Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Nov 1985

Vol. 361 No. 9

National Development Corporation Bill, 1985: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Before we adjourned for lunch I made a fairly lengthy contribution on to the National Development Corporation Bill. I accused the Government and the Minister of childish political manoeuvring for the sake of bringing before the House another Bill which has no impact and will certainly not do what it is intended to do or what has been stated it will do by the Minister in relation to job creation and industrial development. I do not think there is any real credibility in introducing a Bill simply for the sake of change. I do not mean change for the better in the economy but simply a change of wording and a formula of words which will eventually find their place in the Dáil Library.

I made the point that the NEA, set up under a Fianna Fáil Government, had stood the test of time and had done an extremely good job in relation to job creation and supporting industry. I said to the Minister before the adjournment that, instead of bringing in a Bill to establish a new layer of bureaucracy, he should have supported the NEA three years ago. If he had given them the same level of support as he is talking about in terms of this Bill, we would not have the many problems which have compounded themselves over the past three years. I made the point also——

I hope the Deputy does not intend to repeat what he said before lunch.

I do not.

It would not be in order.

I will not go over the ground I covered in my earlier contribution. It is relevant and important again to establish the context in which this debate is taking place. For any legislation to be successful in the area of job creation and industry support you must in the first instance have a favourable economic climate. In the Bill the Minister is endeavouring to do one thing while his colleagues in Government by their actions are undermining any efforts he is making at job creation. Earlier I outlined five economic indicators which clearly indicate that Government policies in the area of economic development in the last three years have failed. For that reason one must be very doubtful about the proposals in the Bill.

We are not dealing with a complicated piece of legislation and there is no reason why there should have been a delay of three years before it was brought to the House. If the Minister believed that the provisions would mean a start on the task of tackling our economic problems he would have introduced the legislation earlier. I would be happy to support any move by the Minister to resolve the unemployment problem. I would support any move by him to help industrial development. The Minister believes the provisions in the Bill will deal with our economic problems and in that regard I accuse him, and the Government, of negligence in the last three years. The Bill is simple in terms of the form of words used, but finance has not been provided by the Government to implement its proposals.

That is not true.

The Minister will have an opportunity to reply to the points I am making.

The Deputy has repeated that particular inaccuracy six times.

I can assure the Minister that I will return to the Chamber when he is replying in the hope of hearing him deal with the points I am bringing to his notice. The Minister will not succeed in putting me off my train of thought by his interruptions because I feel too strongly about these issues to be distracted in any way. If the Bill is to do what the Minister has told us, why is it that we have had to wait three years for it during which time every facet of our economy has been undermined? Had the Bill been introduced two years ago we would have been in a position to assess whether it achieved the objectives set out. I would like to think that the corporation will at least commence to tackle the problem of unemployment and industrial development but I do not think that will happen although I wish the Minister well in his efforts.

It is the duty and responsibility of the Government in the first instance to stabilise and improve the economic climate for industrial expansion. It may not be the direct responsibility of the Government to create all the new jobs, but it is their duty to create a favourable economic climate. That climate has not existed here for some time. The only sustainable jobs are those created as a result of increased production and greater wealth. It is true that we are well served by the various elements of the public sector and we all acknowledge the important role that sector has played in our economic development up to now. It is also true to say that some areas of the public sector are seriously undermanned, something which is not often mentioned in the House. That is costing the State a lot in terms of lost revenue.

The Deputy will have to relate his remarks to the Bill.

My remarks relate to the Bill because the legislation is about job creation. I am stressing the need for a favourable economic climate so that the provisions in the Bill can succeed.

That is a matter for two different debates. The Deputy can only debate the Bill in detail. He may make a passing reference to other things but this is not a suitable subject for an economic debate or even a debate on unemployment.

I wish to comply with the ruling of the Chair and I shall do my best to relate my remarks to the terms of the Bill. However, the Chair must agree that the Bill purports to relate to a very wide economic area as far as job creation and industrial development are concerned. It is extremely difficult to debate any legislation designed to deal with our economic problems without referring, perhaps in passing, to some economic indicators.

I have no objection to a passing reference.

We must concentrate our efforts on the productive areas of the economy. If we succeed in expanding our industrial base we will get over the first hurdle in rebuilding the economy. The Minister implies that that will be achieved following the establishment of the corporation, but I have serious reservations about that. The Minister's reference to the need to spread investment over a wide area pleased me. He said also it was his intention to give some priority to the development of our natural resources, an issue I have highlighted for some time. I was pleased when I was in the company of some friends in the Public Gallery yesterday to hear Deputy Alice Glenn, in the course of her constructive speech, refer to the need to develop our natural resources. The wheel has turned full circle when urban Deputies are beginning to realise the importance of our natural resources. They should have been the base for further expansion.

The Deputy should come back to the Bill an odd time.

I was referring to a contribution by a Government Deputy. I am supporting what the Minister and Deputy Glenn said about the need to develop our natural resources. I do not think I am straying away from the terms of the Bill. Forestry, and the development of land suitable only for forestry development offer good prospects for job creation. If we are serious about developing forestry the Forestry Division should be removed from the Civil Service and placed under the control of a concern such as Bord na Móna who have a commitment to the development of natural resources.

Will the Deputy please bear with the Chair for a moment? He is a reasonable Deputy.

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle.

However, it is not reasonable to start a discussion in depth on forestry. That is a mighty subject. If we get into the subject of forestry, it could take the whole day. It is the same about many of the other topics which the Deputy is discussing.

I assure you, a Cheann Comhairle, that I am not going to get lost in the forest. I shall simply make a passing reference to it.

The Deputy cannot see the wood for the trees.

This Deputy is quite capable of seeing the wood for the trees, but I am afraid that the Minister is not as clear in his vision.

The Deputy is like Little Red Riding Hood and the big, bad wolf.

The Minister is not as clear in his vision of where he is going as this House would like him to be. As I said earlier, the public have their own method of assessing the success or otherwise of Government performance. The economists have their own confused way of regarding it, but for the ordinary punter in the street there is talk about factories closing, increasing unemployment, the extent of the national debt and of national borrowing.

Deputy, you are to talk about the Bill.

I shall conclude because I think I have exceeded my time. To summarise, the Bill is extremely disappointing. It will certainly not achieve what the Minister has said it will. The sad thing is that it will take so long to bring any of its sections into operation that the Minister and the Government and perhaps other Members of this House might not be around to see how successful it will be in its implementation. It will take the budget of 1986 to make financial provision for the implementation of sections of the Bill and another six to eight months to get the new layer of bureaucracy off the ground. By that time I shall be very surprised if this country does not find itself in the throes of a general election.

The Government have wasted three years in which some credible steps could have been taken up under the aegis of the existing agencies such as the IDA and other bodies set up by the previous administrations for the purpose of doing exactly what this corporation propose to do. If the National Enterprise Agency had got the support from the Minister which they deserved three years ago we would be much further along the road towards resolving some of our outstanding economic problems. Even at this stage of the debate there is absolutely no indication from the Minister or the Government that they are attempting to get their act together — by that I mean the overall co-ordination of Government Departments. Does it make any sense that the Minister endeavours to do one thing today and tomorrow the Minister for Finance undermines those efforts by various tax re-organisations? This has been happening for some time.

Not at all.

The Deputy is straying again.

I can assure you that I shall stray back to my office within a few moments because I have a number of problems to attend to. I wish the Minister well. He is hiding his face behind that piece of paper again, but when he emerges I shall still be here.

Could the Deputy not stay and listen with the same patience to the other contributions?

The Minister may not believe it, but I have listened to every word spoken in this House during this debate. That is because I feel extremely strongly about every aspect of the Bill. I was present for a considerable number of hours and when I was not in the House I can assure the Minister that I listened to the debate on the monitor and I am very familiar with the whole subject. I hope the Minister takes it as a compliment that I spent about two hours of my time last Sunday reading his introductory speech.

I dearly wish something could be done to find a solution to our problems. I have already acknowledged that, like every other Deputy, I can be politically biased. There is no doubt in the world about that. However, this is not an area into which we should allow political bias to intrude. I read the Minister's speech and listened to all the contributions, including those of the Minister's backbenchers, in the hope of finding some little merit in what the Minister is trying to do. I am sad to say that I am not convinced that what he is trying to do could not have been done over the last three years under the aegis of the National Enterprise Agency, the IDA and other bodies very genuinely set up for the purpose of dealing with our economic problems.

I should like to welcome the Bill and indeed any Bill that it is hoped will provide jobs for school leavers or those made redundant. Various people have pontificated about this corporation being their brainchild or, equally glibly, damned the whole thing as having nothing constructive to be said for it. As in all things, time will tell. I hope that the launching and development of the NDC will ensure that our unemployment figures will decrease. We are all aware that they are very high. Unemployment has affected all of us from time to time as we have met people in our clinics and elsewhere who never had a job or have recently been let go. We should all be concerned about getting as many of these people back to work or into work as the case may be. I do not care what type of body is set up to achieve this, as long as it is successful. Anything else is immaterial.

People have spoken of the problems which the NDC will have to face — and these will have to be faced eventually — but the main aim must be to get the corporation working in areas where other agencies have not gone before. With our high unemployment problems, our expanding population and the development of technology, we must look further and harder at ways of providing these people with jobs. Recently I learned of a certain firm which acquired quite modern machines, with the result that several girls working in the firm were let go. A case was made that the machines could work more quickly then the girls but, at the end of the day, there was the human problem of people losing their jobs. With progress in technology, in certain areas people will be replaced by machines and we must see whether we can provide jobs for these people in other areas.

A matter which worries me in relation to the NDC is a possible duplication of services already given by bodies set up some considerable time ago and which have been working well. Bodies set up to attract employment or to provide training all need a bit of a shake-up. Some were set up when times were different and there should be a continuous review of their operation. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies and we have seen in our deliberations over the past number of years how public money has been wasted. Some crazy decisions were taken by people who admitted to us in the course of our deliberations in that committee that, had it been their own money, a different decision would have been taken.

There must be tremendous scrutiny with regard to the expenditure of taxpayers' money, particularly in times when money is in short supply. In this connection the provisions of section 15 specify that there must be ministerial or Government approval for certain projects before they are set up. We must be vigilant at all times. The progress of the NDC should be reviewed as it develops to ascertain whether it needs revision or updating from time to time. Indeed perhaps we should be re-examining the functions of many of the existing bodies, identifying areas where there is duplication.

In his introductory remarks the Minister said there would be an operational agreement drawn up between the IDA and the NDC in order to co-ordinate their respective functions to ensure that the best value is had from both bodies. For example, certain functions of the IDA might well be undertaken by the NDC in the future or vice versa. It is crazy to have two bodies both running in the same direction and endeavouring to achieve the same goal when, were their resources only combined, their target could be achieved more expeditiously.

There must be careful planning of the operations of the NDC. We must be particularly vigilant about ventures using a variety of funds — Government, companies, the banks, various lending institutions and so on. Such institutions, with their expertise, without becoming involved in a load of bureaucracy, will mean that the more money that can be attracted into investment in these ventures from sources where it may lie dormant at present the better. That must be a crucial commercial consideration.

The Minister has said that if profits are not made then there will not be jobs. We must remember that in any ventures we shall be competing with outside interests. It may be the case that some ongoing ventures could be developed better with greater expertise being brought in relation to them. We do not want to see the NDC setting up various ventures which, while being worthwhile in themselves, will have the net effect of bringing others to a close. There must be a clear consensus as to what has to be achieved.

I hope there will not be duplication between the NDC and some of the existing bodies. There is need for a review to be undertaken in this area. Section 10 sets out the principle objects of the corporation. Subsection (1) (a) says:

to invest, in consultation, where appropriate, with State-sponsored bodies, in any enterprise (including any enterprise which is wholly or partly owned by a State-sponsored commercial enterprise) which, in the opinion of the Corporation, is profitable and efficient or capable of becoming profitable and efficient and has reasonable prospects for profitability, development, expansion, growth or providing viable employment.

Employment and the creation of jobs must be a prime target of the NDC. We must look closely in difficult areas to ascertain what can be provided that is not being done at present. For example, we should examine areas where at present part of the process may be undertaken here, where we may export a part of a product only, leaving its further development to another country. Technological developments should ensure that we can undertake almost any process, transport being relatively freely available for such goods.

Recently I visited a semi-State body in Galway, a fish processing plant, and spoke with some of the workers. They were cutting up fish into various portions, cutting off the heads and tails. These sections were being exported to different places, for example, the innards to Japan, some other portions to the European market and the remainder being retained here. In many areas we should be able to undertake anything from A to Z. We must change our attitudes. We should not shift some of our raw material to other countries for its further process or development. If it can be undertaken at home, why not retain jobs here?

When replying perhaps the Minister would give us the likely timescale into 1986 as to how he envisages this corporation being in operation after 1 January next. Like any other body being established it will take a certain amount of time to get off the ground. Also I would hope that the best possible people will be obtained for positions with the proposed corporation because the best people are needed to work toward the target of job creation. We do not want another monstrosity built up doing very little except expending taxpayers' money. The progress of the corporation must be reviewed after a couple of years, to examine where failures may have taken place and to ascertain how much progress has been made in relation to the provision of the requisite jobs. When replying perhaps the Minister would outline the prospective time scale, as he envisages it, and what discussion has taken place with the IDA and these other bodies. He says there is some agreement with these bodies and we do not want the IDA to be upset because this new body may encroach on their territory. When a substantial amount of taxpayers' money is involved, it is important that there should be progress reports to this House to see that we are getting the best return for our money. We must ensure that enterprises embarked upon are commercially sound and that we can compete with overseas interests.

I welcome the Bill but the accountability aspect in relation to decisions is crucial. What we have seen in some of the semi-State bodies is disgraceful as far as taxpayers' money is concerned and we must ensure that we do not repeat past mistakes.

I read the Minister's speech in detail and there are many good ideas in it. There could be a separate debate on many of the issues but, unfortunately, the Minister's speech will not be enacted.

The purpose of this Bill is to create employment. I have no doubt as to the sincerity of the Minister and the Government in trying to tackle this problem, but I do not believe that the Bill will work. A major part of standard speeches by politicians must include a large portion concerning unemployment. Since I was elected to this House in 1977, no speech by any politician has not referred to the great scandal of unemployment. They said that if something was not done there would be catastrophic effects for the country.

I have spoken on many occasions, inside and outside the House, regarding the dangers to the democratic system if unemployment is not tackled. Successive Governments and political parties have all produced White Papers, Green Papers and reports dealing with various aspects of the problem. They all have the same objective regarding employment creation. They were all sincere and I have no doubt that this Bill is a further sincere attempt to tackle the problem. Politicians are great verbalisers regarding unemployment. Their election programmes, manifestoes and even personal election literature all address themselves to the problem.

Parties lecture each other across the floor of the House day in day out saying that unemployment is the greatest problem facing us and, of course, it is. Politicians are all inclined to think that the Opposition do not have the right ideas or policies and that if they were in office things might be different. We have succeeded in fostering the belief, through all the mish mash of talk, reports, election promises, etc. that Governments create jobs and are an unending fund of employment opportunities. Probably politicians do not mean this when they talk about unemployment, but the idea has been planted in the public mind that Governments create jobs. If we foster the belief that we can create jobs by direct Government action, then Governments are blamed when jobs are not created, when unemployment rises and when people have to emigrate.

When we discuss this Bill, we must take account of political conflicts. The only reason we have such a Bill before the House is that the Labour Party have insisted on it. They have been preaching this gospel for years and the enactment of a National Development Corporation Bill has assumed for them extreme reverence, a new god in their political deities. As Labour are part of the Government there is nothing wrong in getting some of their ideas into Government policy. They are entitled to their say, but their approach is misguided. At various times during the lifetime of the Government, the Labour Party seem to get apoplexy about various matters, for example, the local radio Bill.

In the National Development Corporation Bill we see a fundamental socialist approach couched in free enterprise terms, namely profit. It is trying to mix oil and water which is not possible. I do not believe in criticism for its own sake and just because it is a Labour Party Bill does not necessarily mean that it is not a good idea. However, I should like to outline some of my reasons for thinking that it is a bad idea. One is always conscious when one goes on the record of the House in a critical fashion regarding a proposal such as this because, in 20 or 30 years' time, it may well have turned out to be a great success. Various speeches by opposing politicians at the time when the Shannon industrial development authority were set up are still recalled in this House and outside. However, one has to make an informed judgment as to the likely outcome of such a Bill.

Anyway, I do not believe that the National Development Corporation Bill will be a success. It shows confusion on the part of the Government as to what the role of the State should be regarding the economy and that is the approach I should like to adopt in analysing the Bill. We have never made up our minds regarding the role of State interference. Are we to be a free enterprise economy or a socialist one? The level of interference in the day to day running of the country is greater than in most other countries in the western world. We have a confused attitude as to what the proper role of the State should be. The legislation before us epitomises this confusion. I am prepared to argue the merits of legislation which has a socialist approach and I have no difficulties in arguing the toss with some people in the Labour Party — for example, Senator Michael Higgins — who honestly and sincerely believe that the State should have control of the means of production, etc.

Such people believe the State should be the real organ of all development and the follow-on argument of these people is that the State should be involved in all enterprises. Similarly, I have no problem in rationalising the economic proposals put forward by someone like the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher. I may not necessarily agree with all her economic ideas but I understand the rationale behind them which, in a few short words, would be: "Let the free enterprise system work unfettered". However, it is impossible in this State to rationalise what kind of economy we are. There is no need to look further than the enormous current budget deficits in the past years, the enormous amount of State indebtedness owed internally and to foreign institutions, the high levels of taxation and so on. Yet, to the outside world we profess ourselves to be a free enterprise economy. We have one of the highest levels of taxation in the world. The role of the State here would make some nominally socialist countries in the eastern bloc look like havens of free enterprise.

This Bill is another example of the horse-before-the-cart kind of legislation we have been enacting for some years. I contend that because we have not as a political society been able to decide what type of economic approach we should have, it has stymied the development or natural evolution of politics in the country. Could anyone here explain to a foreigner at election time the difference between the fundamental economic approach of any of the three parties? Any naturally inquisitive tourist would ask what party is for the free enterprise approach and what party is for the totally socialist approach. The honest answer is that the three major parties, with the exception of certain individuals in all of them, would have to say that we are for a bit of everything.

We have never defined what should be the level of State involvement. The growth of the semi-State sector took place under the guidance of Seán Lemass. However, I do not believe it was ever the intention of the late Mr. Lemass that State enterprises should assume an internal growth of their own, to go on forever and ever. Under Mr. Lemass the setting up State enterprises was to fill a vacuum and to get the industrial and economic sectors moving. My belief is that fundamentally he stood for the free enterprise principle.

I believe the role of the State in the economy should be as miminal as possible. That does not necessarily mean that I think free enterprise should run as wild as possible and that there should not be some level of State involvement. If one believes that the level of State involvement should be as minimal as possible, one has arrived at such a conclusion by what one considers are the advantages of the free enterprise approach over the totally socialist approach.

I find it easy to argue and discuss the merits of free enterprise with people who believe in the socialist approach. However, I am absolutely and totally convinced that we get the worst of all worlds by having the "mixum gatherum" approach that is neither free enterprise nor socialism. One has only to look at the Irish economy and the British economy, particularly the British economy before the mid-seventies, to see that this approach does not work. What we are seeing in this Bill are ideas from the socialist party in Government as to their view of State involvement in the economy, tempered by the laissez-faire ideas of certain Ministers who do not believe in that approach. Due to the composition of this Government, we see in this Bill prime examples of the confused thinking of the role of the State in the Irish economy.

I am not so arrogant, even though people think I am, as to believe in the absolute correctness of free enterprise. However, I have arrived at the conclusion that free enterprise will maximise wealth greater than any other system, that in general terms it will lead to a more fulfilled life for the majority of the members of our society and that its methods are more in tune with the free will of the human being. On the other hand, I readily accept and understand the reasoning of people who take a socialist or communist approach to the idea. However, I have reached the conclusion that the free enterprise approach is better.

Do we know what we are letting ourselves in for when we enact this Bill? There are various aspects that can be discussed in detail on Committee Stage but we should address ourselves to what we are letting ourselves in for in this instance. From my reading of the Bill it is obvious that the Minister has fought a rearguard action in trying to make this Bill as sensible as possible, given that both he and I believe it was total nonsense in the first place. The Minister said that the principal objective of the Bill will be to assist by means of investment in industry in the creation of the maximum amount of viable employment in the State. Various sections in the Bill give the Minister and Government of the day considerable powers and influence over the decision-making process of the NDC. The investment programme, the quantum of investment, time limits and so on will be initiated directly by the Government.

Do we honestly know what we are letting ourselves in for if we enact this legislation? First, what do we mean by viable employment in the State? Given the considerable powers of the Minister over the NDC, does anyone seriously think it would be possible in most cases for the corporation to disengage from lame duck and non-viable enterprises in which they might become involved? Surely in a socialist context all employment is viable because the profit motive is not the aim. Let us assume, for example, that the NDC get involved in some aspects of the food processing industry in Navan, in the Minister's constituency. Let us further assume that the original time limit set for a reasonable return is five years and that the Minister is still in office and holding the same portfolio then. If the industry in question is in considerable financial trouble, is non-viable and cannot make a profitable return, by any criteria the NDC should disengage from that undertaking.

In the run-up to a general election or by-election does anyone think that, given that he has such powers over the NDC, the Minister will pull the plug on this industry in Navan. If anything like that were mooted there would be deputations from local Deputies, Dáil questions and Private Members' motions asking the Minister not to do such a thing. Politics being what they are, it would be political suicide to pull the plug on such an enterprise. I envisage a stream of such lame duck industries across the country and given the Irish multi-seat proportional representation system, it would not be politically possible to disengage the NDC from the majority of these enterprises.

This is dealt with in section 32. It will not be possible for the Minister to give directives in respect of an individual enterprise, whether in Navan or anywhere else.

We cannot have it both ways. This Bill will give the Government a direct say in policy decisions of the NDC. If the Minister of the day in five years time wants to disengage the NDC from an industry we can imagine Private Notice Questions from this side of the House and that side of the House ——

The Bill as it stands would have to be amended because it requires commercial conduct on the part of the corporation.

I readily go along with the sentiments in the Bill. It is clearly set down that if an enterprise is not viable the NDC will pull out. We must look at the political framework in which we work. I have a lot of admiration and respect for the Minister because I think he is doing his very best. However, given the best will in the world, the politics of the day will decide NDC actions rather than the merits of the enterprise.

Let us assume the NDC had been set up years ago and that they had a large holding in Fords of Cork. Does anybody seriously suggest, given the unemployment in Cork in the past number of years, that the NDC could have disengaged themselves from that company? It would be political suicide, and the Government of the day would have been lambasted from one end of the country to the other.

In fighting the rearguard action of putting in as many controls as possible, the Minister inadvertently put his successors in an impossible position. The Bill has sections giving the Minister power over the amount of investment and to prescribe that initial investment must have a strict time scale. These are all very worthy sections. I appreciate that they are in the Bill in order to safeguard taxpayers from unfortunate investment and to give the Government some direct control. The reason for these protective clauses is so that the Labour Party would not go completely mad and so that the unfortunate taxpayers would not get involved in all sorts of ridiculous enterprises.

However, I do not believe they will serve the purpose for which they were put there in the first place. Instead of allowing the NDC to disengage, the Bill will have the completely opposite effect. Whatever one may say about CIE, at least the Minister and the Government of the day could come along and say they could not direct the State body to do anything. With all the provisions in this Bill to allow the Government and the Minister of the day more say in the control of the NDC we will put successive Ministers and Governments into impossible situations. Because of the implications of State participation in the economy, I believe we will end up with a new range of State enterprises, more Government interference, more State borrowing with the end result worse than now.

What will happen if the NDC get involved in non-successful enterprises? Let us suppose the NDC get involved in some worthwhile profitable undertaking. Let us also assume that the NDC will take a five year involvement in such companies. At the end of five years they will be disengaging themselves, and imagine the hue and cry there will be when the NDC go about doing that. Both Deputy Dowling and Deputy Hyland said we should look at the Bill very carefully from that point of view. Already, before the Bill has been passed, we have members of the Minister's party disagreeing among themselves. We know of the criticism of the suggestion that the State should get rid of some of our forests. If the NDC begin to disengage from successful enterprises there will be the same kind of criticism. No Minister of any Government will take that chance because there would be deputations from trade unions, politicians, chambers of commerce. The workers will say that if the NDC pull out of successful companies their jobs will be at stake, and they will not be prepared to suffer that.

Irrespective of the fine words of the Minister in his opening statement — I suppose he believes every word he says regarding time limits, etc. — the reality will be far different. So it will not be possible for the NDC to disengage from the successful enterprises either. Therefore, we will end up having more and more State interference in the life of the country, greater and greater borrowing, greater numbers of civil servants and more people employed in industries who will consider themselves to be State employees. It will not work.

The Minister said that the Bill will probably attract risk capital. I agree with him that there is over-reliance in industry on borrowing, and one of the purposes of the Bill is to provide equity capital. If such equity capital is available, if there is money about, why is it not being invested? There are some fine concessions in the Finance Acts for people who would get involved in enterprises. Why are they not getting involved? The reason is that the return is not there.

If a person had £1 million to invest, is there any industry that would give him a reasonable return? He would invest his money in capital bonds, insurance companies, savings certificates, building society accounts, even deposit accounts in banks. One of the last things he would do is to invest it in Irish industry because the after tax return would be too low. Apart from the tax difficulties, the hassle in getting involved in a factory employing hundreds of people would deter him. He would have all kinds of things to contend with, such as PRSI, income tax, VAT, the Unfair Dismissals Act, layers and layers of bureaucracy. He would have trouble with the planning authorities, industrial relations problems, he could not get people to work on Monday mornings because they would be out sick after the weekend.

Those are some of the reasons people will not invest in enterprises. The hassle is too big and the return too small. We have too much State involvement in people's lives and if one had £1 million to spare the last thing one would do is to invest it in industry because the return is not sufficient to offset the headaches. The Minister referred to the money to be invested on behalf of pension funds. No pension fund manager in his right mind would invest it in what we term productive employment. He would put it into office blocks or bonds or shares. The bureaucratic nature of the State here is too great. The climate here is not right for free enterprise. If we believe in free enterprise we must allow it to work. The other system should be given a fair chance as well, but we cannot have a mix of both because it does not work.

The Minister said that the NDC are empowered to act as a holding company for new projects initiated by public sector companies. He said that the corporation initially will not be empowered to act as a holding company for existing State companies. That would be considered, however, in the light of the progress of the NDC. Therefore, the Minister does not rule out that the NDC will be getting involved at some stage with semi-State companies. That would be the disaster of all disasters. The Minister indicated that there is provision for an operating agreement between the IDA and the NDC. I do not forsee any difficulty in that respect, but the Minister will have to spend a lot of time drawing up the agreement. I take it that companies that are set up with the corporation taking an equity stake will qualify for the normal grants from the IDA.

The imposition of time limits is a good idea. I do not foresee any difficualty in having these sections accepted but, as I pointed out earlier, I do not think the idea will work.

After the initial period expires, be it five years or whatever, who will buy these concerns? I appreciate that the Minister is working on the basis that there is not enough encouragement for people to invest in such ventures now but that, after the corporation's involvement when there will be lots of equity capital available, there will be buyers for the various ventures.

There will be many people seeking ventures with a proven track record.

I suggest that there is a sufficient number of people in the free enterprise economy now who would take over ventures that would be regarded as being successful. However, let us assume the Minister is correct and that there will be people willing to invest in these companies. I would expect that there would be grounds for selling the stakes in the companies, stakes that would be traded over the counter in the Stock Exchange. The Minister made reference to the development of this type of market but the corporation will be confined to maximum investment limits and these will have to be with ministerial or Governmental approval so that, by and large, we are talking of small type industries. I would not envisage private investors in five years time locking themselves into such companies with a minority shareholding because in such circumstances their rights would be very limited since what would be involved would be a private company that had not traded on the Stock Exchange. The investor in such a minority shareholding position would have no control in respect of the running of the company. The Bill indicates that only small industries will be involved and that the corporation will take only minority stakes in those industries.

If we do not succeed in selling off the companies they will remain private companies not trading on the Stock Exchange, and I cannot envisage sensible business people buying minority share-holdings in that type of company. For those reasons alone I cannot envisage a market for the companies after whatever period the Minister decides they should be sold. Two of the most sensible and best Deputies in the House, Deputies Dowling and Hyland, said this morning that we should be very careful about moving out of the companies that prove to be successful, that instead we should use State resources to build them up. I foresee a problem in this regard before the corporation are established at all. One can imagine the hue and cry at party meetings that would follow a move by the State to extricate itself from some very successful enterprise. I cannot see the State doing that.

The authorised share capital investment in the corporation is to be £300 million but that does not mean anything. The State will invest in the corporation and the corporation will invest in these industries, but where is the money to come from? Presumably it will have to be borrowed. I should like to know also what rate of return will be acceptable when the corporation are thinking of taking a share in some venture. Who will decide what the rate of return ought to be on the investment? As we will be borrowing the money, I submit that the rate of return should be equal to what is borrowed in the first place. If the money is borrowed at, say, 12 per cent, I cannot envisage many industries producing a return of that order. As the corporation will be the minority shareholder they will not have any real say. That means that the corporation will have the same rights as anyone else would have in a minority shareholding position, so I do not think the corporation will work.

Many speakers referred to the present policy on industrialisation, a factor that is linked with this Bill. For a long number of years the State has been grant-aiding the wrong type of industries. When we began grant-aiding companies in the sixties and seventies, it was not the intention in encouraging foreign based industries here, that that should be the be all and end all of industrial growth. In the past couple of years the IDA have recognised that these industries are not providing the answers to our problems. There is no reason why some of them should be here at all. For example, there is no reason for believing that cameras can be made better in Newbridge than they can be made in Gibraltar. There is no reason for believing that that type of industry should be more successful here than would be the case elsewhere but we have been investing taxpayers' money and borrowings in grant-aiding that type of industry.

In industry big is not beautiful but small is beautiful. We should be encouraging Irish owned industries in such areas as agriculture, mariculture, horticulture and so on. However, there is a change in emphasis in industrial policy and our emphasis should be on the home based industries. I recognise what this Bill is proposing to do, but I do not think this Bill can work. I hope I am proved wrong. I hope it turns out to be a great success in the next five or ten years. If it does, whether I am in or outside politics, I will admit that I was wrong. I hope it works but for the reasons I have outlined I do not believe it can.

From my knowledge of the economic sphere I know that State interference must be done away with. We must get the State off the people's backs and develop the right economic climate, but I do not believe this Bill will help to do that. In fact, it will have the opposite effect. Real political leadership should be brave and innovative. In so far as this Bill is innovative, it is a good idea but, as I have already said, it will fail because it is trying to mix free enterprise and socialism. We must decide which road we are going to follow. Until we decide that, we will have confused economic thinking.

Everybody in this House wants to solve the unemployment problem. We have not been able to rectify the situation because we have not been able to decide which road to take. If this Bill works I will be prepared to stand up in five or ten years time and say it was a very good idea and that the comments I made in November 1985 were wrong, but I do not believe I will be saying that.

The Bill before the House is very welcome and deserves our full support. This country needs enterprise and we must do everything in our power to encourage and foster the spirit of enterprise from whatever source it may come. In the situation in which we find ourselves, ideology of any shape or form must give way to the pragmatic pursuit of wealth generation and sustainable employment.

There is a tendency to regard any form of State enterprise as being at best questionable. There are examples of State enterprises turned sour. On the other hand, much of what is best in this country's economic history rests on a good mix of public and private enterprise. We have had examples of unwise State investment. We must look to the National Development Corporation for investment which will be productive and viable in the long term, investment which will provide a satisfactory return on capital. We must not, however, look for too much too soon. Enterprise is all about risk and we must not inhibit or discourage risk taking in any way. We must be prepared to accept stumbles and falls along the way. Above all, if they are to succeed in their objectives, the National Development Corporation must be freed from the restraints which tend to restrict initiative in the State sector.

These are times for courageous action and in my view this Bill strikes the correct balance between the degree of public accountability which must of necessity accompany investment of State funds and the freedom of operation which is essential to the success of this venture. I am confident, therefore, that the National Development Corporation will succeed in promoting economic activity, especially where it is most needed in the economic black spots which need help so badly, and this organisation will provide a spark which will ignite the spirit of enterprise so badly lacking at present.

During my term as Lord Mayor of Cork I was struck by the amount of industrial skill which exists in the north city area of Cork, especially in the textile industry. When this Bill is passed I will be asking the Cork Task Force to prepare proposals for submissions to the National Development Corporation outlining the available sites of fully serviced land and expert skilled workforce, especially in the areas of Blackpool, the Glen, Mayfield, Churchfield, Knocknaheenie and Hollyhill — former employees of Sunbeam Wolsey. Surely there is some joint venture which can be established to utilise these assets.

The British market in textiles is buoyant at present, especially in knitted goods. I congratulate the Minister on introducing the Bill which is giving us an opportunity to extend the area of textiles. In Cork we have the cream of the textile workforce and I am asking the Minister to demand from the Cork Task Force proposals re the local textile industry in view of the recent report on the enormous upturn in the textile industry in Britain. In comparison to that country our textile industry and workforce are much more advanced and I fail to understand why more initiative and motivation are not being created in that area. In view of recent reports, which are not being denied by anybody in authority, the responsibility lies between our local task force in Cork and our semi-State bodies. I am asking the Minister to investigate this matter further.

The National Development Corporation will provide long term investment capital which is badly needed. I ask the Minister to invest capital for marketing the textile industry in Cork since this would create employment for many people. I ask the Minister to give this his immediate attention and I know I can rely on him to take the necessary action.

The national Development Corporation has been on the stocks for quite a long time. Many people had different ideas of what was intended by a national development corporation. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions did a lot of research into this idea. The Labour Party adopted it as one of the major items of policy and stitched it into the agreement with Fine Gael in Government. The two parties, in my opinion, have different ideas of what a national development corporation means and that is the reason for the long delay in introducing this Bill. What has come out eventually is not what was intended originally by the Labour Party and is undoubtedly not what was intended by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The Irish Congress in their document Confronting the Jobs Crisis said that Congress considered that a national development corporation must be given a major role in initiating and developing in conjunction with existing public enterprise where appropriate, or where necessary by the establishment of new enterprises, selected industrial projects in these areas. They said that the White Paper on industrial policy did not provide for the involvement of State companies in new manufacturing industries but that many of the proposals in the White Paper relating to the existing commercial State-sponsored bodies would seriously inhibit their potential for developing new projects. That is what they say on page 10 of that document.

The point they were making is that the Government's White Paper on industrial policy made them think that the Government's ideas on a national development corporation would not be in accordance with their's because the White Paper would seriously inhibit the potential of State-sponsored bodies for developing new companies. They said that the Government seemed to be refusing to give a role to public enterprise in developing manufacturing industry because they did not want the public sector to compete with the private sector. That is very evident from Government policies for many years. Governments saw the role of State companies as being to provide a service for private enterprise but never to compete with private enterprise. Private enterprise is supposed to be dynamic and prepared for open and free competition. The point made by the supporters of private enterprise is that State enterprises are not enterprising or dynamic and that they cannot compete. Why are there so many restrictions on State enterprises to prevent them from competing openly with private enterprise? There is no reason why State enterprises should not be allowed a free hand without the Government constantly putting their fingers into the till, telling them they cannot do certain things because they would compete with somebody in existing private enterprise.

Deputy McCreevy made the point that private enterprise is stifled. Free enterprise is being grant-aided and assisted in every possible way by the taxpayer and it is not being stifled. Private enterprise is not even paying its fair share of taxation. They are not even paying the share allocated to them. We have a difficult area in relation to the collection of taxes and so on. Private enterprise, far from being stifled, is given every possible facility in grants and subsidies. At the same time State companies are being instructed to give private enterprise every possible assistance. That is their job as the State sees it. That is why State enterprises and commercial State companies are being prevented from making profits, are being prevented from innovations, from starting new companies and moving into new areas. As Congress says, they are being prevented from getting into manufacturing industry. Examples of this are widespread. That is why people are so sceptical of the NDC and its role.

A good example of a State company which was stifled by the Government is the Erin Foods industry. The company were told in the beginning that as they were moving into an area where private enterprise already existed in companies like Batchelors, Goodalls, Findus and others, that they were to export 90 per cent of their product and were only allowed to sell 10 per cent on the home market. That was an enormous burden to put on an industry starting off in any country. That was the first restriction put on Erin Foods. Subsequently there were many other restrictions. They were instructed by the Fianna Fáil Government at the time to form two State companies. Erin Foods and the Irish Sugar Company were to be under two separate boards. They were not allowed avail of any grants. This is why when Findus took over the Erin Foods plant in Middleton a question was raised as to how Findus were able to operate the company when Erin Foods could not and the general manager of the State company said that one was not comparing like with like, that Findus could get State grants which Erin Foods could not. In other words, Findus could get State grants from the taxpayer but Erin Foods could not get any assistance. That is the type of environment in which State companies in the commercial area are endeavouring to exist. It is in that way that Governments are breaking them down and smashing them up as they have been over the last numbers of years with, for instance, the ESB——

Where did Erin Foods originally come from, only the taxpayer.

Deputy Kelly, please.

The money for Erin Foods did not come from the taxpayer and if Deputy Kelly examines the situation he will see that it was a commercial enterprise which was availing of brand new technology, technology which the Heinz company did not have at the time. The Heinz company were down in the doldrums at the time, as Mr. Tony O'Reilly made very clear, and they were glad to avail of this brand new technology. We are very glad to avail of this brand new technology of accelerated freeze drying. That was a new innovative commercial area availing of new technology in an indigenous food industry.

I am very glad to hear Fianna Fáil coming up with this argument, which Deputy McCreevy used again, that this is the area where grant-aid should be given to our indigenous resource areas of the food industry, forestry, fisheries and so on. This is the area where jobs should be created, where we should industrialise on our own resources. That is the policy we have been advocating consistently outside and in this House. This is the policy on which we went forward in the 1982 election in the An End to the Crisis document which is available still for people to see where the industrialisation should take place. Some of these areas are listed in this NDC Bill which provides that the NDC will play a critical role in the Government's overall strategy for the development of the indigenous resource sector, particularly in relation to agriculture, fisheries and forestry resources. It states that the Government, in conjunction with sectoral and agricultural interests, are committed to the preparation of a co-ordinated development programme for the indigenous resource sector. That is the sector which we have said consistently is the area for development and for industrialisation. I am glad to hear that Fianna Fáil have adopted this policy, I do not know whether the Government have seen the light but the IDA have seen it.

Although the IDA were critical of the Telesis report, they have adopted many of the recommendations of Telesis and have set up a separate food sector in the IDA for development of our food processing industry. That is the area where massive job creation can be developed. The ICTU document on confronting the job crisis from which I quoted earlier states that the trade unions are opposed to the proposal that the NDC must within predetermined time limits sell off their investment to the private sector. Trade unions are also opposed to the proposals made by the National Planning Board that private firms should be invited to tender for the provision of certain public services and that the private sector employers should be subsidised to employ persons currently employed in the public service. That is precisely the type of policy being adopted, as if there was something wrong with public sector employment.

For instance, in Sweden public sector employment is the area for development of full employment. They have a deliberate full employment policy. What they call the chief macro-economic policy objective is full employment in Sweden and there the Government have expressly committed themselves to reducing unemployment to 2 per cent of the labour force. Restoration of full employment is the primary target in that Government's economic policy. Everyone who wishes shall be entitled to a meaningful job. Unemployment is a personal tragedy and a waste of resources. This is Government policy and was declared in their 1985-86 budget statement. This was the statement of the Government and the strength of this commitment does not imply that unemployment is exceptionally high in Sweden. In 1984 just before they made that statement unemployment was 3.1 per cent of the Labour force and they were committed to reducing it to 2 per cent.

During the seventies and the early eighties unemployment was kept low in Sweden at the expense of inflation, but the document states that the private sector shed labour which the public sector was required to absorb in view of the commitment to full employment. When you have a commitment to full employment you must recognise that only the public sector and assistance by the public sector will give that full employment. The private sector will never give you full employment without the assistance of the public sector and they are committed to it to the extent that where labour is shed by the private sector the public sector will take up that loss in order to bring full employment to the extent of that 2 per cent.

This is the type of commitment to jobs that we must have, whereas what we have here are a Government who have stated it is not the job of Government to create jobs. It is not their job to have anything to do with creation of jobs. The job of Government, according to this Coalition Government, is to create the environment in which private enterprise can create jobs. That is completely opposite to the type of policy I have outlined that they have in Sweden, a major industrialised country with the highest technology and the highest standard of living — an area which recognises the need for public involvement in order to create full employment.

If our Government say it is not their job to create employment, how can we expect them to do the things they say they will do in the NDC? The Minister said that when the NDC identify a niche or gap in the market place which the private sector is not yet exploiting good, bad or indifferent they will become involved in it. They must find this niche or gap in the market place first which the private sector is not yet exploiting, then they will be empowered to move in there and establish a business on their own initiative to meet that demand. The Minister said it was intended that the NDC should operate as a commercial entity which will invest in enterprises, establish them on their own initiative — unlike the IDA — and then dispose of them in accordance with normal commercial procedures. This is precisely the ICTU document which is objected to. They are opposed to the proposal that the NDC must sell off their investments to the private sector. According to the Minister that is still the objective of the NDC.

I do not know precisely what the Labour Party think the Government will do, but what Fine Gael understand as the role of the NDC is very clear. The role of the NDC is to assist private enterprises where they are not already engaged. In some area the NDC will develop a business and when that business is developing profitably they will hand it over to the private enterprise people who are involved in it, or to some other private enterprise group who take an interest in it, and probably they will be repaid over a period. They will recoup their money, but their original objective is to assist private enterprise in developing that sector of business, bringing it to a profitable stage and then giving it over to private enterprise to run while they move off to look for another niche or gap in the market place and develop that. This sort of role does not seem to have any great future and that is the role as the Minister, Deputy Bruton, sees it. Surely the role of the NDC should be to oversee the industrial development of the country generally and to develop industry.

What does the Minister mean when he says they will play a critical role in the overall strategy for the development of the indigenous resources sector of the economy? He said that our timber resources need to be exploited in a more commercial manner than heretofore and the NDC were being given a special role as investment vehicle in commercial projects in this area.

Deputy McCreevy said that private enterprise had been stifled but the forestry area has been wide open to private enterprise for as many years as the State has been established and had done very little about it. There is a saw mill here and there, some closing down and others opening up around the country but, apart from Woodfab, there has been very little development in the last 60 years in the forestry area although every possible assistance has been given by the Department and other Government agencies. Private enterprise has not been able to develop in that area.

One of the points made by private enterprise in regard to their difficulties relates to the Civil Service control of the forests. I do not think there is anybody, supporters of public or private enterprise, who would not agree that the direct Civil Service control of what is a commercial area of development has been disastrous and made it impossible for any development to take place. This has been put to the Minister concerned repeatedly by myself and other Members but he has refused to make any changes in regard to the way the forestry tender system operates, the fact that some forests are inaccessible or the fact that the Department are not aware of the extent of forestry under their control.

I have been ruling that a wide-ranging debate on forestry, or any matter other than the proposals in the Bill, is not in order.

I am commenting on the Minister's statement that our timber resources need to be exploited in a more commercial manner than heretofore. All Members will agree with that. I am anxious to know if the Minister, Deputy Bruton, has a different idea of how our timber resources should be exploited in a more commercial manner from that of the Minister for Forestry. The latter does not think any change is necessary in order to exploit our forests in a more commercial manner but Deputy Bruton said the NDC must be given a special role as an investment vehicle in commercial projects in this area. I am trying to figure out if Minister Bruton discussed the matter with Minister O'Toole. Does Minister Bruton realise what he is up against in Minister O'Toole? From our experience in the last three years in comments and speeches by Minister O'Toole we can say that the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism will not get anywhere in the development of forests in a more commercial manner. I hope Minister Bruton will give us some idea of how he proposes to do this either in the area of private enterprise or public enterprise.

I am glad to see that Fianna Fáil have accepted the idea of Bord na Móna, who have shown such outstanding ability in the development of our peat resources, taking over the development of our forests because peat resources will not last forever. Whatever decision the Minister arrives at he will be up against a Civil Service system in the Department of Forestry which is totally non-commercial and against the commercial development of our forests. That is an indication of the general attitude of Government and I am wondering how the NDC will work in the way the Labour Party think it will. Bearing in mind Fine Gael policy it does not seem that the NDC will work in anything like the manner the Labour Party are suggesting.

Fine Gael, and the Government, have been developing a privatisation policy in a number of areas, not just in State companies as they are proposing to do in regard to the B & I in hiving off the duty free shops to private enterprise, or in regard to NET having discussions with ICI with a view to giving them a half share because it seems that there is a privatisation policy by the Government in regard to areas like the health service. Even the measles vaccination seems to be privatised from the health boards to private medical practitioners. In many other areas that seems to be the way things are going. If that is so, I do not see how the Labour Party can expect that the NDC will develop public enterprises.

If we are talking about full employment, about ensuring, as the Swedes say, that everyone who wishes shall be entitled to a meaningful job because unemployment is a personal tragedy and a waste of resources, and if the Government are working in human terms rather than engaging in bookkeeping exercises and in terms of profit, then we will have to see public enterprise and public companies as the way to give full employment. The slack must be taken up from private enterprise. Where private enterprise closes down jobs the State must be prepared to take up those jobs. The State must have development, expansion and innovation in mind. We must support our best public servants who have been of tremendous benefit to the State and not throw them on the scrap heap, like General Costello. We have to support them but the Government do not seem to have that type of policy in mind. I cannot see how they are going to do the job in the National Development Corporation.

Deputy McCreevy felt that many grant-aided foreign industries should not be grant-aided because they do not have any indigenous base here and were of no benefit. That is becoming more and more evident and I support what the Deputy said in regard to that. The point he was making was that they are not adding to the economy and in the long run the profits they make are taken out of the country. There is another reason why they do not need to be grant-aided now.

The Deputy is getting away from the terms of the Bill.

I am referring to a comment by Deputy McCreevy which the Leas-Cheann Comhairle allowed. The Deputy was making a point in regard to the industries that are grant-aided. He asked if the industries developed by the National Development Corporation would also be able to avail of IDA grants. I think the Minister said yes, that grant-aiding of industries would come under the National Development Corporation idea. If that corporation develop an industry, it should be entitled to receive the same type of grant-aid as other industries. It was on that basis that Deputy McCreevy was speaking about this.

I did not think these industries needed so much grant-aiding now, because the current position is that industries are coming here for reasons other than our grants. An industry called Verbatim is setting up here because the high volume assembly work is cheaper in labour terms here and in Mexico than in the United States. In labour terms, we count the same as Mexico; we have cheap labour so we need not give these industries any grant-aid at all. While the industries being set up here are providing jobs which we need, development should be geared to creating industries which, in turn, create new wealth in the economy — industries based on our resources, mineral, food processing, forestry, fisheries and so on.

The Deputy is getting into a general discussion on grants and that is not in order. I would ask him to come back to the Bill.

I support and have supported the idea of a national development corporation but I have a different idea about it, which I think was one the Labour Party had, that it would develop areas where private enterprise was not involved but also areas where private enterprise was involved and was doing a very bad job. It is involved in forestry and so on. The National Development Corporation will be developing public enterprise in the natural resources area which will be competitive and profitable. When profitable, they will be contributing to Government, not selling off to private enterprise which seems to be the policy of the Government at present. I do not think that the National Development Corporation which is before us has any meaning whatsoever apart from being a cover for the Labour Party. As pointed out by previous speakers, we already have a National Enterprise Agency. As Deputy Bell has said, that agency might not have been too bad, but it lacked Government will to implement it. He thinks the National Development Corporation will be better because it will have Government will behind it. The whole thrust of my speech is in reply to that. This corporation also will be hung up to dry because it will not have Government will to implement the ideas behind the original development.

This is an important Bill. Every Member of this House should support the National Development Corporation and I am a little disappointed that the Opposition are not giving it their support. We are all deeply concerned about the very high level of unemployment. The choices open to us can be boiled down to two. One is to sit and do nothing but complain and moan. Alternatively, we can try to do something about the situation. I do not wish to be contentious but the Opposition attitude to this Bill is one of sitting, complaining and doing nothing. I am not including the last speaker in that Opposition. I think Deputy Mac Giolla is in support of this Bill. I am asking the Fianna Fáil Party to support the Bill because there is scope in it. There is every likelihood that, if it gets the support of all parties in this House, of all the semi-State bodies, people in business and in enterprise outside this House, it can achieve much good for the country.

We have at present in the region of 220,000 to 230,000 unemployed. It is a frightening prospect to see many young men and women who will face a lifetime without a job unless something is done for them. I believe that Governments can do something for these people. It is up to all of us here to try to do something positive to provide the necessary jobs and that is my reason for supporting this Bill. There is every hope, possibility and prospect that the corporation will achieve many positive results and succeed in providing employment for our young people and those of every age who have been laid off work and face a prospect of never regaining employment.

I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Bruton, and his Ministers of State, Deputy Moynihan and Deputy Collins, on their input into this Bill. These three have produced a Bill with the help of the Government and the Cabinet which will bring successful results. The complaint is being made that we have sufficient agencies already. If we can succeed in providing employment with this corporation, it will be of great use to this country. That is absolutely essential.

I heard the Ceann Comhairle's ruling in connection with Deputy Mac Giolla and shall touch only briefly on some points at which I would recommend the corporation to look. I do not know if that is within the ambit of this debate. This Bill enables the corporation themselves to do any particular job or to go into a joint venture with some other body. Mr. Lorcan Blake of Allied Irish Banks mentioned recently private enterprise taking over our forests. I read his remarks on this subject with interest. In my view, a body such as the National Development Corporation have a role to play in the development of our forests, but I would prefer to see Bord na Móna taking over our forests and developing them, in conjunction with a certain amount of private development which exists at present.

About four months before Deputy Haughey made his Ard-Fheis speech in which he stated that Fianna Fáil were considering having Bord na Móna take over forestry I went to the trouble of preparing a detailed speech, having done much research, in which I suggested that Bord na Móna should take over our forestry. The following morning I bought the three national papers —The Cork Examiner is not the big seller in Laois-Offaly — and there was something smaller than a small advertisement in The Irish Times in which they reported that Deputy Enright was in favour of Bord na Móna taking over forestry. The other two papers did not deem my remarks worthy of comment. Be that as it may, it is something that I believe should be considered. Forestry is one of the greatest areas for potential growth of employment available to any Government, the National Development Corporation or whoever may have the ability, energy and foresight to exploit it. Across the whole country there are vast tracts of land awaiting forestry development with huge job potential.

I would ask the Government to consider allowing Bord na Móna to take over and develop our forests or, if not, if they would examine closely how the NDC could move in and do so. At present there is not sufficient timber for a number of our sawmills. We are importing vast amounts of timber.

Deputy, this is where we are getting away from the Bill. When one gets to that stage one could talk on it for two to three hours.

I appreciate your position, a Cheann Comhairle, and I shall not develop that point. I would ask the Government to take a hard look at forestry and its potential and perhaps devote a Cabinet meeting to assessing its enormous potential and the jobs available. Bord na Móna are the people who should undertake the task, perhaps with a certain mix from private enterprise. If not, the task could be undertaken by the NDC. But something must be done because the way our forests are lying idle at present is a national scandal.

Other areas in which there is tremendous potential are in food, fish and vegetable processing. As a nation we deserve condemnation for the amount of food we import daily. It amounts to a national scandal. People throughout the length and breadth of the country purchase from the large supermarket chains, who are the main culprits, because they do not bring in food in van loads but in large containers, one following another. The next time any Irish person goes to Britain he will see the notices displayed in shops there which read: "Be British", "Think British" and "Buy British".

I do not think you can relate that to the Bill, Deputy. I do not want to get into an argument or contentious discussion.

Our natural resources comprise our land, forests and seas, areas in which there is enormous potential for the development of industry. The NDC will have available to them a vast sum of money, £300 million. I listened with tremendous interest to a radio interview this morning with a Father Mark Mimnagh from Cavan. I might congratulate him on his initiative — he employs 17 people in a development corporation in County Cavan. I would hope that the NDC would have the sense to see how vegetable processing can be undertaken in a small way on a profitable basis. We have the soil, climate, expertise. What we need is the initiative and drive to go out and get going. We import vast amounts of vegetables. With the assistance of the NDC we should be able to set up vegetable processing plants throughout the country. A number of them are closing or are experiencing difficulties of one type or another. Whether the NDC undertake the task alone or in a joint venture with somebody else, they should have the courage of their covictions to take over such processing plants.

Deputy Mac Giolla mentioned Erin Foods and all the problems that had ensued. Again, there are problems with the Sugar Company. In spite of all those problems there is scope and demand for the produce of these factories. We are just as skilled as those people in Britain who manage to process vegetables. At least if not more intelligent we have the expertise, common sense and everything else. This National Development Corporation constitutes a great challenge to us as a nation to ensure that henceforth rather than being a heavy importer of vegetables, we become self-sufficient, perhaps exporting vegetables to countries where there is a demand for them.

In the course of that radio interview this morning Father Mimnagh, to whom I referrred, was able to point out — and he had undertaken this research himself — that, on the American market cauliflowers cost $2——

That is much more a speech for the Department of Agriculture Estimate.

I bow to your ruling, a Cheann Comhairle. The point I am making is that one man with energy and initiative was able to discover a market for cauliflowers in America. There is a market for vegetables right across Europe and it is up to the NDC to exploit such markets. I might refer to the situation in regard to beef processing——

The same applies here.

As it is not within the ambit of the Bill, I shall not develop that point but there is potential there for the NDC.

There are many areas here awaiting exploitation by such a corporation. I might give as an example the amount of machinery we import. I would hope that the NDC would have the initiative to ascertain how they can develop and manufacture machinery. I know the opportunities exist. For example, there is a firm outside my own town, Derrinlough Engineering Works in Birr, where machinery is expertly manufactured and prepared. They work under the auspices of Bord na Móna who are considering closing this firm. They should be allowed to sell to other firms also. Those engineering works had been built up over the years and we cannot afford to lose expertise which has taken so many years to develop. If Bord na Móna do not have the foresight to retain this important engineering works, the National Development Corporation should move in. We have very complex rules and regulations in regard to joint ventures. The biggest firm in the country is Guinness but if I wish to invest £200 in their shares ——

How does the Deputy relate that to the Bill? The Deputy has not addresed himself to the Bill since he started his speech apart from mentioning the name of the Bill which he did often enough. His speech does not relate to the Bill.

The Bill mentions venture capital and joint ventures and the point I am making is that if people wish to invest in Guinness shares they are prevented by the rules of the Stock Exchange from doing so.

That is a matter for the Department of Finance.

The Minister for Finance is one of those who has responsibility for this Bill.

He is involved in so far as providing finance is concerned.

I am trying to remain within the ambit of the Bill, but matters of this nature should be mentioned in this context.

If that were to be permitted the rules of the House will have to be changed.

If it would help in reducing unemployment, it would be no harm to look at the rules of the House.

The Deputy may address himself at an appropriate time to changing the rules of the House.

They have not been changed since 1981.

I did not see you around then.

Deputies should speak through the Chair and address themselves to the Bill.

It is important that people should work in conjunction with the National Development Corporation and they can do this in a number of ways. That is the point I was trying to make and if you had listened to me fully you would have agreed that my point is relevant. The National Development Corporation will need assistance and investment funds from private individuals and companies. I know that the regulations to which I referred are outside the ambit of the Bill, but the NDC will have to address themselves to that problem. Many firms have their headquarters in Britain and I am against any changes in the regulations which would allow people to invest in British companies only. A private individual is prevented by Stock Exchange regulations from investing in Guinness shares ——

If the Deputy thinks for a moment that this is relevant to the Bill ——

I hope that the National Development Corporation will discuss this matter with the Minister for Finance because it will be an inhibiting factor when the corporation are set up.

It is a white elephant.

It is an important corporation and I hope ——

You cannot be blamed for not trying to make your points.

God loves a trier. The corporation should not be too restrictive. Many accountants and civil servants will be brought in to cope with the book work involved. In general, accountants and civil servants are not over adventurous and they do not have as much entrepreneurial flair as those involved in the business world. I would hate to see good ideas bogged down in paper work and I hope they will be listened to and that there will be a positive response. The corporation can work given the right support.

Many people wish to invest in Ireland and there is potential in the Bill for doing so. We are on the edge of Europe and there are positive benefits to be gained. We should be able to attract investment from outside the country. I wish the corporation success and with the right guidance and positive support of everyone in the House they will succeed. Every Member should back the corporation and the Opposition should be very careful about opposing the Bill. The IDA have attracted many industries here and we would be in a very bad state without them. They needed support when they were set up and the NDC need it now. Everybody in this House should give them their full backing.

Of course we will be giving very careful consideration to the Bill but we know only too well its history and how it has come to this stage. Listening to some of the speeches from Members opposite, it looks as if the National Development Corporation will be the fairy godmother to every kind of dumdum operation.

Ideas about the National Development Corporation have been around for some time. The matter has been discussed and various suggestions have been put forward as to how we should explore the possibility of innovation and development in the whole range of technological, scientific, engineering and other skills. We know there are agencies any one of which could be expanded by one simple clause which would enable them to undertake the developments we are talking about here. There is a need for the kind of development envisaged under the NDC but we believe, and there is evidence to back this up, that all the purposes could be fulfilled simply by organising some of the existing agencies.

I do not believe there is any difference of opinion on this matter on the part of some of the Members on the opposite side. I shall quote a comment by Deputy Kelly about a year ago when speaking in this House on the national economic and social plan. In volume 352, column 2237 of the Official Report dated 11 October 1984 the Deputy made the following comment:

The reference to the National Development Corporation made me give a wry smile. I have been hearing about this spook ever since it first surfaced in the form of an accommodation address in Kildare Street without even a telephone, a permanent secretariat or anything else...

He went on to say:

Apparently it is now to have a somewhat more solid substance, but I am still not clear what it is intended to do. I could not help laughing at finding in the plan that the National Enterprise Agency "would seek to identify opportunities" for the National Development Corporation to pursue. Surely the people who want a National Development Corporation should see those opportunities before setting it up? I can see it so well that I could nearly write the script. There will be an office with wall-to-wall carpeting and a stainless plate on the door with a cute little logogram designed by some graphic designer with a tweed tie...

These were the Deputy's views on the NDC. He made the point I am making now, namely, that we have Bord na Móna, Bord Iascaigh Methara, Gaeltarra Éireann and a host of other agencies who are quite capable of doing what needs to be done provided a simple clause is inserted in their terms of reference.

I am sceptical of the Government's intentions when I see the way the National Enterprise Agency have been treated by them since they took office. The agency have issued reports up to 1983-84. They have pointed out the difficulties under which they have been operating. They are conscious of the fact that, because of the sluggish condition of the economy here and throughout Europe, it is a difficult climate for a development agency to operate in. Everyone knows that what is lacking is not structures, agencies or skilled personnel. What is needed is some direction from Government in many areas which would help to create a climate in which the necessary developments could take place. We must not forget that there are 1,000,000 young people at school at the moment and many of them will need jobs in the near future. I do not believe the NDC or any other agency can meet the challenge of unemployment unless and until the Government realise they must take the initiatives that are essential for economic growth.

Many ideas have been tossed around and various study groups and committees have looked at them. At the moment State spending is being cut, there are controls in respect of the volume of money in the market, profits are being squeezed, there if a fall in industrial development and the manufacturing base is contracting. All of this is due to the policies of the Government. In view of that any agency, whether it be the NDC, the IDA, SFADCo, Córas Tráchtála or Gaeltarra Eireann to name but a few, will be limited in the way they can tackle our problems.

It is hypocritical of Government Deputies to say our opposition to this measure is due to failure on our part to recognise the urgent need to create employment. They know only too well that the policies of every Minister in this administration have been the main reason for the sluggish condition of the economy thus creating huge unemployment. Because of this we will not have the right kind of climate to enable any agency, private company or individual to become interested in developing or expanding operations here.

In his speech the Minister highlighted the need to draw up an agreement between the IDA and other State agencies to ensure there will not be overlapping or disputes between the various organisations with regard to responsibility. Is it not the obvious thing for the Minister to insert the relevant cause in the terms of reference of the existing agencies — a simple matter — to enable them to do what is necessary? There is no need to have this further development, this new monster that will try to take over all the operations of the agencies and their financing. In practically every section of the Bill there is a provision stating that matters are subject to the control or direction of the Minister.

We can already see indications of what will happen when Government agencies begin to compete with each other. After five years deliberation in the Department we now have circulated an Industrial Development Bill, 1985. It was rushed in here today and this indicates the pressure that is already on the Department, with the various strands in the Department pushing their own points of view. Did anybody before hear of two State agencies setting up agreements between themselves? The Minister is setting down guidelines for the NDC. Will we next see him setting them down for marriage agreements, with the Minister officiating? I hope some Minister will have the power to dissolve the shotgun wedding.

This Bill is the limit as far as bureaucracy is concerned. By inserting a minor clause in the IDA Bill the Minister could have brought the NDC into being. He did not do that because the NDC was the big plank in the Labour Party programme, although during the course of the debate this afternoon we have not heard a contribution from a Labour Deputy, and in the last half hour the Ceann Comhairle had some difficulty restraining Deputy Enright who was put in because of a shortage of speakers on the Government side.

This Bill will not satisfy anyone and that is why there has been such a reluctance to speak by Government Deputies. The NEA was an excellent vehicle to promote the type of development we consider to be essential in present circumstances. In their report the NEA highlighted the fact that they had brought in a team of competent people in spite of lack of Government support. In the short term of their existence they tried to fund sustainable jobs and the development, of instance, of a whole range of new products with engineering and scientific bases.

We must try to exploit the huge volume of expertise we have in the universities, the NIHEs and the regional colleges. In this Bill there is very little incentive for co-operation between the universities and the other higher education colleges to exploit scientific and technological knowledge. In 1949 the British Government set up agencies to exploit the research work being done in the universities. The Minister will know of the establishment there of the National Research Development Corporation who are engaged in developing a whole range of contacts between universities and research institutes. They have tried to develop inventions and so on. They developed new products, advanced commodities. Last year they earned £60 million in overseas fees in respect of patents. They carried our research work in computer and other sciences, in chemical engineering, in a variety of technological and scientific developments in the universities.

Though that kind of development is recognised in the Bill, I should like to see some vehicle being developed to utilise the expertise on our colleges and universities. They should be brought together. We suffer here from a lack of linkage and if a new agency involved in this fails to bring together academic expertise we will be losing a great opportunity.

The effectiveness of the NDC under the Bill will be very limited in regard to encouraging contacts and co-operative work in the colleges of higher education. We need to be in the van of scientific and technological advances being made. These advances are bringing about a new revolution and we need to be in at the beginning. We have a million young boys and girls in our schools and colleges looking for employment openings. In future there will not be as many opportunities in the public service because of the deliberate policy of the Government. If there are to be opportunities, not only for the many thousands of young boys and girls who are unemployed but for the many thousands more who will be leaving the educational system in the next number of years, we must be involved in the whole range of technological development and let us be seen to be to the forefront where these developments are concerned. This will involve directing our young people into the science subjects. There is a whole range of activities which may seem to be unrelated to the development we are talking of in this Bill but which we will need to concentrate on if we are to provide opportunities for our people.

There are tremendous possibilities for us within the ambit of the areas the NDC will be exploring. We are now only scratching the surface in that respect. However, I do not envisage the NDC being able to do anything that cannot be done by the National Enterprise Agency or by any other such agency. That is why I would be more in favour of building on what has been established already and in giving to the NEA the teeth they need in terms of development potential and of being to the forefront in terms of the new and exciting changes that are taking place. We are losing out on opportunities because of a lack of proper linkage between the Government agencies and the universities and colleges of technology.

It would be difficult to convince anyone on this side of the House that the Government are serious about supporting indigenous industry when we have regard to their action in relation to the chipboard factory at Scariff, for instance. Numerous Deputies today spoke of the need to exploit our timber industry but, in an enterprise in which the Government were involved as partners with private investors including some local people who had invested their money to keep the plant open, the Government put in a receiver and had the company wound up. A Spanish company are operating at the plant now. How, then, could anyone treat seriously the setting up of a corporation to develop industry?

I do not think anyone will be convinced by the arguments of Government Deputies that the setting up of the corporation will result in the exploration of the full potential of our forestry, for example. We already have a Government Department who have power under the forestry Acts to explore that potential. But how can anyone have confidence in the Government in that respect when some members of a committee set up by the Minister who were to report by June last went behind the backs of other members and supplied the Minister with selected passages from the final draft of the report, thereby sabotaging the committee's work? The Minister was supplied with inside information as to what was taking place in the committee. He was supplied privately with a two page document in advance of the completion of the committee's report. Is it any wonder that the committee were totally undermined and circumvented in what they were doing? Today the Minister tried to justify that sort of behaviour. Was it surprising that one of the committee's key personnel, Peter Cassells of the ICTU, considered himself forced to resign from the committee though he was appointed by the Minister just one year ago?

Government speakers tell us we should be constructive in our remarks about the NDC on the basis that the corporation will be involved in the exploitation of our resources and consequently in the creation of jobs in the various areas of activity but, only a short while ago, the Minister concerned scuttled a State Company who were involved in the timber business. The same Minister has now undermined a committee set up by him to advise on what future structures might be needed in terms of exploring our timber resources. Timber will become more valuable as it matures in the State forests and also because of a world shortfall in timber that will not be made up either by us or by any other timber producing country.

We know what the Government are at. Their only aim is to be able to say at the next election that they set up the NDC and that that will result in the provision of jobs for the thousands of people who need them. The jobs could be created by any one of the existing Government agencies. There is no lack of finances to develop a project of any importance. I have yet to experience the holding up of a genuine project for reasons of lack of finance whether on the part of private institutions or of State agencies. There is a shortage of ideas and of new projects with the result that viable jobs are not being created. Such agencies as the county development teams, Gaeltarra Éireann, the IDA and so on are capable of doing what needs to be done in the area of employment creation.

Another project scuttled by the Government was the Hyster project in Limerick. The Government failed to make available the money that was necessary for that plant. That subject was debated fully here earlier in the year during Private Members' Business when it was shown clearly that the Government have no commitment to industry or to jobs. Despite this they are prepared to spend money on this new development at a time when the Minister for Finance is telling us how Government expenditure must be cut. We are talking here of a sum of perhaps £2 million for the administration of this new bureaucracy.

There is reference to the desirability of exploiting our fisheries potential. We have missed out on opportunities in that area. Today the Minister gave figures in respect of the imports of fish — imports to a total value of £30 million in one year — but these imports should not be necessary. We should be capable of fulfilling the market need by way of our own industry. If we are to develop the fishing industry that development will be by way of negotiating larger quotas for our fishermen. There must be an increase in catches if we are to develop the industry. However, the Government by their actions have ensured that the reverse will be the case because in the negotiations for the enlargement of the Community there is provision for 17,500 Spanish boats to come here and take the fish which our fishermen should be catching.

Perhaps the Deputy would come back from Europe and relate his remarks to the Bill.

Developments in Europe will dictate the development of our fishing industry in the coming years because we are totally tied in with Europe now.

The Deputy cannot afford to talk about what Fianna Fáil did in the area of fisheries.

The Government mishandled the negotiations and sold out our fishing industry thereby setting it back by 20 years.

Will the Deputy please return to the Bill?

These considerations are very relevant.

The Deputy seems to be suffering from loss of memory.

The people will not be fooled by the Government's claim to be creating jobs in the fishing industry.

What about the biscuit factory in Ballina?

As Deputy Kenny will be aware, fishermen along the west coast cannot fish for mackerel at this time because the season has closed. Neither can they fish for herring in the Celtic Sea in the south-west because the season is closed and now, because of a badly organised and negotiated enlargement of the Community, there will be less fish as the Spanish fleet will be catching the fish which should be exploited by Irish industry. To say that a huge number of jobs will be created in the fishing industry when the National Development Corporation is established is a lot of rubbish, and Deputies know it. More jobs in this industry can be created under present regulations and with aid which is already available from EC funds. This aid is not being taken up because the Government are not sufficiently committed to developing the fishing industry.

We do not need a new agency, all we need is the Government to encourage the fishing industry to develop secondary processing which can be done by Bord Iascaigh Mhara. This whole exercise is a bluff and the Minister knows it. It is another bit of propaganda which will be used before the next election to try to get people to believe that this new development corporation is doing great things and that if this Government get back into power all our unemployment problems will be solved.

The NEA set out very clearly what the Government have done to them. They were beginning to operate successfully but before the ink was dry, this agency was undermined by the Government. Deputy Bell spoke about the frustration they felt, and admitted that the Government killed off the National Enterprise Agency. He said it was not given any teeth, any money, or expertise and that it was a failure because the Government did not back it. That is a test of the sincerity of this Government. It is recognised that if the Government had backed the NEA, if the Government had been willing to help them, they would be well on the way to doing what needs to be done, and we would not be here discussing this Bill. This is another delaying tactic by the national handlers pretending something magnificent is around the corner, if the people are foolish enough to believe it, but I do not think they are.

I do not want to delay the House because this Bill has been thrashed out for a long time and there will be another opportunity to thrash out the Industrial Development Bill. This Bill was no sooner circulated than the IDA were busy getting their document before us. We know what the Government have in mind. Fianna Fáil are deeply committed to the development of our resources, to the exploitation of the potential of our colleges of technology and universities, to the opening of our forests and so on. We can see the prospect of many sustainable jobs being created if the Government create the proper climate. As long as we have a Government who are holding back every sector of the economy, who are committed to nothing but self-preservation, we will not see the kind of development we hope to see in the future.

I tell the Government to forget about this bluff, to put this Bill away with the rest of their policy documents and to call a general election. Let the people decide what they want. I know they want to get this hopeless, hapless Government out of office at the earliest opportunity.

I think we should give the last speaker an encore.

I will give the Deputy time to say a few words.

I welcome the proposed National Development Corporation Bill. I believe this agency has a lot to offer in areas the NEA and the IDA have not been looking after. As regards the food industry, forestry, meat processing and so on, over the years multinationals have been supplied with food from other countries, from Europe and South Africa. We have seen people on strike for the past 12 months because of this situation. A step in the right direction would be if the NDC were involved in a joint venture with people with large amounts of capital to invest and the Government should have a percentage share in these companies.

I wish to mention the attitude of the Opposition to this proposal. When one looks back on the official records, one sees that in 1950 when the Industrial Development Authority Bill was going through this House, the then Opposition and their leader were opposed to it. On 9 March 1950 the Fianna Fáil Leader, Mr. Lemass, said at column 1618 of the Official Report:

I do not want the individuals concerned to feel that, in taking action to terminate it, we are animated by any hostility to themselves as individuals. Our hostility is to this Bill and to the principle of it. It may be that the Minister will remain in office and that these people will continue to carry out his functions for him; but, if ever that situation ceases and the Party on this side of the House becomes the Government, the functions of the Minister for Industry and Commerce will be resumed by whoever is nominated to that post and these subsidiary bodies will cease.

This is a proposal to help industry in a way in which it has not been helped over the past 35 years. The Leader of the Opposition said 35 years ago that they would terminate the IDA who were set up by the Coalition Government. It is interesting that when they returned to power that did not happen. They saw the IDA as a means to help individuals who had supported them down through the years and to provide jobs and give grants to them. We can see the results of that over the years. Is it any wonder that so many of the efforts set up since then have failed?

In this Bill £300 million will be made available to develop the food processing industry which has been dormant for years. All Governments were responsible for that. A real effort has not been made since we joined Europe in 1973 in relation to a policy for food processing so that there would be Irish food in the supermarkets, food of which people could be proud. It is ironic that the Opposition are prepared to knock this for the sake of knocking as they did in relation to the IDA and as they knocked the National Housing Finance Agency Bill in 1981. Opposition speakers last week welcomed the increased amount of money for the National Housing Finance Agency. We must continually listen to the Opposition knocking proposals that will develop thousands of jobs without coming up with one proposal to help to solve the unemployment problem.

The development of joint venture schemes in relation to forestry can ensure that large tracts of land useless for agricultural production can be planted, providing thousands of jobs. In this area we could attract outside investment from banks and other institutions willing to invest on a long term basis to ensure that thousands of unproductive acres will be developed.

Irish companies are investing in Scotland and America because of the Government's policies.

Some Deputies mentioned that the National Enterprise Agency will go by the board. They are doing an excellent job for small business people willing to invest money. Having had the opportunity to talk to these people at a meeting of the Committee on Public Expenditure, I saw that they were doing an excellent job under their terms of reference. It took a year to two to get them off the ground but, so far as small industries are concerned, there is an incentive and the agency are doing a good job. The National Development Corporation will have the necessary finance and will be able to attract the business people who have the finance to invest in the industries I have mentioned.

They are running out of here because of the Government.

Over a period of five years large numbers of jobs will be provided. It is not right for the Opposition to oppose proposals which will help to provide extra jobs and which will encourage finance to be invested in the development of jobs and ensure that our natural resources are fully utilised. Fianna Fáil administrations opposed constructive proposals. All the new developments and forward thinking ideas by Coalition Governments, for example the IDA and the ESB, were opposed by Fianna Fáil. They exhibited the same type of——

Seán Lemass's baby.

Which was?

(Interruptions.)

We have the same negative thinking from the Opposition——

(Interruptions.)

——in which they run down anything that might be positive.

They oppose anything which might create long term employment such as employment in the food processing industry and so on. The Deputy referred to Seán Lemass's baby. I read out what Seán Lemass thought of the baby but, when he came into office, he decided that there was something good they could do for their friends through the IDA. They could give them some finance to create jobs or whatever. Deputy Lemass did not stand up to his words uttered here in the House when he said he would terminate the IDA.

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy does not know what he is talking about.

Order, order. Deputy Brady, please.

Deputy Lemass said he would terminate the Industrial Development Authority if and when returned to office.

(Interruptions.)

On 9 March 1950——

(Interruptions.)

——the Official Report of the House shows the thinking of Fianna Fáil as a party. They have not gone beyond the narrowmindedness of looking after their own. This Bill will attract finances which would otherwise go out of the country. The fact that £300 million will be made available by the State to provide jobs in profit making industries——

(Interruptions.)

People have been running from the country over the past two years.

There are thousands of young people out there——

Unemployed.

——who will thank us for the stand we are taking on this Bill.

(Interruptions.)

Order, order. The Deputy to conclude, please.

I remind Deputies that for every 15,000 registered unemployed people who are investigated, 6,000 are found to be working.

(Interruptions.)

I have no doubt that the Bill will not end up on the rocks regardless of whether or not the Opposition come to power.

The Government are very much on the rocks at the moment.

The same thing will happen if Fianna Fáil are returned to office as happened when the IDA——

(Interruptions.)

——were set up in 1950 by the Coalition Government. The Opposition Leader of the day in 1950 and the Opposition Leader of 1985——

Will Deputy Farrelly move the adjournment of the debate as it is now 7 o'clock?

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn