only too anxiously to get back into the mills to make paper. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that there are imminent plans pending to enable production to take place again shortly and that the State will then begin to see some return on the very wise and proper investment made by the Government.
I turn now to the question of energy costs, particularly ESB costs and charges which are such a vital factor and which affect the entire industry base. The Minister is clearly conscious that all is not well with the prices and costing arrangements of electricity because he has recently set up a committee to make inquiries into the prices and costings of the ESB. His action in setting up a committee is too little and too late. It is well known and conceded that our energy costs and electricity prices are among the highest in Europe, if not the highest. That has taken a dreadful toll of our existing industries and I am quite certain that it has taken an appalling toll of the potentiality of new industries coming in to open up here.
The question of energy costs has become the single most vital factor in determining the viability of most industries. I know that wage costs are a factor also, but the wage element is overemphasised. The energy cost is a key and vital factor. I do not know whether the Minister needed to set up this committee at all. It must be clear that the prime agency controlling the price of electricity and energy here is, in fact, the Government. The reality is that the Government, through their agencies, control the price of electricity and can direct the price of electricity and of energy to be virtually at any level they want. The Government have made a decision that energy costs are to be at the full replacement and full profit-making level and that availability of energy at cost price, as it were, is not the policy to be adopted.
There is a dilemma involved here which Deputy O'Malley analysed very well at some length and I was glad that he did. He referred to the two alternative policies open to a Government on this issue: on the one hand, making the energy available at a low price — at cost or slightly above it — and looking to the raising of the revenue lost thereby in other ways which would result from a low energy policy. However, I was a little disappointed at the end of his analysis that he did not come down in favour of either policy. I would like to hear from him and his party what line of policy on that issue they would advocate and follow.
I have no doubt that the policy which we now follow and have followed for quite some time — the high energy cost policy bringing in a substantial tax yield, which, no doubt, is the intent and purpose of it — is the wrong policy. We have been mistaken in following and persisting in that line of policy for as long as we have. It has been the cause of collapse of so many industries which would otherwise be viable. One example is cited in a recent newspaper article. It concerns a small factory, but illustrates my point. The Sunday Press of June 5 reported that a city factory was closing down. It refered to the Sellotape factory in Finglas which was to close in a couple of weeks' time with the loss of 27 jobs. The company said that losses had continued at the factory despite the reorganisation and that the high price of fuel and production costs had forced the company to close down. Admittedly, only 27 jobs were involved, but that is a classic example of the effect of high energy costs on our industries.
The ESB have pointed out that the biggest cost element is in the cost to them of fuel and that they are not enabled to buy their fuel to make their electricity at world competitive prices but are compelled — the Chief Executive states — to purchase their fuel oil at prices which are fixed by Government directives. The Chief Executive, Mr. Moriarty, in his speech on 17 May 1983 stated that the Government fixed the prices at which they purchased their peat, their oil and their natural gas. He pointed out that the level of hydrocarbon tax here is the highest in Europe and on the question of natural gas that gas accounted for 50 per cent of their generation in 1982. The last budget increased its price by 50 per cent. He goes on to point out that if gas was supplied by Bord Gáis Éireann to the ESB at cost it would produce a reduction in electricity prices of 12½ per cent. Bord Gáis Éireann supply their product to one source at cost. It is not a question of them, by virtue of some magical reason, being disentitled to supply their product at cost anywhere. As their 1982 report indicates, their sales to Nítrigin Éireann are at cost and they supply between £11 million and £14 million of their product to them. I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with it.
If Bord Gáis Éireann were to supply gas to the ESB for electricity manufacture at cost we would have the real value of a 12½ per cent reduction in electricity prices but on the other hand, as a short term result, as was pointed out, there would be a revenue loss of £80 million. As against that one must balance a number of things: first of all the hardpressed domestic consumer of electricity would find a very welcome relief from the real hardship that many thousands of them suffer at the hands of the ESB. Thousands of families await the arrival of the ESB bill with terror and trepidation. The ESB cut people off when there are very small amounts of arrears due. An appreciable reduction of 12½ per cent in the price of electricity would be a major factor in inducing new industry to set up, both indigenous and from abroad. Entrepreneurs in this country and firms from abroad considering the question of opening a factory in this country look at the price of electricity. They would be attracted by a competitive electricity price which we do not have at present. The position is quite the reverse. Many would-be entrepreneurs go to other countries where they can obtain their electricity at considerably lower prices.
It is reasonable to say that a firm measure of the new industry which is around — a scarce commodity I agree — would come here if that key competitive factor was available. The Minister was not slow to point out how important it is to be competitive. The idea of competition was something of a recurring theme in his speech. He said that all-round competitiveness must be central to our strategy for recovery. He also said that growing energy costs are seriously affecting our industrial development and competitiveness. Our indigenous industry is uncompetitive internationally. He followed that up by saying that we must be prepared to learn from the success of industrial countries such as the US, Germany and Japan. One thing we could learn from them is the importance of keeping our energy costs as low as possible and subsidise them, if necessary, as many European and other industrialised countries do. The fact that our energy costs to industry are at their present level pushes many firms like Sellotape over the brink. There are many firms and jobs which could be preserved were they not pushed over the brink by the high cost of energy. Fóir Teoranta spends many millions of pounds bailing out industries and trying to maintain employment. As against the £80 million short-term loss in revenue we must balance the money that would not be paid out in rescue by Fóir Teoranta. If we preserve existing industry by keeping down energy costs our foreign exchange position would improve substantially. There would be savings on social welfare payments which otherwise would be paid to the thousands of people consigned to the dole queues. The item I am referring to is not the sole factor but it is an important one as the Sellotape example illustrates.
Deputy O'Malley in his speech highlighted the dilemma that exists. He made an interesting comment and from his experience in Government I am sure it was calculated and no accident. At column 1492 of the Official Report of 14 June he said:
Those of us who have been in Government know the intractable view of the Department of Finance on this matter, that the highest level of charges should at all times be extracted.
The words he used were "the Department of Finance" and not "the Minister for Finance". There is a clear message to be learned from that. It is time the Minister for Finance made it clear in the Department of Finance that the view that the highest possible amount should be extracted should be tractable and not intractable as heretofore.
The chief executive of the ESB concluded his speech on the question of setting up a committee to deal with this problem. His closing words appealed to me. They might bear some relationship to the committee to inquire into ESB prices. He said that the idea of setting up such a committee is journeying to never-never land where problems disappear by promising yet another committee of inquiry which will sit for a long period and confirm the obvious in a report on which no action will be taken. The inquiry into ESB prices will not meet the urgent problem we are faced with. If we continue the way we are, unemployment will go over the 250,000 mark. These are difficult times in Europe and throughout the industrialised world. I appreciate it is not confined to this country. However, we are getting the worst of it and coming out top of the unemployment league percentage-wise. There must be some reason for that. I feel strongly that energy costs are a vital factor in putting us on the top of this league in these difficult times.
That is the instinct I have on this issue though. I am well aware that one's instinct is not a sufficient basis for bringing about a redirection of economic policy. However, I would have thought that if there had to be an inquiry a far better one would have been the ascertaining of the overall effect of imposing a change of direction in energy prices and coming back from the Department of Finance's parameters of insisting on extracting the maximum possible price in respect of energy. I should like to see a study being done on what the alternative would be — that if we lose the £80 million in revenue on the one hand, what would be the plus that would be counterbalanced against that loss. I have never seen any report that attempted to estimate on those lines.
In the short time remaining to me I should like to speak to the question of protectionism and the defence of our industries. The Minister touched on this subject in his speech when he exphasised the importance of improving our performance in export markets and said that the greatest threat facing us was the move towards short-sighted protectionist policies even among countries who have been committed traditionally to a free and open market. The Minister's phraseology represents an understatement. We are not in a situation in which the industrialised countries, including those in Europe, are moving towards short-sighted protectionist policies. We have gone well beyond that situation. In fact, they are practising protectionism against this country among others and they are doing so in a heavy and widespread manner. The Minister has pointed out that the Government can use all their influence in the EEC to prevent any form of protectionism. That has been tried. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs has raised this matter at some conferences in Brussels while the Taoiseach adverted to it at a meeting in Stuttgart but I find no indication that there is to be any lessening of those protectionist measures.
This whole subject was examined in some detail by a committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe who were commissioned to make a report on the situation. Their report is document No. 5052 which was published on 19 April last. Some of their comments are interesting. For instance they say there is little evidence to suggest that the international trading system is in any way open and liberal and that these protectionist practices seem to be so much a part of business policy and supported so often, if not initiated, by the Governments themselves, that any idea of a return to free trade can be described only as wishful thinking. The report continues that every party — governments, management and labour — will claim to be in favour of free trade and will protest vigorously about occasional incidents such as France's recent decision to have Japanese video equipment dispatched to Poitiers for custom clearance. The committee go on to say that public opinion has very little idea of the extent to which protectionism is inherent in the presentday trading system. They say also that the over-all assessment is that in world terms between 51 and 55 per cent of total imports are subject to restrictions.
It seems to me that the only country not involved in such activity is Ireland. The importance of our ensuring that there be free trade worldwide has been emphasised, since we rely on free trade for our exports to a large extent, but would anybody here advocate the policy whereby the rest of the world practices protectionism while we practice free trade? There cannot be such a situation. It is suggested that were we to take any measure to defend our industries or to preserve vital aspects of our employment, something which very easily we could do, we would be subject to retaliation from outside. The situation is that the retaliation is taking place against us and that we are suffering and losing jobs because of these measures that are practised in so many countries. The Council of Europe committee estimated that there are no fewer than 100 different forms that this protectionism can take apart from tariffs involving harassment, customs clearance and all sorts of obstacles that are put in the way of the receipt of exports.
It was pointed out in an independent report recently that the French and Germans were likely to come in for strong criticism regarding trade barriers. I do not think they mind that very much. They seem happy enough to accept strong criticism if it means that they can protect their jobs. I should be happier that we would come in for some of the criticism if at the same time we were protecting jobs. The situation is similar to one in which somebody kicks you on a regular basis and apart from a very mild protest you do not do much about it. The result is that the other person continues to kick you but if the point is reached where you kick back, the person who has been kicking you looks back in startled fashion and asks why you have kicked him. When you have told him the reason the message may then sink in. Judging from the action that has been taken by the Taoiseach and the Minister of State, the Government must be well aware of what is happening worldwide in this respect. Consequently, I do not think it would be inappropriate for us on a temporary and selective basis to use defence mechanisms to protect some of our vulnerable industries which would otherwise go to the wall. In this way we could preserve employment in industries that are on the brink, and of which there is no shortage. I am sure the people are beating a path to the Minister's door to point out to him their difficulties. It might be a salutary exercise for our partners in Europe and for the other industrialised countries if we were to indicate that it takes two to tango and that if they are to indulge with impunity in these measures we, too, will be compelled, not in any aggressive fashion but in a defensive fashion, to take steps to defend our vulnerable industries.
I agree to a large extent with what Deputy Taylor has said. Perhaps we have taken the words of the bible too literally and have turned the other cheek too often in regard to the protectionism being practised by almost every other country in the EEC. It is about time we adopted some of the steps which Deputy Taylor is advocating.
There is also the question of changing our policy in relation to energy. The economy of Ballina and north Mayo depends largely on two industries, Asahi and Hollister. They have faced up to their problems in a very realistic way both in relation to the energy conservation policies they have successfully adopted and also in relation to some voluntary redundancy. It is time the Government did something for Asahi. They held a large public meeting in Killala recently which was attended by public representatives from all parties. We were shown a set of charts by Asahi personnel which showed quite clearly the effect of energy and transport costs on the company. The company, together with the work force and the unions, are adopting a sensible attitude but they can point to the fact that the same material which is being manufactured in Killala is being imported into Europe from the United States where there is a hidden subsidy because it is manufactured on a low-cost energy basis. They can also point to the exceptional percentage cost of their product represented by energy and transportation costs. I am sure they will be very worried by suggestions that the price of petrol is to be increased by six pence or seven pence a gallon. This would have a very severe affect on Asahi and it should be clarified.
We must turn our attention to the whole question of small industries in which I know the Minister has a special interest. I do not mean industries employing 40 or 50 people but those involving two, three or four people. I have in mind the industrialist setting up business to supply a specific need and employing, perhaps, himself and one or two others. When I send people to the IDA offices in Sligo, Galway or Dublin to get information on import substitution they may come back a week later without having obtained any hard facts, although some of them may have done a circuit of the three offices. They get plenty of general advice but not hard information on which they can set up an industry.
Would this be their first visit?
I have two people who did the rounds looking for specific information in relation to a number of small items which are being imported. I have tried myself and got vague generalities but no hard facts. When Deputy Reynolds was Minister he was instrumental in sending an informative exhibition to a number of areas. If the IDA are approached by people who have skills but not the requisite information they should be able to tell them all they need to know. They should be able to give the figures.
I am concerned about what the Deputy is saying and I would ask him to give me information about the particular cases.
I will give the Minister the information. There may be lots of people with expertise who would be able to satisfy a need in their own areas.
Perhaps we need to re-educate people in the various State-sponsored bodies. A small industry need not employ 20 or 40 people; if it employs two or three people it can make a great contribution to the economy of a small village. The IDA could give practical help to people looking for information. If that were done, we would be able in a very short time to eliminate many imports. There are people in every county who would be able to employ three or four men or women if they had some expert advice.
I must say in fairness to the western region of the IDA that they did interview people who had some ideas. Employment could be generated by more co-operation between the county development teams and the IDA. The size of an industry should not necessarily be the criterion but unfortunately in many instances when a person makes an inquiry and says he will be able to create only two or three jobs he gets very little help.
Another problem is the reluctance of various bodies to make decisions until they know that another body will make a favourable decision. There is a "catch 22" situation where one body will agree to a grant if a second body say they will give finance. Potential industrialists are involved in a tug of war between, say, the ICC, on the one hand, and the IDA, on the other. I had a case which, fortunately has been sorted out, where 22 jobs were at risk for four months because of the reluctance of both these bodies to give a decision until the other did. A crazy situation existed. Fortunately it has now been solved and in a village in Mayo shortly 20 people will be working. Some people in this House might ask, "What is 20 people?" The Minister comes from a rural constitutency and he knows what 20 people being employed will mean to the economy of that village. One cannot repeat too often that the more small industries we have—and I mean small—the better off we will be. I will be parochial again for a while and——
Deputy,
I remind you that we have 20 minutes left and I believe two others want to get in.
——refer to the question of Ceimicí Teoranta. I know the Minister met their chairman last week. Ceimicí Teoranta have one of their factories in Croy in the parish of Knockmore. It was established there in the mid-thirties and that factory kept that rural parish for the last 50 years. Now because of a decision to initiate a whole survey into the starch industry, Cork is to get the jobs that Mayo has had for the last 50 years. I made inquiries at the time the decision was made and I was told by the IDA that they were very well aware of what the decision to grant this industry to Cork would mean to Croy and that they would do their utmost to replace the jobs in Croy. It is all very well to take such a decision, but the IDA have a moral obligation to replace the 35 or so people who are very shortly to be made redundant in Croy. As a result of what has happened, Ballina port will now be obsolete. The vast bulk of the craft coming into that port were small boats with starch for Croy, so now 25 or 30 dockers who are part-time working on about 35 boats will be redundant also as a result of the decision that was taken.
Min Fhéir Teoranta are not in my constituency but I have a tremendous interest in them. I ask the Minister to give a decision in relation to the problems that have arisen there and I ask him also in fairness to make certain that the redundancy which these men are looking for will be on the same level as his Government have already given others who are not even employed by a semi-State company. I ask him also whether he has consented to the request he got from the Killala Development Company who were very anxious to get a grant for the study of solar energy. I believe he has a very good brief from the company and I would be grateful if he could let me know at some stage, not necessarily tonight, whether he has come to a decision in that matter.
Deputy Kitt, you and Deputy Foley have 16 minutes between you because the Minister must reply at 10 p.m.
I endorse what Deputy Calleary said in relation to small industries. Like him, I have known of many difficulties small industries have had with, on the one hand, the IDA and, on the other hand, the ICC. As he has stated, it is difficult for them to get help. One thing that has always amazed me is that in the west of Ireland we have never been able to get an ICC office, and I hope that the Minister will make some inquiries with a view to locating an ICC office in the west to serve the needs of people who have enterprise in the west of Ireland area.
I have been encouraged, as I am sure the Minister has, by the number of people who have applied to Bord na Móna for a scheme of grants to develop privately-owned bogs which was made possible by the Turf Development Act, 1981. What was encouraging about this was that we had a high rate of grants for groups of people who were prepared to enter into agreement to develop a bog for the production of turf and turf products for fuel. The amount of money for the year ending 1982 in grants which were approved was in the region of £1.26 million and that scheme helped 2,648 individuals and gave employment to about 2,000 people for the turf-cutting season. Under the scheme 300,000 tons of turf were produced by private developers which represented a saving of £17 million approximately in crude oil imports. I mention this scheme because in the past there was an alternative whereby people could get a grant from the local authority under a local improvement scheme for bog roads and bog drainage, but more recent regulations on that would appear to give a very low priority under the local improvements scheme for bog drainage and bog roads. Now the priority seems to be for developing farm roads. I ask the Minister to ensure that more funds are made available under the Bord na Móna programme because it has been a great success.
It is for private bog development. That does not cover roads.
For privately-owned bogs. It covers access roads as well as bog drainage. It has been a great success because the advice has been very good and the scheme has given rise to great enthusiasm because it is the only such scheme in existence at the moment.
I was concerned, as were people in my constituency, to hear on the radio this morning and to read reports about the possibility that the briquette factory at Derryfada will be deferred. According to reports that we heard and read, this was supposed to have been discussed at the Cabinet meeting at Barrettstown Castle. The report that I heard was that not only was the briquette factory to be deferred, there was also the possibility that the Tuam sugar factory would be axed. These projects are in my constituency. I will have an opportunity to talk about the Tuam factory at another stage. As regards the briquette factory, this project was approved in May 1979 when the area had lost the power station which was to be sited there. Since then there were great hopes that the project would start pretty soon; in fact it was to start in 1981. However, we had reviews and surveys and eventually it was not until 1982 that some money was made available under the Estimate for Bord na Móna to start work on it. We had the turning of the sod ceremony for this £21 million project in November 1982 but I have had occasion since to ask the Minister when the contract will be awarded. I was told it would be awarded by Easter but it has not yet been awarded. The Minister may tell me that there are problems between the local authority and Bord na Móna with regard to charges for services but that is not an adequate reason for the delay by the Government in reaching a decision about the project. I hope the Minister will tell me that the Government do not intend to defer that project. It is vital for the people of north Galway and south Roscommon. I have been told that the factory will have an output of 140,000 tonnes and, when fully operational, will provide 110 jobs. I understand that additional jobs will be made available in the development of the Derryfadda bog and that if an outside contractor is involved in the construction of the factory more jobs will be provided.
I am unhappy about the way FEOGA grants are distributed for the installation of electricity in rural areas. The grants are processed very slowly. I hope they will be extended because at present they are given only to people involved in agriculture but there are many people living in isolated areas who are not involved in agriculture solely. They should qualify for a grant for the installation of electricity. I have always wondered why local authorities are not helped if they build a house for a family living in an isolated area where the capital cost for electricity is very big. The Minister should endeavour to have more money made available so that electricity can be provided to people living in rural areas at a reasonable rate. I should like to know if the Government have made a decision on the application for a price increase by the ESB. It is reported that the ESB have applied for an increase of 10 per cent and the Minister should tell the House if that is so. I should like to remind the Minister that last year Deputy Reynolds, as Minister, approved a 5 per cent increase, the lowest increase for years.
I should like to deal with two towns in my constituency in need of new industries. The people of Loughrea, through the local chamber of commerce and other organisations, have made representations to the Government seeking an industry to replace Tynagh Mines. Since the mines closed that area has experienced further difficulty with the closure of the cotton factory and the Westfalian carpet factory. The only industry in the town giving employment on a major scale is the Schlegel factory. I understood that a company to manufacture computer cabinets was to be located in Loughrea but I have not heard much about that proposal in recent times. Will the Minister indicate to the House if there is a possibility of the IDA getting an industry for that town? I accept that the IDA are actively promoting the town. Tuam is also in need of industries. In fact, there is an advance factory available in the town.
My contribution will deal mainly with the Industrial Development Authority who have embarked on the preparation of a strategic plan for the period 1982-92. That work is being undertaken to pinpoint development opportunities in those years and ensure that the IDA are geared to operate effectively in the changing economic environment. It will analyse labour force trends and seek ways of optimising the contribution which commercially-based production and services can make towards job creation and economic development. The south-west region of Cork and Kerry which has been successful in the past is no longer in a position to attract suitable industries, particularly as far as Kerry is concerned. According to the IDA annual report for 1981 the fixed asset investment for Cork was £157.5 million while for Kerry it was £5.8 million. The grant commitment for Cork was £57 million compared to £4.7 million for Kerry and, according to that report, the job potential for Cork was 6,103 as against 512 for Kerry. Those figures indicated the complete imbalance as far as Kerry is concerned.
In view of the massive unemployment in Kerry I appeal to the Minister to consider declaring Kerry a special region under the direction of the IDA. If that occurred the county could seek new industrial opportunities. We have an excellent county development team but we need an independent authority to seek further industry. At present we are linked to Cork on a regional basis and we are not getting the investment or expertise that we should from the IDA. Over the years Kerry has built up a good industrial reputation and in Tralee we have one of the best AnCO training centres in the country and an excellent regional college. They will play an important part in the future industrial development of the county.
In Castleisland recently a factory premises which has been vacant for some years was put up for public auction but it has now been decided to sell it by private treaty. Some years ago that factory was opened with a blaze of glory and the people involved obtained in the region of
£92,000 from the IDA. That casts a reflection on the IDA. The factory should be taken over by the IDA and held for the people of Castleisland and north Kerry. I appeal to the Minister to take a personal interest in this matter.
If the Minister designates Kerry as a special region I am convinced he will get the co-operation of the local authorities, trade unions, industrialists and business people to guarantee the success of the venture. That would be a step forward and would result in many new jobs being created. Will the Minister consider extending the gas pipeline from Limerick to Tralee? I am grateful to the Minister for taking a personal interest in the Kingdom Tubes factory in Tralee and I should be obliged if he would indicate the current position with regard to the jobs there. A commitment was given by the IDA some time ago that they would endeavour to get a suitable alternative industry because 300 jobs have been lost and approximately £30,000 per week taken out of the economy of the town. Some time ago I asked the Minister to consider extending the operations of SFADCo to the north Kerry region. Such a move would be of great benefit to that area.
I should like to thank the Members who participated in the debate. It is true to say that Deputy Foley and I have had discussions about Kingdom Tubes. In fact, I replied to a parliamentary question about the matter tabled by the Deputy today. The Tánaiste was also in touch with me on a number of occasions about this subject. Deputy O'Malley referred to the Geological Office. Some minor staff changes took place there for operational reasons and I do not think they were of any significance. They do not prejudge the inquiry the Deputy referred to. The Deputy was also somewhat sceptical about what he described as the typically optimistic and happy noises of the Minister of State about mineral exploration. As the Deputy is aware, mineral exploration suffered all over the world because of the depression which has led to depression in the usage of minerals and also, in respect of certain metals, there have been technological advances which have reduced the usage of metals in particular processes in terms of the volume of metal required. However, I am glad to say that recent predictions I have been reading in relation to the United States economy suggest that metal mining is one of the areas where it is expected that there will be quite significantly more growth in the four-year period 1982 to 1986 than there was in the previous four-year period. It is too early yet to say if this will extend to Europe and to Ireland.
Deputy O'Malley made some very reasonable points when he referred to what he described as uncertainty facing people who are engaged in mineral exploration. I would be most anxious to remove any difficulties that exist in this area. I am aware that work is being done in the Department to bring forward some new ideas. There have been discussions with the representatives of the people concerned and, I hope, we can do something about it. I appreciate the interest shown by Deputy O'Malley. As far as the Bula ore body is concerned I do not propose to get involved in a discussion on the rights and wrongs of what may or may not have happened six-and-a-half years ago. I intend to use my good offices to the maximum possible extent to achieve a joint operation of the two ore bodies, Bula and Tara. From my point of view, it is clearly important that this be done in a harmonious fashion. It would be highly undesirable if the usage of the ore body were to be delayed by unnecessary disputation. I have asked an independent party who has a particular knowledge in the mining field, to assist my Department in mediating between the two mining companies concerned.
Deputies referred to the situation in regard to Whitegate. I have already indicated that the Government have established a committee, who have reported to me, on oil prices here. It includes consideration of Whitegate amongst other things. No decision at this point has been taken on the findings of this report. I expect to be discussing it with my colleagues in the reasonably near future. I have replied to the letter received from the European Commission in regard to the mandatory offtake regimes. There has been no reply to our letter at this point. The Irish courts have yet to consider definitively if they will proceed with their consideration of this case in advance of the views to be made by the European Court about their interpretation of the situation. Deputy O'Malley also referred to the pipelines between Limerick——
Before the Minister leaves Whitegate, could he deal with the question of prices relating to that?
I would prefer to deal with the subjects in the order in which I have the papers here. I have dealt with the question of prices to some extent. I have indicated that we had an inquiry into oil prices which included the Whitegate factor along with some others. That has yet to be considered by the Government. I do not believe that at this point I have much to add to that.
I note what the Deputy said about the ESB and Dublin Gas advertising very extensively. We have to realise that these two companies, to some extent, are in competition with one another. I suppose one could argue that all advertising is wasteful in a sense, even advertising in the purely private sector. If only people had enough information without advertising they could go and buy the cheapest product. There is no doubt that if Dublin Gas are to succeed in making adequate use of what is, hopefully, to be a very premium and profitable market from everybody's point of view, of natural gas, they have to persuade many people to make the capital investment involved in becoming gas consumers. That involves them in an advertising campaign. Likewise, I suppose it is equally true to say that the ESB have to try, by advertising to ensure that they are able to retain their consumers of a product of which they have excess supply capacity over present demand. However, Deputy O'Malley has raised this point about the competitive advertising in this natural resource field. I would not like to come to a hasty conclusion on it. I will have a further look at it to see if any advice from me would be appropriate to the bodies concerned.
I also note what Deputy O'Malley says about alternative energy. He has made a reasonable point in regard to the relevance of solar energy vis-a-vis wave energy here. At the moment we seem to be mere spectators as far as wave energy research is concerned rather than anything else, whereas we have become involved more directly in other fields. I will ask the Department to review the alternative energy programme in the light of what the Deputy has said.
I was interested in the point the Deputy made about SFADCo becoming involved in marine development in a more structural way. I fully agree with what he said about the Shannon Estuary being one of our major natural resources. It, along with the Bantry Bay area, was identified in the Telesis Report as an underutilised natural resource. It came out in that report that the natural port facilities which exist there should be used not alone for serving the immediate hinterland of the ports in question but as a trans-shipment facility serving Europe as a whole where the larger delivery vessels could trans-ship their materials to smaller vessels. I will ask SFADCo to give me their views on this matter so far as it is relevant to their and my responsibilities for industrial development. I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that this is primarily a matter affecting the responsibility of the Minister for Transport.
I was also interested in Deputy Taylor's contribution in regard to Clondalkin Paper Mills. As he said, the Government have acquired the premises in Clondalkin. The aim I have in regard to this mill is to provide an attractive opportunity for the recommencement of paper making, on an entirely viable and economical basis.
I believe it is very important that we obtain a substantial participation, on a risk-bearing basis, by other interests apart from the State in papermaking in Clondalkin. I would not be happy with a situation in which the State — even regardless of the scarity of the resources but particularly in the light of the present obvious scarcity of financial resources — was to become involved as the sole risk-taker, or even the major risk-taker in a recommencement of papermaking. All my efforts and those of the IDA in this area have been devoted to seeking to attract a suitable investor. We have had two discussions in this area in recent times. One was with a German promoter. That has not progressed as one would have hoped; in fact it would seem to be a possibility that is at present receding. The second was with Canadian interests with whom discussions at present are very active. I will do everything in so far as my office is concerned to promote these discussions. I am sure the Deputy will appreciate the validity of the point I made earlier, that it is important that we get people involved who are prepared to put their own money up front in this project.
I find myself unable to go all the way with Deputy Taylor in his view about energy costs. Deputy O'Malley stated the dilemma quite clearly although he did not come down on one side or the other in regard to this matter. Quite apart from the fact that there is £78 million worth of revenue this year to be obtained by the State from the sale of natural gas one must bear in mind that we have at present only one gasfield and that we are importing very substantial quanties of oil. If we are to sell our natural gas across the board at a price significantly less than the oil replacement price, then all we are doing is accelerating the day when we shall have to go back to having to pay for further oil imports.
The situation would be quite different had we three or four gasfields, three or four Kinsale Head fields. Then one could look with greater confidence at the possibility of charging, say, a correlated price. But, as long as we have only one field, it behoves us to use it sparingly. I readily concede that there are anomalies in the present structure. Deputy Taylor referred to the position in regard to NET. The Government will have to review the policy in regard to the pricing of natural gas overall. Against that background one would hope to bear in mind the considerations adverted to by Deputy Taylor in regard to particular problems in certain energy-intensive industries. But it would have to be done in the overall context.
Deputy Taylor referred also to the price being charged to the ESB. Even at the increased price the ESB are now paying I would point out to him that they are still paying significantly less than they would be had they to buy oil instead of gas. Secondly, the amount of gas they have been given has been increased substantially over the amount they were getting previously. Given that they are getting that gas at less than what they would be paying if they had to get oil instead, they are getting the benefit to the extent that they are paying 24p per them for the gas, whereas if they were getting oil, they would have to pay perhaps the equivalent of 30p per therm. Likewise, in regard to turf, there have been complaints by the ESB about the price they are paying for that. It should be said that that price has been increased by a number of Ministers — and Deputy Reynolds was one of those Ministers involved too. I am not mentioning that fact in any criticism of him. That has been pursued as part of a deliberate policy by successive Governments. Both Governments have been involved in a policy of relating the price of peat to energy-value-related prices. Those prices have been increased more or less on the same principle, that we are endeavouring to charge on oil-related prices for gas. It is fair to say that it is prudent for the ESB to be buying peat, that it is not altogether an imposition on them. Any prudent electricity utility would use and place itself in a position to use over time — and this would involve perhaps using at particular points during the longer term — this resource under conditions which would be less than the most favourable at that point. But any prudent electricity utility would place itself in a position to be able to use a domestically available product, such as peat, for strategic reasons, so that it would not find itself, let us say, totally dependent on imported oil. Therefore the use of peat is not something imposed solely on the ESB by successive Governments. Probably it is something they would have decided to do anyway, even if they were free in the matter.
A number of Deputies referred to an electricity inquiry. Deputy O'Malley did not refer to it in his speech but he did pose the question on another occasion as to why we needed an electricity inquiry; were not many of the factors affecting high electricity prices already known? That is fair point. Indeed, as a result of that point having being made by Deputy O'Malley, I decided I would ask the inquiry to report to me within eight weeks, an interim report, on those factors which, in their opinion, were sufficiently documented already in order that they can give a recommendation to the Government for action within an eight-week period and that the other factors requiring further research could be reported on by the committee within the six months duration. I think that is a reasonable response to a reasonable point made by Deputy O'Malley.
The question of protectionism was raised by Deputy Taylor—I am sorry, I shall be coming to Deputy Reynolds's contribution; I do not intend to ignore it either. I do not agree that we should get involved in trying to outdo other countries on protectionist measures, or to imitate them, even to a moderate extent because we have much more to lose from this sort of trend than they. We are much more vulnerable to this sort of action. We should not over-estimate our position and our clout in the EEC in this context.
I was concerned at the points made by Deputy Calleary about particular instances of firms interested in import substitution running into difficulty because he felt, partly, they were such small projects they were not getting the attention they deserved. I would be interested in getting details of these cases and shall pursue them.
Deputy Kitt and others raised the question of Derryfadda near Ballyforan. The position here is as stated in the Public Capital Programme, namely that the Government are examining this project in consultation with Bord na Móna to see if the payback to the community and the State of this investment will be sufficiently rapid to justify the rate of interest that will have to be paid on the funds being borrowed while we await that return. That is the approach that must be adopted to any new investment, an approach that would be adopted in the private sector. We are having detailed discussions and exchange of information with Bord na Móna in regard to that project.
Deputy Kitt was interested also in the question of the employment scheme for bog roads. That is primarily a matter for the Department of the Environment. Deputy O'Malley discussed mineral prospecting. I would point out to him that under this Government the Rossmore coalmine and the Clonakilty barytes mine have been reopened. There is some development there although I would not overestimate that.
Deputy Kitt referred to the Industrial Credit Corporation having an office in the west of Ireland. That is a matter for the Department of Finance in the first instance but I have brought it to their attention. Deputy Calleary and others referred to a lack of co-ordination and delays where people have been told they could get a grant from the IDA if they could get funds from the ICC or vice versa. A kind of table tennis is being played between State agencies. To the extent that this is happening this is not a desirable development and the Government are doing something about it. The Minister for Finance has appointed an IDA representative to the board of the ICC and it is the intention in due course to appoint a representative of the ICC to the board of the IDA to ensure better co-ordination between the two agencies. I understand a formal agreement has been reached between the IDA and the ICC to better synchronise their operations. I realise the ICC is a bank and has a certain perspective just as any other bank has and that the IDA is a grant-giving agency. To some extent there will be differences of perception between them and, therefore, differences of opinion about projects but I hope that will be minimised by the arrangements I have indicated.
Deputy Reynolds referred to the overruns on the Marino Point project and also to the IIRS building. I share his concern about this. In regard to the IIRS building, I have asked the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, to carry out an in-depth inquiry into the circumstances of this cost overrun. I think Deputy Reynolds had initiated some moves in this direction before he left office. I decided I should ask the Minister of State to head this inquiry and I understand I shall have a report from him quite soon.
One should take very seriously anything of this kind. The overrun in respect of the Marino Point complex is somewhat further in the past and perhaps an inquiry would not be as immediately relevant. However, arising out of the various overruns — the two mentioned are not the only ones by any means — when I was Minister for Finance I commissioned a report on cost overruns in the public sector, which report was published three or four weeks ago. Since then I have met all the State companies under my aegis for an all-day meeting. One of the points I stressed was they they should adopt all the recommendations set out by the study group in regard to avoiding cost overruns in the future. It is necessary that the companies themselves should not only be anxious to concern themselves with overruns in the engineering sense but also that at various points during the progress of a capital project they should reassess it. They should ascertain if market conditions have changed in respect of the product they are seeking to produce to the extent that an undertaking that might have been justifiable two years ago and which is now in process is no longer justified and should be stopped.
There is a tendency in State companies to assume that once a project gets the green light it should continue regardless of changed market circumstances. A good example of this is that cited by Deputy O'Malley in regard to the Moneypoint project. Deputy O'Malley or Deputy Reynolds asked who had approved Moneypoint 3 project: it was approved by the then Tánaiste, Deputy Colley. I am not saying he made a wrong decision at the time. At the time he made the decision the circumstances then obtaining may have justified it. However, in the first instance it is a matter for the board concerned, not the Minister, to have this project reassessed. It is primarily for the board concerned to reassess all projects on an ongoing basis in the light of changes in demand. We cannot have a situation where the detailed management and reassessment of projects that are ongoing is a matter for the Minister of the day. He simply does not have the time or the data to do this kind of work. That is what boards are there for. Since I came to office I have initiated a review of the Moneypoint 3 project from my own point of view but I must say I believe it is something the ESB should do themselves as a matter of course in respect of any ongoing project. The review I have initiated is rather difficult for the Department of Energy to carry out with the limited staff resources at our disposal and it has not yet concluded.
I do not like to interrupt the Minister but I should like him to tell the House the present position with regard to Moneypoint 3. Is it still going ahead?
It is proceeding.
Does the Minister consider that wise in view of the general feeling about the matter?
It is precisely to answer that question that I initiated this review almost as soon as I came to office. Much technical information has been obtained from the ESB and I hope to be in a position to discuss the matter with my colleagues quite soon. I agree with Deputy Reynolds about the need to maintain consistency in regard to a regime for industrial incentives. There have been a number of undesirable developments in this regard in recent times. I do not say they were confined to any particular side of the House and I will not go into detail about them. We need to educate our colleagues on the need for consistency. Anyone who has been involved in discussions abroad in seeking to attract industry here is well aware that one of our major selling points has been consistency in the pursuit of a particular tax regime in regard to industry. We have got to maintain that. I applaud the interest shown by Deputy Reynolds in this debate and as Minister on the need to encourage greater links between the schools and industry and I intend to pursue this vigorously.
Deputy Reynolds asked that industrialists have an input into the White Paper. I intend to take up that suggestion and to ensure that it is done. He spoke favourably about the Small Business Investment Companies programme which is prominent in the United States. I am interested in a debenture capital concept and while I think it is early days yet to say whether we need such a formalised structure as they have in the United States with a particular statute, I would not rule it out as a possible future development. However, I think more immediate initiatives could be taken in this area before we reach that point.
Deputy Reynolds also asked about the National Development Corporation. That is intended to form part of the White Paper on Industrial Development. I do not think it would be wise to proceed with a National Development Corporation in isolation from overall industrial policy. I can assure the House it will be my intention to ensure that the National Development Corporation will be engaged in viable projects that have a genuine commercial future and that that discipline is maintained before the eyes of all those involved in the National Development Corporation at all times.
I think Deputy O'Malley thought the Nuclear Energy Board should get the chop — although this may be a distortion of what he said — and that their only remaining function was to monitor the use of nuclear material at St. Luke's Hospital. I understand the board are monitoring the use of nuclear material in 200 different establishments throughout the country which are under licence from the board to use radioactive substances. In due course I will furnish the Deputy with a complete list of the 200 establishments for his bedtime reading.
Vote put and agreed to.