Vol. 405 No. 6
11 Mr. McGahon asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the reason he has not implemented in full the recommendation, in paragraph 10.11 of the Review of Industrial Performance, which states that in relation to indigenous industry all strategic and cash supports should go through one agency.
12 Mr. McGahon asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the reason he has not implemented in full the recommendation, in paragraph 10.11 of the Review of Industrial Performance, which states that in relation to indigenous industry all strategic and cash supports should go through one agency.
13 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the reason he has not implemented in full the recommendation, in paragraph 10.11 of the Review of Industrial Performance, which states that in relation to indigenous industry all strategic and cash supports should go through one agency.
14 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the reason he has not implemented in full the recommendation, in paragraph 10.11 of the Review of Industrial Performance, which states that in relation to indigenous industry all strategic and cash supports should go through one agency.
18 Mr. Finucane asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the reason he has not implemented in full the recommendation, in paragraph 10.11 of the Review of Industrial Performance, which states that in relation to indigenous industry all strategic and cash supports should go through one agency.
21 Mr. McGrath asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the reason he has not implemented in full the recommendation, in paragraph 10.11 of the Review of Industrial Performance, which states that in relation to indigenous industry all strategic and cash supports should go through one agency.
24 Mr. Flanagan asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the reason he has not implemented in full the recommendation, in paragraph 10.11 of the Review of Industrial Performance, which states that in relation to indigenous industry all strategic and cash supports should go through one agency.
29 Mr. Belton asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the reason he has not implemented in full the recommendation, in paragraph 10.11 of the Review of Industrial Performance, which states that in relation to indigenous industry all strategic and cash supports should go through one agency.
32 Mr. Farrelly asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the reason he has not implemented in full the recommendation, in paragraph 10.11 of the Review of Industrial Performance, which states that in relation to indigenous industry all strategic and cash supports should go through one agency.
36 Mr. S. Barrett asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the reason he has not implemented in full the recommendation, in paragraph 10.11 of the Review of Industrial Performance, which states that in relation to indigenous industry all strategic and cash supports should go through one agency.
48 Mr. Noonan (Limerick East) asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the reason he has not implemented in full the recommendation, in paragraph 10.11 of the Review of Industrial Performance, which states that in relation to indigenous industry all strategic and cash supports should go through one agency.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 21, 24, 29, 32, 36 and 48 together. These are not different questions. They are all the same question except that they have the name of a different Deputy in each case. In the case of Questions Nos. 11 and 12 they have the name of the same Deputy, Deputy McGahon.
A Cheann Comhairle, I must protest once again about this gross abuse of the procedures of the House by the Fine Gael Party in putting down 11 absolutely identical questions with a view to avoiding the normal balloting procedures.
This is quite a normal practice where questions are related. I understand the majority of those questions are all similar, if not identical.
They are not related; they are identical.
They are the same.
On a point of order, is there a rule against that?
I am not aware of any such rule but I would be concerned about the continuation of this practice.
It is a disgrace.
Buy more tickets and the Deputy will have a better chance.
In undertaking the Review of Industrial Performance 1990, my Department came to the conclusion that there was scope for further reorganisation of State agency structures, notwithstanding the significant level of reorganisation that has taken place in recent years, as detailed in paragraph 10.3 of the review.
The Department set out a number of possible options and indicated which one they felt would be most appropriate. The recommended structure would involve the location of all existing developmental functions and supports within one agency with specialised services remaining with other agencies.
While there was general agreement on the need to rationalise State agency structures among those consulted by my Department in preparing the review, there was no consensus as to the most appropriate form in which such rationalisation should take place.
I set out in my preface to the review the changes which I decided should be made in the first instance including giving IDA sole responsibility for overseas industrial promotion; integrating the equity support activities of IDA and NADCORP more closely, and merging the marketing support services provided by Córas Tráchtála and the Irish Goods Council.
As I also indicated in the preface, I intend to keep under consideration the possibility of further reorganisation taking into account the findings of the review and the relative failure of efforts to date in developing a strong indigenous industry. However, I do not wish the substantial issues which arise in relation to the nature, extent and form of our industrial policy to be subsumed in a debate solely about institutional aspects. I will, therefore, be giving this matter further thought in the context of the wider issues; I will be referring to these in replying to other questions on the Order Paper.
On a point of order, was Question No. 28 included in that reply?
No, Sir, it was not. It will be taken with Nos. 23 and 44 which relate to it.
Is there any precedent for a Government Department responsible to the Minister making one recommendation in public in a Government publication and the Minister taking a different view? Will the Minister explain why he disagreed with his Department and why he failed to give the Department sufficient indication of his thinking earlier so as to avoid them wasting time making recommendations which he intended to reject?
I imagine there are precedents for a Minister and a Department taking a different point of view. I would hope there are. It is very unhealthy if a Minister is only expected to rubber stamp whatever his Department come up with, and that is not my way of operating. The review was carried out by the Department. I let them at it. It is a matter for them to do the review. When they finished the review I considered it and wrote a preface to it in which I gave my own thinking in relation to these matters. So far as this recommendation is concerned, which I did not accept, I gave a lot of thought to it. I find that while 79 per cent of industrialists surveyed in connection with this review considered that there were too many State agencies, more than half of those surveyed were opposed to the establishment of one integrated multi-purpose agency. I shared the view that one single super agency or one agency that alone would disburse grants and act as a development agency would not be appropriate. I thought that the sort of skills that had been built up over many decades in relation to marketing, export support, technological matters and so on were best left with some of the agencies concerned even if it were necessary and appropriate to try to cut down the number of those agencies. However, to have one super agency being the sole disburser of grants or financial incentives in the country would, I thought, be wrong.
There are Deputies who tabled questions and the Chair feels he has an obligation to call them first.
As the Minister stated, he gave a mandate for the overall industrial development for overseas industries to the IDA and, indeed, the midwest region. I concur with the Minister as to the logic of it. Is the Minister happy with the current approach in the mid-west where there is no office for industrial development for overseas projects and the staffing is co-ordinated from the Dublin office? Does he think the mid-west region is getting a fair crack of the whip at present?
I do, because all the work on the ground in that region which would be done in other regions by IDA staff in a regional office is done by the Shannon Development staff who have been established in the region for a very long time and are very experienced in terms of their local knowledge. To prevent any difficulties or overlaps arising between the two agencies in their respective overseas and domestic capacities, a co-ordinator was appointed whose principal job is to co-ordinate relations and communications between the agencies and to ensure that there is a high degree of liaison. So far as I can see the coordinator is achieving his objectives and is working very satisfactorily. There is a high degree of liaison and co-operation between the agencies. I do not, therefore, think that the region is at any disadvantage. If anything it will now be seen to be at an advantage.
In the context of the familiarity of county development teams with the indigenous industry and proposals in that regard, has the Minister any proposals for an expansion of the role of county development teams as at present constituted?
Definitely not.
Does the Minister see an end to them?
I certainly have no intention of expanding them. That noise has been made generally in the review of industrial performance. There is widespread concern about the proliferation of different agencies.
Does the Minister agree generally that there is a great deal of unproductive competition between the agencies which is both wasteful and expensive?
I do not know that I would use the words, "unproductive competition" but there has been an excessive proliferation of agencies. There is an element of overlap which I am trying to reduce. That is widely recognised by some of the agencies themselves but particularly and overwhelmingly by industrialists or would-be industrialists who find it very difficult to have to deal with such a wide range of agencies. In so far as there is any element of competition arising, I would certainly seek to discourage it.
Would the Minister agree that in business uncertainty is the enemy of good planning? Would he further agree, therefore, that it is highly undesirable that having conducted a three year review, reaching some preliminary conclusions, that he should then announce that he is undertaking a further review of industrial policy and institutions? In view of that would the Minister not agree that it has created an atmosphere within both the industrial promotion agencies and in the business world that people do not know what exactly will be the long term industrial policy or institutional structure of industrial policy?
No, a matter as wide-ranging as industrial policy must be kept constantly under review, particularly when we live in a world that is literally changing from day-to-day and where external factors have an enormous input into our economic affairs. Therefore, I see nothing wrong in saying that we will keep these matters constantly under review, particularly when I think all Members of the House would have to agree that we can hardly claim that over the last 20 or 25 years the instruments of industrial policy in Ireland have been successful, particularly so far as indigenous industry is concerned.
Can we bring this question to finality? I will call Deputy Peter Barry, to be followed by Deputy Boylan with a final question.
My experience is not that there is a proliferation of State agencies promoting industry but that industrialists find they have to deal with the planning authority, the Revenue Commissioners and the IDA as well. That is where the real difficulty with industrialists lies. In the same section of the review the Minister refers to the Irish marketing agency and again it is referred to in the Programme for Economic and Social Development. Can the Minister say if this will require legislation and, if so, when we might expect that legislation? It was the subject of a Priority Question in my name earlier.
It will require legislation. It is proposed to introduce the legislation after the Easter recess with a view to its being passed by the summer. The legislation will be needed for other reasons as well as for this particular merger. The merger will not take place legally until 1 January next but in the meantime the two agencies concerned have, as I understand it, done a lot of work to come together and to have unified plans put into operation, particularly in the second half of this year pending the legal merger.
I am concerned about the attitude of the Minister to county development teams. He indicated here that he would be considering phasing them out. Is he not aware of the marvellous work these teams have done in promoting small industry, which is the backbone of the country? Can he give a clear indication to the House that he is not considering phasing out county development teams and that he recognises the work they have done in the past?
I have no responsibility for county development teams.
Question No. 15, please.
That is another temporary little arrangement.
He gave an indication earlier——
Question No. 15 has been called.
