Amendment No. 1: Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 6, 9, 30 and 38 form a composite proposal and Nos. 7 and 8 form an alternative composite proposal. I am suggesting therefore, that we discuss amendments Nos. 1, 3 to 9, inclusive, and 30 and 38 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Industrial Development Bill, 1993 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
On a point of order, does that mean that a separate decision cannot be made on those amendments?
If the House feels strongly about getting a separate decision, it may be arranged, it all depends on what happens to these amendments. If amendments Nos. 1, 3, 5 to 9, inclusive, 30 or 38 are negatived, none of the remaining amendments in this group may be moved. I have a more comprehensive reply which I shall pass on to the Deputy if he so desires.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (1), line 27, to delete "Forfás or either Agency" and substitute "Forbairt and Industrial Development Agency (Ireland)".
On Second Stage, there was a unanimous view on this side of the House on the need for FÁS. Nothing the Minister said — and nothing I have read in relation to the restructuring of these State agencies — leads me to believe that we need to have a super organisation such as Forfás over Forbairt and the Industrial Development Agency (Ireland). The Minister's reasons for setting up this agency are to create what he terms a linkage between the two agencies. Forbairt is rightly being established to look after the development of indigenous industry, for which there is a clear need but the IDA do not seem to have the capacity to do that; there is no clear section within the IDA to assist indigenous industries. The creation of Forbairt is, therefore, essential as is the creation of the second agency, Industrial Development Agency (Ireland), to look after overseas mobile investment potential.
I do not accept that there is a need for another organisation straddling these two agencies to achieve the communication levels that would obviously be necessary where there is overlapping between the two agencies. That presupposes that the two boards would not have the capacity or the wit to liaise with each other and create the very linkage about which the Minister is so concerned. It is clearly possible to do this within the new structures without the need for the superstructure of Forfás.
Under this Bill the powers will be vested in Forfás and the other two agencies will, therefore, be subservient to it. This amounts to an unnecessary extra layer of bureaucracy which will inevitably slow down the decision-making process. The linkages necessary to deal with overlapping could be handled laterally. I see no need to create another structure over these two agencies. I do not believe it would contribute fundamentally to the operation of Forbairt or the Industrial Development Agency (Ireland). On the contrary, it would create another layer of bureaucracy and force the agencies to look over their shoulder at Forfás in an unnecessary and burdensome way.
I welcome much of what is in the Bill. My fundamental disagreement is on the question of Forfás. If Forfás was removed from the equation the Minister would achieve all his aims, the recommendations of Culliton, Telesis and others. The Minister is aware that we are overburdened with structures, committees etc., resulting in the slowing down of the decision-making process. We seem to constantly drive ourselves up culs-de-sac and Forfás is contributing to the creation of another.
Nothing the Minister said will persuade me that the obvious overlapping between the two new agencies requires the creation of a convoluted structure. The two boards would have the wit to form a sub-committee either at board level or among the executives since it is through the executives that the day to day operations of the agencies will be conducted. In this way assistance could be offered by one agency to the other by, for example, introducing particular clients whose needs go beyond the remit of one agency. The Minister said nothing to illustrate the need to create Forfás as the link between these agencies. He spoke at great length in nice and well thought out flowery language, he used all the right clichés and modern buzz words, some of which need to be further considered.
"Fit" and "split" as per Monsieur Pascale.
When one removes the buzz words and clichés——
I am glad they had an effect on you.
They obviously made me think about what the Minister was trying to say but when the jargon is stripped away, I still do not believe there is a need for the creation of Forfás. I ask the Minister to take the views of the Opposition on board because I am genuinely worried about this extra layer of bureaucracy, this idea that somebody needs to be minding the shop. If we are confident that the chief executives appointed to these boards are dynamic and capable of achieving the goals that must be set, there is no need for Forfás.
The driving responsibility for policy formulation must be taken back by the Department of Enterprise and Employment. I think this is something to which the Minister subscribes and I welcome that. If the Department is to play the central role I consider it should play in respect of policy development and implementation, not just by way of recommendations but in the form of real action on the ground, I do not see why Forfás should be in control of the two agencies. Another barrier is being put up between the Minister's Department and the two primary agencies, Forbairt and IDA, by those agencies having to operate through Forfás. Surely it would be better for the Department to get the message across to those agencies firsthand and set clear guidelines for their development.
The position will develop that the Department will end up constantly dealing with Forfás rather than dealing directly with Forbairt and the IDA. That would be regrettable. I do not believe that such a role should be assigned to Forfás; the Department should be responsible for policy in respect of the agencies. If the Department is changing its attitude and taking a more up-front role in those developments, then it is clearly unnecessary for the Department to have another agency straddling both the domestic market agency and the international agency. I do not see the need for that. What role will Forfás have other than a bridging one between the two agencies?
This Bill provides that the authority and control that existed within the IDA is to be vested in Forfás and Forfás will be the primary body. However, the primary body does not have a specific role, whereas specific roles will be assigned to Forbairt and the IDA. Clearly, Forbairt and the IDA will be subservient to Forfás, and that is regrettable. It is regrettable and unnecessary that another board and another chief executive will be appointed. The chief executives of both Forbairt and the IDA would have a much better working relationship, a clearer understanding of each other's role and greater ability to do their jobs without having a third chief executive in control over both of them. I do not believe it is right or necessary to create Forfás, which will have control over Forbairt and the IDA. I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision in this regard and remove Forfás from the equation by accepting the amendments tabled by various Members of the House. I ask him to vest authority in Forbairt and the Industrial Development Authority (Ireland).
I remind Members that Committee Stage must conclude by 1.15 p.m. and I would ask them to keep their contributions short and concise so that we may deal with as many amendments as possible.
I am entirely at the disposal of the House. If it would help Members, I can give an explanation now as to thinking behind Forfás and Deputies can respond. Alternatively, I can wait until the three Deputies tabling amendments have made their contributions and then respond. I am conscious that we have a limited time only to deal with this matter.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Bruton, do you wish to make your contribution now?
It is difficult for the Minister to respond until he has heard the contributions. I will make a brief contribution. I support the amendments to remove Forfás. Forfás was not recommended by Culliton or Moriarty. Neither of those groups supported the idea of Forfás. This notion of Forfás appears to have been introduced by the previous Government in an effort, as Deputy Rabbitte said yesterday, to square a conflict between the super agency idea and the need to separate the agencies and assign one the function of dealing with foreign trade and the other the function of dealing with indigenous industry. This Government appears to have endorsed that approach. The Labour Party did not succeed in getting the Government to cop itself on. The reality is that the functions of Forfás are virtually inseparable from what a reasonable Minister would be doing if he was setting about his task in a meaningful way. They relate to advising on policy and on co-ordination and encouraging development.
If the Minister and his public servants had a hold of industrial policy they would not need a body like Forfás to advise them. Culliton wanted simplification and consolidation and that ran through his report. Under the Programme for National Recovery everyone signed on to this reorganisation and simplification but the Government did not do anything about it. The tragedy today is that this Minister does not know what he wants to do in regard to industrial strategy or what changes he wants to make. But he is determined that those vehicles whose establishment have been negotiated in some dark room between different partners must be the vehicles to provide for further development in those areas. The old saying that a camel is a horse designed by a committee rings true in this case. We have produced a camel with Forfás as the hump on the back of the two other agencies and that is not what was called for.
I agree with what has been said. People expected that when legislation in regard to the Culliton report was provided it would bring some hope in respect of making some impact on the unemployment issue. I would remind the House that Culliton was a report of 105 pages. The amount of the report that was taken up with agencies was effectively a page and a half between pages 81 and 83.
At that point in the dialogue.
Yes, at that point in the dialogue. The problem is that we have not seen the colour of the Government's money on the recommendations that feature from pages 1 to 81 and from pages 83 to 105.
Not true.
It is difficult to ask us to give agreement to an ad hoc approach to industrial policy which the present Minister denounced when he was on this side of the House. We have had several ad hoc measures brought before this House. We have had the abolition of a number of agencies before this without any consideration as to how they fitted into the overall scheme of things. For example, during the considerations of the Oireachtas Committee on Employment last year the question of venture capital became a major issue. While we were discussing it in one room, the Government was in here abolishing NADCORP, the only existing State agency that offered anything in that area.
The former Minister for Finance and present Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, came before this House and extended the tax regime for the manufacturing sector to the year 2010 without any regard to anything else that was happening on the revamp of industrial policy. I understand from the Minister for Finance that there is a story behind how that happened and clearly there was no agreement on it. However, the facts are that this was done and we are now stuck with its implications. We might look at the situation differently if we had had the opportunity, but it is not possible to go back on a contract entered into. Similarly, without us hearing from this Minister where he stands on any of the major issues on industrial policy, he is asking us to trust him and to give agreement to this panoply of State agencies being put in place. That is unreasonable. For a Government who said that employment was its major priority this is the first legislation of any consequence that purports to deal with it. All this legislation does is deal with the question of the rationalisation of agencies.
On the amendments before the House, it is clear that Forfás is the product of compromise. It is unnecessary, it is wasteful and it is adding bureaucratic tiers where Culliton's thrust was to simplify, make more effective and more efficient. It runs counter to the very thrust of Culliton while the rhetoric of the Minister and the Government is that they are implementing Culliton. What Culliton actually said was:
Industrial firms are integrated business entities. Their different functional areas operate together in a cohesive way. State support for the functional activities of firms whether in technology, marketing, training or finance should reflect the reality and be provided as an integrated package.
What does Culliton recommend? He recommends:
...that all grant-giving and advisory supports of a functional nature provided by IDA, and Eolas be brought together within one agency.
That was his recommendation but that is not what the Minister is putting before us.
I wish to refer to another aspect of Culliton, namely, trade promotion. The report states:
The primary function of An Bord Tráchtála under the proposed new development agency for indigenous industry will be trade promotion.
An Bord Tráchtála is not under the control of this development agency. It reports to a different Minister, even though it was recommended that the focus of the Department of Industry and Commerce be changed so that it would be targeted at a developmental policy role in the area of industrial strategy. What we have done is assigned a new responsibility to a Minister in order to make his role relevant and thereby causing An Bord Tráchtála to report to him. This represents a mish-mash that is the hallmark of compromise between the two parties in Government. The Taoiseach apparently is a man — I do not know whether Deputy Molloy will contribute to this section — who does not like to change his mind even when the world is screaming at him that he is wrong. He persisted in this matter and what we now have, unfortunately, is more bureaucratic, more wasteful and less efficient and effective than what we had previously.
I will try to be brief. I wish to begin my contribution with some honest statements of fact. Yes, it is a compromise. It is not exactly what Mr. Culliton recommended and, yes, it is not exactly what Dr. Moriarty and his task force recommended. They were not elected, do not have responsibility in this House and they did not negotiate the Programme for Government. I make no apology for compromising in terms of the design of an organisation. My intellectual and professional training as an architect was to constantly put down, evaluate and change until such time as the original concept matched the practical; reality that could work.
Quite frankly — and I am conscious of speaking to experienced Deputies in this House, some of whom have held Executive office — I have previous experience in this regard, being the person who originally designed FÁS, at that stage known as NITA. Deputy Molloy was in Opposition at that time and he will recall the long procrastinated debate that took place when there was a suggestion that CERT would be included in FÁS. Fortunately for CERT, I was wrong and it was right and it was not eaten up by FÁS. However, for 18 months after FÁS was established it was a staff bureaucratic nightmare in which the wars continued between those people who were on the permanent payroll of the organisation to the detriment of the customer. Quite frankly, for as long as I am a Minister in this House I will not repeat that experience. I say that without any apology to anybody and having regard to the fact that I must take some responsibility for it.
I make no apology when I say that this is a compromise from the original position. To repeat what I quoted in this House yesterday, and I would earnestly refer Members to read the contribution in full — I do not think it is available yet — when it is printed. In the Seanad, Senator Joe Lee, who has written a seminal work on the failure of Irish Government industrial policy over an extended period of time, stated clearly in respect of the design recommendations in the Culliton report that where Culliton was particularly apposite in its recommendations and where the value of its insights were particularly worthwhile was in relation to the matters of which it had direct experience. Where it was less apposite and less wise was in those areas where it has no experience.
Mr. Jim Culliton has been a successful industrialist and entrepreneur but what if politicians in this House told him that the entire structure of, say, Cement Roadstone Holdings, should be exclusively incorporated in one single holding with no holding company and no separate trading companies? If one examined the company register for Cement Roadstone Holdings, and Deputy Bruton was once an employee of that extensive organisation, I suspect that one would find a myriad of separate holding companies and separate niche companies for this or that factor.
If one is a customer coming through the companies office it may seem like a bureaucratic maze but the customers do not come through the companies offices and the industrialists who will obtain assistance from the agency structure that we are now designing are not required to go through Committee Stage of parliamentary debates. The customers knocking on the door looking for the products of Cement Roadstone Holdings, essentially blocks, bricks and cement, are at the end of a different process. I tried to make this point yesterday. What we are doing in this legislation is ensuring that the recommendations of Culliton and Moriarty are implemented as effectively and efficiently as possible. I believe the structures we have now put in place, including Forfás, achieve that objective and I will spell out the reasons why I believe that to be the case.
First, I have not inherited a compromise to which I was not a party. As the House is aware, I was a member of the negotiating committee with the three Fianna Fáil Ministers at that time and the three Labour Party Members, in which we debated the compromise structure between what was an interminable and deadlocked debate — Deputy Molloy may wish to comment on this — between the advocates of the super-agency, who had support in the Department of Finance on the one hand, and the advocates of the total separation of the two, who had much support from the point of view of clarity. As Deputy Rabbitte rightly said, I was one of those. When we heard the arguments as to why the super-agency idea had some merit, we came up with the concept of Forfás. I wish to outline the benefits of that as I see them as against the experience which, having been in office previously, I wish to avoid.
I apologise to the House that we are not having as long a debate as I and other Deputies would have wished. However, once this legislation is put in place we can move quickly to establish IDA Ireland, which is the easiest of the three organisations to establish because its tasks and locations are virtually self-described without anyone working for that organisation having to make a decision as to whether they will work for Forbairt or for IDA. They will not have to wonder what will happen to their terms of contract and service or their pension plan, all of which are matters which we in this House or, if we were employees or trade union representatives, would want to know. Until such time as we had clear answers to those questions we would refuse to co-operate to agree to the transfer. That potential time bomb of industrial relations and worry is dealt with by vesting overnight in the holding company of Forfás, the personnel contracts and related matters to Forfás.
If we were to divide the two, as is proposed, into two separate organisations we would have to go down through the personnel structure of the entire organisation of IDA as it is and Eolas as it is. Before actually bringing in regulations to give effect to the launch of the two organisations, we in the Department of Enterprise and Employment, in conjunction with the Department of Finance, and in consultation with the unions, would have to clarify those facts before we could make any move. That is not acceptable to me, hence, reason number one in support of Forfás.
The second reason for Forfás is that the IDA is an enormous owner of land and property. It owns vast amounts of land of differing values, in different locations. It is the owner of buildings. It is the owner, albeit far too small as we know from our debate yesterday, of approximately 6 per cent of the equity in a number of companies, whatever way one wishes to characterise it. Some of those companies are Irish and some are foreign, some are Irish going foreign and some are foreign going Irish, or mixtures of the two. If, as suggested, there is no need for Forfás, how would the entire portfolio of land and property be dealt with? Questions would arise such as what was the last valuation, when would one get a valuation, how would land be assigned, which land is best suited for domestic indigenous industry, what corner of the industrial estate in Waterford is best suited for investment of a foreign company, or should it be reserved for domestic industry, when would that decision be made and until the decision is made should the two companies not be divided? Must we wait another three or four months for valuations on properties before specific land banks are assigned to Forbairt and IDA Ireland and they receive their portfolio of loans, equity and so on? A commencement order would have to be made to stop me and the Department from establishing the clear operation of those two companies.
That is simply not acceptable to me and I am not prepared to do that. By having the vehicle of Forfás once this Bill becomes law, we can vest all these matters in that agency without any ambiguity or difficulty. Then, over time, as determined by the Department in conjunction with Forfás, IDA Ireland and Forbairt, we can decide what makes sense in terms of land banks and property. If we get it wrong the first time — heaven knows we are not brilliant at always getting it right — and if an American or Japanese company wanted to set up in a corner of land which we originally thought would be better suited for indigenous domestic industry, the land would not have to be transferred back again, we would not have to go through the whole rigmarole again. The very thing we are looking for — flexibility — would be there without need for regulations, transfers or legal opinions and without the Department of Finance being concerned whether we are getting value and so on.
That is the case already.
I am sorry, but the Deputy is wrong. You cannot have it both ways. If we were to divide, as the Deputy is proposing——
I am opposing that.
The amendments suggest there is no need for Forfás, that present structures can already carry out that work. That is the case, but quite frankly I am not going to spend the next 18 months adjudicating between land banks, pension funds and so on. Nor am I going to tie up the time of the Department of Finance, trade unions, staff associations and, most importantly, my Department in making those decisions. That is the basic set of reasons on which I could elaborate but in the interests of time I will not do so. I have gone into detail on the implications of this matter and I have not even begun to touch on the nightmare that is potentially vested in Eolas and all its related activities.
In view of the fact that State Departments are obliged to operate under certain constraints, and rightly so, the flexibility that would exist in terms of a semi-State company such as Forfás is essential if, as Minister responsible, I am to have in place the two essential components of industrial agency organisations required in order to implement industrial policy. Deputy Cullen outlined reasons why Forfás is not necessary, but I would argue very much to the contrary. If I thought the Deputy was right and that I should compromise I would say so — I have no problem in saying things like that. From my professional and organisational experience I believe that in terms of speed this is the proper procedure to follow. Deputy Cullen mentioned the difficulties experienced with FÁS. At first we did not get that organisation right, but it is now coming right. FÁS was set up in 1987-88 and as someone who was intimately involved in that agency and who has responsibility for it, I am not going to make the same mistake again. I have learned from the past.
I am shocked at the reasons given by the Minister. It sums up what is the driving force in all of this. Not once did he mention jobs or the setting up of companies to create jobs. It is clear from what the Minister has stated that he is trying to fit a structure to suit an administrative position which in his belief would cause problems. In other words, he has not decided that the need for such an organisation is driven by its commercial intent, by its opportunities and what it should be doing in the marketplace. One reason given by the Minister related to administrative difficulties in terms of staff. I would not belittle the fears and concerns of people involved in the agency, but to state that as one reason for the setting up of Forfás is extraordinary.
Companies operate in this country, internationally and all over the world, on a day-to-day basis and real commercial decisions have to be taken which involve enormous administrative difficulties, changes and so on. Of course, it takes time to get these right, but to suggest that one of the main reasons for a fundamental change of direction in terms of the operation of our State agencies in creating and sustaining jobs, that is the setting up of Forfás, is to overcome a myriad of difficulties is unacceptable. I have no doubt that difficulties existed in regard to FÁS, but surely the Departments, unions and staff involved have learned from those difficulties. We should be capable of dealing with the mistakes made in that context.
The Minister referred to Cement Roadstone, but to compare such a company, which is in the market to make a profit with State agencies is a load of hogwash. In the main these companies set up holding or subsidiary companies for tax reasons, they are not set up as the driving force of the company. It is not right to compare structures such as that——
The Deputy said this is a bureaucractic nightmare.
The Minister agreed that Forfás is being set up because the present structures are unable to deal with these matters. He also referred to land and asked how would it be divided. Obviously difficulties will arise, but conveyancing is carried on hour by hour, minute by minute by small shopkeepers, purchasers of small houses and people involved in major land deals and commercial enterprises, and these people seem to be able to solve the difficulties with a degree of knowledge and intent to achieve an end. I do not accept the arguments made by the Minister. Since I came into this House I have listened intently to the Minister's many worthwhile contributions and I do not believe that he subscribes to this view. The Minister is right in that there is compromise involved here. This compromise will not create jobs. It is a compromise to fit political desires and to create a structure that satisfies many people in both parties in Government and in-house political difficulties in the State agencies. I do not accept that. When we were in Government we would not compromise and that was one of the reasons that contributed to the break-up of the last Government. We could not see the reason, other than a political self-centred one, the Taoiseach wanted to pursue this line. It was not recommended by Culliton. It is not practical. It is not the engine room required. Even on the basis of what the Minister said Forfás is being created for all the wrong reasons.
The Minister must examine his conscience. What the Minister has offered as a justification for this structure is quite extraordinary.
It is pathetic.
It has convinced me that reorganisation of the kind we are undertaking will be a total waste. The Minister has convinced me that what was wrong with industrial policy was to be found in the failure in policy-making. The Minister, his predecessors and the Department have failed to get a handle on what they wanted to do and the Minister has come here today again without any idea of what he wants to do.
The Minister talked about land and reorganisation of staff but his thinking seems to be driven by his desire, above all, for peace within his extended empire of these bodies and not the great war against unemployment. Is this body the vehicle to wage war against unemployment? For the Minister to suggest that staff might fall out with each other or that we might have land in Wicklow more suitable to another industry is pathetic. The Minister drew an analogy with Cement Roadstone and suggested that Mr. Culliton did not have experience. No company would force its customers to go to Wicklow for stone chips, to Drogheda for pebbles and somewhere else for cement.
The Minister proposes to leave An Bord Tráchtála on one limb, Bord Bia on another and that there will be a split between foreign and domestic industry with Forfás sitting on top. That is illogical and the parallel to private companies is misleading. Customers should be able to get their package in an integrated way from one place. Customers will not worry about the reorganising of the structures. The energy being put into reorganising is wasteful. We must be able to deliver the sort of support companies need and that means that we must think out policy terms and consider why indigenous industries failed. There has not been any real discussion of that in the Minister's defence of Forfás. If we had IDA Ireland, Forbairt and Forfás and Culliton was asked to examine that structure he would say it was ludicrous and that we should have a single integrated one.
Given the development of industry the distinction between overseas and Irish owned is out of date. The main priority of policy today is to achieve linkages and cluster development which makes that distinction less relevant. We need strong companies based in Ireland regardless of who owns them. The Minister has recognised that in the case of the food sector, the one sector where there has been a reasonable degree of indigenous development perhaps not of the model sort but there is at least development. The Minister recognised that splitting and creating umbrellas over splits is irrelevant in that area. I am not convinced by the Minister's argument and, like Deputy Cullen, I feel that the fact that the Minister is pointing to such matters like staff and land problems indicates that the Minister is not entirely convinced either.
I am appalled at the Minister's justification. I cannot believe that the Minister has told the House that the reason we will have this super agency is because of our belief that we cannot manage staff or land banks. It is extraordinary to create a new industrial vehicle and a complex web of agencies such as we have before us for that reason. I am beginning to believe that the Minister is right and that I ought to get a hold of this Monsieur Pascale and read about this fit and split, because it would appear to be the key to why we have this explanation. It is a post rationalisation by the Minister and his staff of why the Taoiseach got this idea into his head in the first place. I presume the Taoiseach only got this idea into his head because he saw it as a way of getting the Progressive Democrats off his back. The Taoiseach was looking for a number of excuses at the time to jettison the Progressive Democrats, as the rear of a rocket is jettisoned on a journey into space.
It used to be called The Workers' Party.
The Taoiseach was looking for that excuse for a long time and he did not seem to be succesful. It is very disappointing that the new Minister can take it on board. Deputy Bruton referred to "waging war on unemployment". It seems that this Minister is afraid to wage war on the IDA not to mention on unemployment. If we cannot cope with the challenge of personnel in the IDA I am not so sure that we can cope with the challenge of the jobs crisis.
Whatever about The Workers' Party, I have been mesmerised for some time by the failure of the Minister's party to go for the ministry for Finance. I do not know why, when it was on offer, the Labour Party did not want the ministry for Finance if they had serious convictions about their policies, and that they were bringing something different to Government. What makes avoiding Finance difficult to understand is that the Labour Party wanted the ministry for Enterprise and Employment. I cannot understand that rationalisation.
The story was that the party would avoid the unpleasant decisions, that the Leader of the party would go into Iveagh House and nothing would attach to him in terms of economic problems. Then, the next most senior person in the Labour Party took the Ministry for Enterprise and Employment. That is a very onerous responsibility and there is bound to be a day of reckoning. It is on this that the success of the Labour Party in Government hinges, not on how many troops we send to Somalia or decisions in the artistic or equality world, important as they might be. This is the critical area and having gone for this portfolio, it is incumbent on the Minister to explain to the House how he will wage this war on unemployment. What we have here is an agency which was set up for reasons of administrative convenience. The two reasons the Minister advanced are ability to handle the staffing position and the land bank. While I agree that these areas are complex they do not constitute a sufficiently good reason to devise a new vehicle for an attack on unemployment. It should be motivated by policy considerations, not by whether we will have an industrial relations wrangle with the staff in the Industrial Development Authority, technical, legal or administrative hitches about the disposal of a land bank or the apportionment of a land bank between the two agencies concerned.
Cogent arguments must be advanced for constructing this new super agency. One could take a different view and say that we are not constructing a new super agency, that this is the old IDA, the old force for power within the industrial agencies, the real focus for power which will be headed by the existing chief executive of the IDA and that the other two agencies will be subordinate. It is not good enough simply to say we are doing it to avoid a difficult personnel wrangle or problems with the land bank because, at the end of the day, existing jobs in the IDA will be protected. If an assurance is given to the Industrial Development Authority staff that their position is to be protected, it should be possible to negotiate the rest.
The Minister, for very good reasons which I understand, does not want to provoke any disquiet, anxiety or concern among the staff of the Industrial Development Authority but what is at stake is the effectiveness with which we can mount the assault on unemployment. The Minister did not refrain from provoking anxiety among Aer Lingus staff, people will lose their jobs, because, as the Minister sees it, there are good reasons for protecting the future of the airline. However, although Aer Lingus is, unquestionably, of central importance, it is not as important as the totality of our industrial performance on this island, to use one of the Minister's facourite phrases. Anxiety and/or concern about staff reaction within the Industrial Development Authority is not a sufficient reason to create an entirely new agency. The Minister said this is an enabling Bill, that it is important to show progress and to get it through before the summer recess. He also said the complex administrative problems to which rationalisation gives rise, is a good reason to establish a new agency. I am appalled at that contention. For a Government that puts unemployment as its first priority, that is a very feeble response.
Let me try to respond——
I have risen three times already. I think the Minister will agree, as my name was mentioned by two of the four speakers so far, that it is incumbent on me to contribute a few words to this debate. I listened to this debate with immense interest, particularly to hear what justification the Minister, a member of the Labour Party, would advance for the proposals to establish three separate organisations.
Since the Culliton report was published in effect three different Governments have dealt with this issue, the difference in those Governments can be explained. For example, under the leadership of former Deputy Charles Haughey, the Government comprised Fianna Fáil and my party. When Deputy Albert Reynolds became Taoiseach, there were major changes of personnel within the Cabinet and then the general election in November led to the formation of the present Government comprising Fianna Fáil and the Labour Party.
The Culliton report was welcomed in the media and by Members of this House in all parties, particularly within the Government parties. The Government issued a statement accepting the Culliton report and stated it would dedicate all its efforts to the implementation of its major recommendations. It was accepted by the Government that, because of the major changes proposed in relation to the existing Industrial Development Authority structure and the tradition in the Civil Service or State sector to defend what they have, that there would be an attempt by the senior management in the Industrial Development Authority to resist those changes. The then Government, led by Deputy Haughey was determined to implement the proposals, as recommended by Culliton.
The Minister for Finance, Deputy Ahern, is the only Minister who retained his portfolio throughout the change in Government and he accepted the Culliton report in regard to the division of the IDA into an organisation to attract foreign industries and setting up a separate organisation to develop indigenous industry. He has not changed his position but when one sees the way he has twisted and turned and changed his beliefs, as expressed publicly, in regard to these proposals, one wonders what principles apply to decision-making processes in Departments under his control. As expected, the IDA mounted its campaign behind closed doors to seek to influence the Government. It did not influence the then Government under the leadership of the former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, or under the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley. There was no indication that the Minister for Finance would bend. However, when there was a change of Taoiseach, there was a major change in the proposals brought before the Cabinet and the public, as reported in all newspapers. I am not giving away any Cabinet secrets on this; the new Taoiseach who assumed office brought new Ministers with him and proposed that the present situation in the IDA should be maintained.
The Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, is on record as supporting the Culliton report, as then proposed, he admitted that in this House. I will be interested to hear his justification for changing his position. Obviously, because of the Programme for Government the Minister agreed, the Labour Party had to make a major compromise in its position in accepting the Taoiseach's line that Forfás, as it is now called, would be the new super body and that in effect, the IDA would continue with two subsidiary bodies, one of which would deal with attracting foreign industry and the other with the promotion of indigenous industry.
Therefore, instead of achieving the objective of Culliton — under which we would have two dynamic organisations in healthy competition with each other, one out on the world stage seeking to attract foreign investment here, the other, if you like, competing with it but with the same objective, of helping to create jobs by promoting the development of indigenous industry — the IDA has nobbled the whole idea and succeeded in getting the two parties in Government to agree to it. Having been in office I know that in Government Departments, semi-State bodies or any other organisation set up under the umbrella of the State, there is a huge reluctance to accept any change or to relinquish any area of responsibility. It is their doctrine. Those who achieve position of authority in the Civil Service or in State bodies feel that they must defend their realm on behalf of everybody who works in their organisation.
While one would have expected senior executives of the IDA to launch a campaign to preserve the status quo, what is surprising is that they have succeeded. Their objective to preserve the status quo within the State structure is totally separate from the objective to create employment. The strong message in the Culliton report was that there was a need for change if we were to get up off our knees and succeed in creating the number of new jobs required to eat into our horrendous unemployment figures. It is tragic that such a dynamic and far-seeing report is being nobbled in this way and that it will be ineffective.
The Minister has claimed that he is implementing the Culliton report, but this is just a charade. He is not implementing the report but doing the exact opposite to what it stated was essential if we were to make reasonable progress in creating employment. It is a source of despair that senior Government Ministers can be nobbled so easily and directed away from sincerly held beliefs. They endorsed this major report when it was produced by eminent people. It was acclaimed as one of the finest reports ever published. They gave us some hope that at last something realistic might be done to create employment. We will not succeed in creating large numbers of new jobs unless there is major change. This means taking steps and being progressive.
This is a step backwards towards the malaise identified by people such as Senator Joe Lee, to whom the Minister referred earlier, and others who have studied what has happened in the State since it was founded. We are never going to break free from those shackles if we pay heed to the vested interests, but that is what the Minister is doing. I sat in the House this morning to hear what justification he would put forward in proposing that we should have this umbrella organisation and two subsidiaries, one of which would attract foreign industry while the other would promote indigenous industry. The reasons the Minister has given are astonishing and pathetic. He said that because the IDA has a large land bank he would have a major difficulty in deciding on the way it should be allocated as between foreign and indigenous industry. That is a minor detail and could be easily resolved by giving instructions to the people involved.
Not at all.
There is no justification in putting that forward as a reason for setting up Forfás — I do not know what this word means; it is a bastardisation that does not come off the tongue too easily — which is going to be another quango and allow us to be influenced by those who do not want to see any changes made, who are looking after their own interests rather than trying to create structures to give us some hope of creating employment, in particular for our young people.
Another reason the Minister put forward was that he would have difficulty in allocating staff between the two organisations. Therefore his solution is to create three organisations. The Minister would have no difficulty in allocating staff between the two organisations. Indeed it was not proposed that we should set up a private organisation and remove staff from the semi-State sector; they would be retained in that sector and given new opportunities to gain promotion to new managerial positions. They would have welcomed that opportunity. This would be a simple administrative arrangement and would not cause any trauma in trade union or staff circles.
The Minister has his priorities wrong. He is using the administrative difficulties he foresaw as a reason to retain the old IDA, which will now be known as Forfás and have two subsidiaries. I am astonished and I am sure people outside the House will despair at our ability to succeed in tackling our major unemployment problem by establishing two dynamic industrial promotion agencies, one of which would concentrate on the promotion of indigenous industry while the other would scour the world stage to attract foreign investment to create employment here.
While the IDA has had some success in attracting foreign investment, it has not had success in developing indigenous industry. I come from a town which has benefited from the work of the IDA. While it has attracted a number of foreign industries, it does not have a successful record in developing indigenous industry in Galway. We have had successes and tragedies. We had 20 years of success at Digital, but when the time came the international board made a decision which has affected us very badly with the result that we are going to lose 1,200 to 1,300 jobs at that plant. That is the risk one takes. There is a need therefore to ensure that we minimise the risk by developing indigenous industry. This is what the Culliton report recommended.
The Minister has however turned this report on its head. He can shake his head, make flowery speeches and sound sincere; but the reality is that he is moving in the opposite direction. It must be a source of embarrassment for the gentleman concerned, who has now moved on to other things, to see the way in which the thrust of the major report he produced is being twisted and turned by those in Government. I can only come to the conclusion that the only reason the Minister is making this compromise against his better judgment — he described it as such on the part of the Labour Party — is that he wishes to keep himself and his party in office, but that is not a very good reason.
I would like to respond to a number of the points that have been made. Let us start at the beginning. The Culliton Review Group produced a report which contained over 60 recommendations one of which was that we should restructure the agencies involved to ensure clarity and avoid confusion. Second, the report stated that, even if we were to do all the other things, at best between 10,000 and 15,000 jobs would be created in the industrial sector. If one uses a multiplier of one, one and a half or two perhaps we are talking about 20,000 jobs. The report also stated — it should be remembered that there was more than one person on the review committee — that while this in itself would not resolve our major unemployment problem, nevertheless it was essential and necessary that we do this.
When the Culliton report was published I was the Labour Party spokesperson on Finance. I welcomed the thrust of the report and its recommendations, one of which was, as I said, that we should restructure the agencies involved. Under this Bill these agencies will be restructured. As Deputy Rabbitte said, it is enabling legislation.
I am the Minister responsible and it looks as if I will have about four years to deal with the hard edge, as was described by Deputy Rabbitte, of the problem. I do not want to waste precious time — even though I do not like this phrase, it is the one that was used by Deputy Bruton — in managing an empire. I want to maximise the available resources so that I can, to use another phrase the Deputy used, go to war on the real enemy, which is the outrageous level of unemployment.
Rightly or wrongly, I have to make decisions and I have decided from the point of view of industry, that there must be clarity in availing of the services provided by the State. In ensuring clarity for the citizen, as customer and entrepreneur, there is a requirement for the kind of structure that we propose to establish. While it may appear complicated from this side of the counter this does not mean, as in the case of Roadstone Cement Holdings, that it is going to be complicated, obscure or bureaucratic from the other side of the counter. Let me explain the reasons.
First — I think we would all agree on this — IDA Ireland, the most successful component, will be the easiest component to establish and construct. Deputy Molloy referred to simple administration arrangements for dealing with staff, etc. That may be his perception, but from my experience, I do not think simple administrative arrangements are adequate for staff in the public service who want to see the small print in legislation. Unless the small print can be referred to then the arrangements are no longer simple. This mechanism gives us the most simple administrative arrangement through the vehicle of Forfás. Likewise, in regard to land, pensions and many other matters, it is the most simple administrative arrangement.
This is not the justification for Forfás, and if I misled the House by giving that impression I want to correct it now. There is a more fundamental reason for setting up Forfás. The IDA has been successful in the international field but it has, by everybody's admission, not been successful in the domestic field, except in respect of one body, the IDA itself. Senator Lee's book indicates that the IDA ran rings around successive departmental secretaries and, dare I say it in the presence of Deputy Molloy, respected senior politicians. It ran rings around Kildare Street to such an extent that, as Senator Lee states in his book, effective industrial——
It is running rings around the Minister.
On the contrary, I hope I have both the humility and wisdom to learn from the mistakes of others and not to repeat them. According to Senator Lee, the rot started in 1969 when the Act was introduced. I was in Cabinet for four years between 1983-87 and witnessed the nonsenical row which took place over the National Development Corporation. I viewed from the outside the different points put forward about a super agency and two separate agencies. The only winner in that argument was the permanent establishment which will never have to deal with unemployment. I make no apology for deciding that I would not get involved in that kind of game — one would have to be up all day and all night to play it. The people who play this game do not have a constituency to worry about or anything else on their agenda.
On a policy level, Forfás will — Deputy Bruton's legitimate point about policy — be independent of the operational work of IDA Ireland, advise and help in the development of policy with the Department. Policy, and industrial policy, recommended in the Culliton report and its analysis by Senator Lee — he articulated this again in the Seanad — will be a matter for the Department of Enterprise and Employment, where it has not effectively been for the past ten to 15 years for a variety of reasons. I want to do this as quickly and as effectively as possible with a team which has all the hallmarks of humanity, in other words, people who are like the rest of us — some brilliant, some turned on, some turned off, some tired and some burned out. What else is new? I am not going to waste time trying to put in place an extraordinary structure.
I want to put this matter into context. I came into a new Department with a new Secretary on 12 January last. This Department has buildings in three locations. Using the telephone system we could not even communicate internally not to mention with other Departments. The organisational structure of the Department was tired to say the least. Even though the building had been cleaned up on the outside, it had all the hallmarks on the inside of an organisational structure locked in the sixties. I think Deputy O'Malley will concur with those points.
This is all very interesting, not just to me but I am sure to many other people.
I am not saying anything out loud which I have not said in private.
The Minister is saying more about himself than anything else.
I am outlining the reasons I want the Oireachtas to support this structure.
On 4 May last the Government published its decisions — not the consequences of its rows — on how it would implement the recommendations of the Moriarty task force. These decisions, which are outlined in the document, Employment Through Enterprise, will be very difficult to implement. All of us have, in some way, hidden behind the recommendations of the Culliton report. Deputy Rabbitte referred to them as, “a kind of mantra”. It is time to implement the recommendations. In terms of the support provided by the State to indigenous industry as distinct from foreign industry, the Culliton report recommended the need for clarity and for science and technology, financial support, marketing, etc. to be taken together. One way of doing this was to merge An Bord Tráchtála, Eolas and the IDA into one group and then divide them into two separate agencies. The Culliton report did not outline precisely how this should be done. Rather it recommended that these things should be delivered with clarity.
The structure whereby the Secretary of the Department of Enterprise and Employment and the chief executives of Forfás, Forbairt and IDA Ireland and, presumably when it comes into existence, An Bord Bia will interact and co-ordinate policy——
And block one another.
Get in each other's way.
On the contrary, that will not happen. It will not be a departmental structure, as at present.
The Minister is very naive.
Deputies Molloy and O'Malley know that better than most of Deputies. The raison d'etre for Forfás is to take this task outside the departmental structure which has bedevilled the development of industrial policy, particularly on the indigenous side.
The Minister should examine what happened to the regional development organisations in the sixties. That will give some idea of what might happen.
I do not think that will happen in this case. I am giving a commitment that it will not happen. The potential of Forfás to take policy directives from the Department, develop them into strategies and give specific instructions to executive agencies which have nothing else to do but to run with the ball and implement the instructions is the best structure open to me to deal with an unemployment problem of 300,000.
There may very well be a better, purer and more ideally designed organisational structure——
It was proposed by Culliton.
The structure was never designed. There is a difference between dreaming-up or recommending a design and the working-drawing stage where the structure has to stand up. I do not know of any design process or structure where the sketch design, to use an architectural phrase, has not had to be transformed when one reached the nuts and bolts stage, so to speak. I was given the job of dealing with the nuts and bolts stage of this issue and I am convinced, having regard to the time frame, the resources available, and, dare I say it, the legacy which came with this matter that Forfás is the best interactive structure to co-ordinate the activities of the Departments of Tourism and Trade, Agriculture, Food and Forestry and Enterprise and Employment and ensure a link between the various agencies in the delivery to Irish entrepreneurs and industrialists of the support they need. That is the net point; it is the final test. This structure will be tested against one criterion, that is, does it meet the needs of Irish industry and deliver clarity, effectiveness and speed in terms of the support Irish industry needs if it is to develop. That is the ultimate test. Given the constraints I outlined and the legacy I inherited, this structure — I may be wrong, but I will take responsibility — offers me the best prospect of dealing with our unemployment problem. I will be happy to come to the House in two or three years and show how this structure has stood the test of time.
The balance which will be retained within Forfás, in terms of moving resources from one agency to another and moving emphasis, will cover some of the policy issues referred to by Deputies Molloy and Bruton, for example, the linkages between foreign and domestic companies. Forfás will enable us to respond to those moving linkages in a way that is different from the division right down the middle between exclusively foreign and exclusively indigenous industries, which is part of the thrust of the original recommendation in the Culliton report, with which I did not agree.
I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few words after the Minister. What we have just heard is an incredible performance, a purported justification for what he is doing — for doing the very opposite to what Culliton recommended, what I wanted to do and what he himself when he sat in the Opposition benches less than a year ago agreed with me should be done. Instead of being open and honest and telling us why he is doing what he is doing, he attempts to justify himself in the most peculiar and extraordinary fashion. The justification is inadequate and, if I may say so, incompetent. I can criticise the Minister for those deficiencies in his arguments but what I do not accept is his description of the Department he inherited. He described it as tired, disorganised and used a whole lot of other words which I was so amazed to hear that I did not write them down but which I will read with some interest.
I can only assume from what the Minister has said that that is the reason a young, active and able Secretary of the Department of Industry and Commerce is no longer there. I think that is deplorable. If ever there was a man who was not tired and who had clearly shown he could reorganise that Department and bring the policy aspect back into dominance, it was the former Secretary. He did it during the 12 months in which he and I were there, but he has now departed from the Department and has moved into a very minor Department. If I am not mistaken, that man is still in his thirties and that is an indication of his alleged tiredness. Frankly, I think that was deplorable. If the present Minister knew the work that was put into the Culliton committee and the support that was given to it and subsequently the work that was done in my efforts to have it implemented — unhappily, unsuccessfully — by an Assistant Secretary, not the Assistant Secretary who is in this House at present, he would agree that it was absolutely outstanding. The dedication and vision they brought to their work and the enthusiasm they had for what they were doing, and their absolute acceptance of why it was being done and the need to do it was quite outstanding. They had a willingness to make very major organisational and other changes in the Department as were made, and anyone can see the changes that were made, during the year 1991-92. The Minister is reading the situation very wrongly and very unfairly. He described the problems he inherited, but I do no think he was even aware of what he inherited because the Secretary went on the first or second day.
That is not correct.
I do not know how long he was there, but he certainly did not remain there very long. He may have remained a week, I do not know. I wonder if the Minister had any opportunity to realise the potential of his staff and the degree of change that the Department had already gone through in the previous 12 months.
All of this is some kind of attempted justification for what he is doing, because he is attempting to justify the fact that he is doing the very opposite of what he said to me in this House repeatedly, and not just once, since the publication of the Culliton report in January 1992. That report was discussed in the course of the debate on the Industrial Development Bill, during the debate on the Estimates and was raised repeatedly in parliamentary questions. The Minister is seeking to justify what he, I, Culliton and the Department of Industry and Commerce know will not work. To my mind the arguments he makes are just ridiculous. One of the many thrusts running through Culliton is that we should reduce significantly the number of extraneous bodies and that the main policy function should be resumed by the Department. That was being accomplished right throughout 1992, and very successfully so.
I am afraid not.
Where previously we had one body we will now have three, as well as the additional layer between the line of bodies, Forbairt and IDA Ireland and the Department. That layer comprised of Forfás is a nonsense and has been set up for reasons that have nothing to do with out efforts to try to conquer unemployment or to attack unemployment but for all kinds of personal and political reasons, some of which are related to me personally and perhaps would never be there if I had not happened to be the Minister during the past year.
I am afraid the Deputy flatters himself.
Clearly, this is abundantly ridiculous. There are subtle little provisions in the Bill — one would need to know the whole background to realise the significance of them — which make it clear that Forfás and not the two line agencies will be the dominant organisation and that the proposal to appoint the senior man to it, which has not been denied, is clearly an indication of that. That is entirely wrong. It will not work. It is a great pity that at this time, when we have the awful problem of over 300,000 of our people unemployed, we have inflicted on us a mish-mash of institutions which everyone agrees makes no sense. This mish-mash has been inflicted on us for invalid reasons to do with personality politics and institutional welfare. Frankly, that is not good enough. The Minister was very critical of the IDA's ability to run rings around Kildare Street; but, if they did that in the past, they can certainly celebrate the Industrial Development Bill, 1993 as their greatest triumph ever. If the Minister feels this is liable to happen he would do much better to take any such institutional challenge head on rather than try to hide behind another layer of bureaucracy in which he seeks to insulate himself from the IDA. That is not the way to go about it. If the Minister wants to take them on he simply takes them on face to face and does not create a further layer that will complicate the whole situation much more. In so far as Forbairt and Forfás are concerned, it was clearly intended in the draft legislation I circulated last year that An Bord Tráchtála would be included. It makes absolutely no sense that it is not included, and the reasons are set out very clearly in Culliton. It was also intended that the industrial training part of FÁS would be included for very compelling reasons as set out in Culliton. That is not happening either. These are going to remain in existence. We find that three of the major component parts of the development of Irish industry are now reporting to three different Departments, the Departments of Enterprise and Employment, Tourism and Trade — to which an Bord Tráchtála is gone — and Agriculture, Food and Forestry. If ever there was a recipe for disaster that is it. Anyone who has ever looked at the matter objectively from the outside or experienced it objectively on the inside knows that too. That will not work. On top of all these things, the 36 county enterprise boards — established by this Bill — which nobody ever recommended and which were never approved or examined by the last Government were lobbed on to the Cabinet table one day in the form of a press release——
That is right.
——at the beginning of last September. This was never argued or seen by the Department of Industry and Commerce and never, as far as I know, seen even by the Department of Finance, but was produced by the Taoiseach's office in the form of a press release. These county enterprise boards are heaped onto all the bodies being created by this Bill. That is not the end, we are told we will have Bord Bia. The Minister on Second Stage yesterday said that Forbairt would be responsible for the development of the food industry but what will Bord Bia do?
That is food for thought.
Where does this nonsense end? If this were some kind of academic exercise as a study of public administration it might be as amusing as the Minister finds it. Both Culliton and I sought to put it in place——
And the Deputy did not do it.
——because there are over 300,000 people unemployed in this country and it is time we began to think of them and do things——
The Deputy was three years in office. That is nonsense.
——that will help to overcome that problem rather than do things simply because it will clip A's wings or B's wings or that B will prevail over C or whatever other silly reasons the Minister has been giving.
It was to avoid all of that.
So far as land banks are concerned, I have not found that our public authorities of any kind are unwilling to have land banks vested in them. The IDA gave up thousands of acres of land which was vested in Shannon Development. I did not see any problem whatever about that. It can be transferred back or transferred on, as the occasion or the need arises. It will not be owned by the individuals who run the bodies in which it is vested.
That was done with forestry.
It was done with forestry where there were tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of acres. That is absolutely no excuse.
To sum up, instead of bottom-up development which we are hearing about, the Minister has got it assways. The debate has taken a sad turn when it revolves around organisations frustrating the Minister, and about burnt out and tired people. It has brought the debate to the lowest level. It is sad that we did not have an opportunity to debate the role of An Bord Tráchtála and so many other matters we wanted to debate. Even the Minister stayed up overnight to prepare 11 amendments on which there will be no debate. It is a very poor reflection on the way we do business.
It is regrettable that the media have absented themselves from this debate. For once, a debate on a Bill has exposed the shallowness of the response to what is our greatest problem in society, the problem of 300,000 people unemployed. They had looked to this much promised measure — which received the greatest hype that has surrounded any Bill brought before this House — in terms of industrial policy and what we have is a new plethora of agencies based on the fact that the Minister, apparently, is reluctant to take on the personnel and other managerial implications. The mission statement of Culliton — and this is a suitable note on which to leave the debate — states:
We need a spirit of self-reliance, (a determination to take charge of our own future).
It would appear that the responsible Minister is reluctant to even take charge of his own Department and the agencies that report to him. We simply cannot have a situation where the major industrial agency, the IDA——
The Deputy missed the entire point.
——is determining the future shape of the industrial vehicles to tackle our industrial policy. We cannot wage war on unemployment if we are afraid to face up to basic administrative and personnel considerations.
Hear, hear.
As it is now 1.15 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with the Order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, that the section or, as appropriate, the section as amended is hereby agreed to and that the First, Second and Third Schedules as amended and the title are hereby agreed to". Is that agreed?
No. What is happening here is unprecedented. We have not even got past the first amendment or the first section of this Bill.
Acting Chairman
We cannot have contributions at this stage.
It is an absolute disgrace to jackboot through a Bill in this fashion.
Hear, hear.
Acting Chairman
Sorry, Deputy, I cannot allow——
Worse still, the media are absenting themselves from this whole discussion. It is no wonder we have 300,000 people unemployed. Only one Deputy from the Government parties sat through the whole debate.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 41.
Tá
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Bell, Michael.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- Penrose, William.
- Power, Seán.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, John.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Derek.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Woods, Michael.
Níl
- Barrett, Seán.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Avril.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McDowell, Michael.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Owen, Nora.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Browne(Wexford) and Ferris; Níl, Deputies E. Kenny and Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny).
Question declared carried.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Probably next October.
Next Tuesday, subject to agreement with the Whips.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 29 June 1993.