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.