Vol. 397 No. 4
15 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, having regard to his recent statements concerning the advantages of having a single amalgamated industrial promotions board covering all areas of the country, if he will make a statement on the matter.
47 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will outline the present position in regard to the rationalisation of industrial promoton activities in the mid-west of the country; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 15 and 47 together.
I have already indicated that I believe we have too many State agencies dealing with different aspects of industrial development and that there may be room for improvement in the existing arrangements. I have instructed my Department to examine how State agency structures might best be re-organised in the context of the Triennial Review of Industrial Performance which I expect will be published very shortly.
Given the Minister's interest in streamlining matters I should like to ask him if this survey will be followed by recommendations in relation to the continuation of Údarás na Gaeltachta who have to operate under a series of distinct disadvantages in terms of geography and infrastructural facilities compared with the Industrial Development Authority.
I have no responsibility for Údarás na Gaeltachta but I am aware that they labour under particular difficulties. I would see that body primarily as a social organisation rather than a specifically economic one. They have tried to achieve certain valid social objectives through economic means and they are clearly not in a position to do that on the basis of the same criteria which would apply in the remainder of the country.
Will the Minister say if we will have a continuation of the county development teams as they operate? Does he see them continuing in their present form or will they get more resources?
I remain to be convinced that the county development teams are of any value. They exist in some counties and not in others. I do not think that their existence or otherwise makes any material difference.
If this proposal is to proceed, on what basis will decisions be taken as to where industries will be located? Who will ultimately take the decision that an industry should be located in one area as against another? Will consideration be given to unemployment black spots when locating those industries?
In the last resort the location of each industry is a matter for decision by the promoter of the industry concerned. If a foreign promoter was to seek advice from one of the agencies concerned the agency would give that advice. Presumably in regard to location they would do that on the basis of the viability of the company and by taking into account the places in the agency's area where the difficulties are greatest. They would seek to encourage the company, perhaps, to go there if its location would not adversely affect its viability.
Does the Minister intend to include SFADCo in the review and does he agree that the question of the inter-relationship between the different agencies has been considered to varying degrees by different Governments over the years? Will the Minister agree that the stop-go approach to the different agencies — under one Government they appeared to be on the point of abolition and under another Government they appeared to be getting an extension of their role — is hindering the work of the agencies and making the climate under which they work uncertain? Will he accept that that is damaging to the morale and the effectiveness of those agencies?
All relevant agencies are being examined, as I have said. One of the basic difficulties we have is that we have too many such agencies involved in some respect or other with industrial development. That has been a fact for some time and Governments have tried to come to grips with it. At the moment four different Departments and 14 State agencies are involved in one way or another in aspects of industrial development. Frankly, that is too many.
SFADCo are looked upon as having been a very successful organisation and I should like to ask the Minister, having regard to the changing role and area of responsibility of that body, when the review will be completed. Many parts of west Tipperary would like to be included in the SFADCo region, like north Tipperary. It is our hope that under the review the Minister will be able to do better for the western part of south Tipperary than the IDA have done for it.
The Deputy should sit back and reflect on this. I take it that Tipperary town is in the centre of the area he is talking about, west Tipperary, and that town has done extraordinarily well in recent months.
I accept that.
I would refer the Deputy to Question No. 29 from his colleague Deputy Davern, who complained bitterly about how much better west Tipperary does than south-east Tipperary. Deputy Davern said there was resentment as a result of this. Deputy Ferris may have picked a bad example.
In view of the importance of the Single European Act, and the difficulties we have as an island in attracting industry, will the investigation take into account consultations with the Industrial Development Board in Northern Ireland with a view to arranging a joint effort to attract industry to the country?
There is a relationship with the Industrial Development Board in Northern Ireland and that relationship is kept constantly under review.
