Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Nov 1964

Vol. 212 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 41—Industry and Commerce (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £20 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including certain Services administered by that Office, and for payment of Sundry Grants-in-Aid.

Mr. Corish

As far as I could gather, listening to his speech, the Taoiseach listed eight or nine things which he said the Government had decided to do in order to offset the effects of the 15 per cent surcharge imposed by the British Government on exports from this country into Great Britain. The first, and I suppose the most important and direct one, was the proposal that, in exporting industries, there should be a contribution of 50 per cent of the net additional burden of the surcharge.

I want to put this question so that we may all have a clear mind on it. I assume, from what the Taoiseach said, before he went to London, that he did not have much hope of the British Government taking off the 15 per cent surcharge, as far as this country was concerned. Here is what one might call a device to beat the surcharge by the aid of a subsidy from the Irish Government. Would the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or the Taoiseach, be able to tell me whether or not after the discussions with the British Government, or after the request that the 15 per cent surcharge be taken off, as far as the Irish were concerned, the Irish Government intended to give this subsidy in order to beat the surcharge because it seems to me that this 50 per cent help to exporting Irish industries will beat it? That means our goods will still go into Great Britain. If that is the case, could we have an assurance, if such can be given, that the British Government have no objection to this or will there be a further retaliation by the British Government? I do not know whether that hare should be raised or not, but that is something we may have to face. In view of the fact that the Taoiseach seemed to think before he went to London that he could not get the 15 per cent surcharge off, there is a possibility he may have mentioned it to the British Government.

The Taoiseach also said, in relation to this particular proposal, that each case would be examined on its merits and the subsidy would fade out as the surcharge fades out. The Taoiseach said he got an assurance from the British Government of a review within a reasonable time. He said he did not think it would occur within six months. Deputy Dillon, from information which he has, said it would last only six months. It should be abundantly clear that (1) this must apply to industries which can afford to take the 15 per cent surcharge, and, (2) it should be stressed that it is not in any way a permanent subsidy and that when the surcharge begins to fade, so also will the 50 per cent assistance that is being given in respect of the burden of the 15 per cent surcharge.

The Taoiseach, in his second proposal, said, in respect of new industries, or if industries are exporting goods, that these would be helped as far as the British market is concerned. There have been some fears not only about some of the industries which have been established here in relation to the present circumstances, but about industries that have been established here by foreign capital entirely, and I and members of my Party have thought that these were not permanent enough and that a situation like this might scare them into closing down or shifting to some other place. For that reason, I suppose the second proposal of the Taoiseach should be supported, but, on the other hand, we should stress the necessity for the establishment of Irish industry by Irish people and with Irish money.

That is not possible in respect of the general development because we have not that sort of money here but I believe there should be greater emphasis on Irish industries by Irish people and with Irish money. If private enterprise is not in a position to do that, then the State should do it. This 15 per cent surcharge applies to industrial exports and industrial goods. Processed foods are exempt. We have done reasonably well in recent years in the development of processed foods and I and my Party are pleased by the work which Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann have done in that regard. That industry can be further developed here. This is something which is not subject to the 15 per cent surcharge. We should further expand that particular development in view of the fact that we are still predominantly an agricultural country. We should make much more use of this processing industry in exports, not alone to Great Britain, but to other countries as well.

We all appreciate that the Taoiseach and the Government cannot hammer out details at this time. It is just over a fortnight since we got this announcement of the 15 per cent surcharge. The Taoiseach told us that information in regard to this 50 per cent subsidy can be got from the Department of Industry and Commerce. I wonder if in his reply he could give us a better idea as to what conditions might be laid down? I think one of the conditions which should be set for any industry which is examined is that it should retain its workers. When the Labour Party say that industry should retain its workers, we do not want these workers retained more or less as a charity. It is not charity to retain workers in any industry because they are one of the most valuable assets in any industry. We have had experience in recent years of a slowdown in the building industry and valuable operatives had to go to Great Britain to find employment. Some of them came back but we know how difficult it is in certain areas to get masons, plasterers and plumbers.

The Taoiseach seems to be convinced, and the House seems to be convinced, this is a temporary measure. If there is a temporary layoff of workers, it will become permanent and any industry which lays off workers in present circumstances will be doing a disservice, not alone to the workers, but to themselves and the industry. Therefore, I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce should in any of his negotiations with these industries that need to be helped stipulate as a condition that their employment record will be taken into consideration when a decision has to be arrived at in respect of this 50 per cent subsidy to meet the levy.

It is welcome news for everybody, even though the circumstances have provoked a declaration from the Taoiseach, that the reduction of the extra ten per cent in our tariffs will not take place next January. Industrialists in this country were becoming somewhat scared as this would be the third reduction in protection they had. It will be welcome news to them, as it is to us, to know that at least that particular exercise in preparation for free trade will not be continued in January next.

The Taoiseach also announced that the adaptation grants as well are to be extended for another year. I think this brings him up to December, 1965 but I am not quite certain about that. In any case, irrespective of this situation, availability of the adaptation grants would have to be extended for another year in view of the fact, as I mentioned earlier, that a very small number of industries seem to have availed of them since they were first announced. This whole situation may spur Irish industrialists to greater efforts and may bring about a realisation that a bigger effort must be made on all sides.

I have already commented on the Taoiseach's other proposal, that more help be given to Córas Tráchtála. I must confess I have heard more praise than blame for Córas Tráchtála. This is the first example we have had of a State-sponsored export promoting body. Perhaps it is because it is the first of its kind, and because industrialists are pleased and manufacturers are pleased to avail of its services, that it should be utilised to better advantage. Córas Tráchtála should be an institution for which we would recruit salesmen. In the main, I suppose Córas Tráchtála consists of civil servants or semi-State servants. It is apparent now there is a growing need to get new markets. The efforts of Córas Tráchtála have been successful in the African countries and in other parts of the world to a small extent. If we need one particular type of person in the country at the moment more than another, it is the salesman. Perhaps that is because the British market has been so accessible to us over the years.

We have all been converted to the idea that there is nothing at all wrong in State intervention where it is for the public good. Governments have always shown reluctance to appear to interfere. There was something always sacrosanct about private enterprise. Where private enterprise needs help and where it appears to a Government that help will not be sought, the Government should take the initiative in that particular industry, for the common good and to help those who work in it.

Another proposal by the Taoiseach was that special preference be given by Government Departments, semi-State concerns and by local government bodies to Irish goods. That is part and parcel of the "Buy Irish" campaign and is to welcomed.

I did not quite catch what the Taoiseach said in his next proposal but I think he said he would also ensure that State organisations would buy from the Irish steel industry. It was all vague and muffled to me but I gather it is an admonition to State organisations to buy Irish goods in that particular category.

The last proposal was a general exhortation, and I assume a preliminary announcement, for a campaign to "Buy Irish" in which he said the newspapers had agreed to participate. We do not know the cost of all this. The only information we have, apart from speculation by a lot of people who are not competent to speculate, is from the President of the Irish Exporters' Association, Mr. Wheeler. Last night he said he thought the problem in terms of money for the assistance of Irish industry affected by this surcharge would be in the region of £2,500,000. There has been an intimation—I do not think there was a public announcement—that at least one firm, perhaps the largest in this country, said it could carry this surcharge for a temporary period of six to nine months. I am sure there are others who can as well. Assuming, therefore, that the figure Mr. Wheeler gave is correct, presumably the Government's problem in terms of money is not a tremendous one. It was for that reason I said earlier that it would not be desirable to impose taxation for the purpose of assisting industry for this temporary period.

When I spoke about the "Buy Irish" campaign, the Taoiseach suggested it should have been carried on down through the years. He said the time was not opportune but this is an opportune time. I suppose it is the most opportune time for the last decade or two. If this is an opportune tome to promote a "Buy Irish" campaign, it may be a God-sent opportunity for us to stocktake as far as Irish industry is concerned, a stocktaking to discover that we must pull up our socks.

There should be intensification of the work the Committee on Industrial Organisation are doing. I do not know whether they are equipped to carry out a complete survey on this because I understand they are members of the Employers' Federation. They are trade union officials and both sides, plus the Civil Service who are on these committees, have other things to do. It would be worthwhile in present circumstances to survey and take stock of the old established industries and particularly the new industries which have been established in recent years. There should in particular be an investigation into the needs of the old industries. Many of those are industries which have been established here for 50, 100 or 150 years. They never sought assistance from the Government by way of protective tariffs perhaps due to their own ineptness, inefficiency, or laziness. These industries should, if they can, be preserved and we should determine what extra help can be given to them if we make a thorough examination as to their running and their needs. This survey should be carried out to see whether or not the money that is being spent or lent to industry established in the past ten years has been properly spent.

I advocated here two or three years ago that one of the conditions for grant or loan in any substantial way should be a certain employment content in the industries concerned. In respect of many of them I know, as far as the number of workers is concerned, there has not been anything commensurate with the amount of money lent or granted.

Thirdly, I advocated there should be more development of Irish industry by Irish people and suggested the expansion, if possible, of food processing industries. I said at the time that if that were not possible, the State should take the initiative. We had many examples here of successful State sponsorship—the Sugar Company, Bord na Móna, the ESB and others. I believe we still have not reached our maximum effort in respect of State establishment of industry.

Some years ago the Taoiseach gave me hopes of more State enterprise in the establishment of industry and left me with the impression that where the Government believed private enterprise was not sufficient, the Government themselves would do it. That has not happened.

I have kept the House long enough and shall conclude by impressing on the Government that all our problems have been highlighted now by this clip on the ear we have got from the British Government. Now the Government, and particularly the Minister for Industry and Commerce, have got to apply their minds to the introduction of a scheme of redundancy compensation and retraining. This was mooted here three years ago but we still have not got a progress report.

In view of our vulnerability, I think some scheme of redundancy compensation and retraining should be introduced without delay. We are vitally concerned now about Irish industry because of the abnormal drift from the land. If we cannot steer our workers into industry, we shall be allowing them to drift across the sea. While we must preserve our markets, our industry, our employment, perhaps the situation we now are in is a stepping stone from which we can ensure by various methods, apart from those announced by the Taoiseach, that Irish industry will give permanent and secure employment.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. J. Lynch)

Deputy Dillon began on a very commendable basis that the present situation had created a problem in which all of us could help. Unfortunately, his speech quickly degenerated into what can only be regarded as very contentious matter. Apart from what he regarded as constructive suggestions, he accused the Government—I use his own words —of failure of foresight in meeting the present situation. Deputy Dillon, of course, had the advantage of hindsight. I should like to ask him if he or anybody else in the world anticipated the imposition of this tariff by the British Government in breach of their trade agreements with us and with other countries.

Of course this Government knew there was a balance of payments problem in Britain. Apart from our knowledge, we had been told by the outgoing Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Maudling, that any incoming Government would have to deal with such a situation. It was obvious then that no matter what Party were successful, measures would have to be taken to right that balance of payments problem. However, I do not think Mr. Wilson or his advisers anticipated the magnitude of the situation facing them. Let us take Mr. Wilson's own words: "I found the patient bleeding to death and could not wait for the doctor to stop the bleeding." Unfortunately the method he adopted hit us as well as the rest of the world and I do not think any amount of foresight could have enabled us to anticipate the type of action taken.

Efforts to make our industry viable were the only practicable way we could have dealt with this or any other situation that might have arisen. The means we adopted were realistic and, to use Deputy Corish's words, the measures we applied were more than generous. Deputy Corish referred to the appraisal by the Committee on Industrial Organisation and suggested that some other type of appraisal should be carried out now. It is well known to Deputies that there has not been in any country in Europe any appraisal as comprehensive in depth as that carried out by the Committee on Industrial Organisation. It has involved 30 industries comprising many hundreds of firms.

Deputy Corish does not appear to be completely familiar with the methods adopted in this respect. He said the members of the Committee on Industrial Organisation were representatives of trade unions, employers' organisations and civil servants, but did not advert to the fact that in each case a special survey team was appointed to examine "on the floor" every industry and report back to the Committee on Industrial Organisation. That began three years ago and the most recent report is only about to be published.

Therefore, nothing will be gained by going back on old ground to see to what extent measures must be adopted to improve the competitiveness of our industry. As a result of these surveys, the House is aware we have been able to introduce several measures to assist industry to improve its competitiveness. We have given technical assistance grants of up to 50 per cent of the costs, and adaptation grants. All this has been going on for some time, in many cases with very good effects.

Dr. Browne

That does not mean very much. Could the Minister be more specific about the good effects?

Mr. J. Lynch

Adaptation councils have been set up in very many cases. Their purpose is to rationalise, where rationalisation would seem to be the answer to Irish industry, to encourage bulk buying of raw materials where lack of that would seem to be one of the deterrents to the efficiency of the industry, and many other measures. As the Deputy knows, we have established in my Department a special section, the Industrial Reorganisation Branch, whose task it is to pursue the industries and ensure as far as they can that the recommendations made by the Committee on Industrial Organisation will be applied to these industries.

Deputy Dillon referred to our balance of payments problem. The Taoiseach said that of course, in present circumstances, it could assume serious proportions. The balance of payments in 1963 was some £22 million. We did not regard that as serious because much of the goods we were importing were used for the development of our own industries and therefore of our own exports.

One of the constructive suggestions he made was that we carry out an examination into restrictive practices on both sides, whether it be management or labour. I think Deputy Dillon must know that there is no quick way of dealing with this problem. I am sure he will agree with me that heavy-handed legislation on the part of the Government will not be the solution. But, again, we set about the elimination of these practices in a methodical way, for example, by the setting up of the Ceárd Comhairle which is representative of employer, trade union and educational interests. Their principal function is to ensure that adequate skilled workers will be made available for the different industrial enterprises carried on in this country. I think they have succeeded to a considerable extent in opening up the bottlenecks of entry to many of the skilled trades.

There was also the instance of the setting up of the Irish National Productivity Committee, which also is representative of employers and workers and its main purpose is to ensure that co-operation will be available as between the employers and workers in eliminating restrictive practices and in ensuring that we will at least have the means of creating greater productivity in our industry.

There is also the instance of the subvention to the Irish Management Institute to ensure that we will have a cadre of skilled management in this country so that we can match the management of those countries which have had such a start on us from the industrial point of view.

Another suggestion that Deputy Dillon made was that the British content in goods that we were exporting might be excluded from the 15 per cent surcharge. This is an old problem. It is one that has been exercising the Government in a particular matter, that is, man-made fibres, over a number of years. It will be possible, I think, in the case of some goods to obtain exclusion of the proportion of British manufacture in these goods but there is an overriding principle as far as the British customs are concerned in such cases, that is, that the goods must not have lost their identity. In a few cases this may be possible; goods processed here will still have as much of their identity as can be easily recognised and, therefore, the British content may be excluded so far as the 15 per cent surcharge is concerned but, by and large, I do not think there is much that we can do that we have not already done in trying to persuade the British Government to exclude the British content in man-made fibre commodities processed in this country.

Incidentally, in this context I might mention that Deputy Dillon's suggestion that there has not been regular consultation as was agreed to in the 1960 Agreement is completely incorrect. There has been that regular consultation. The pattern was that the consultation was between senior officers of both Governments. These consultations have been, in fact, carried out regularly.

Deputy Dillon put an undertaking into my mouth when he suggested that the furthest the Government have gone as far as trying to maintain employment is concerned was an exhortation by the Taoiseach that no industrialist should take a decision that might affect his output potential without first consulting the Department of Industry and Commerce. In a recent newspaper article I expounded somewhat on that and I exhorted industrialists not to lay off any men until they had such consultations. Deputy Dillon suggested—I do not know where he could have got it—that I had guaranteed that there would be no sackings between this and Christmas. I hope that will be the position and it will be the intention of the Government and of my Department in the consultations that we will have in the course of the next few days with the industries and with the individual firms concerned.

I might say that almost 100 firms have already come to the Department and have given us an outline of their problems. The problems were of different magnitude as far as different companies were concerned. Some of them did say to us that their British customers would be able to share with them some part of the surcharge. Others said that the surcharge if unrelieved would have the effect of making their goods uncompetitive in the British market. Others said that they themselves would bear part of the levy. The pattern has not been the same in any cases or any category of cases but in order to ensure that we will have a full picture of the position in each case consultations will take place. The first of these consultations on a representative basis will be held tomorrow in my Department.

Deputy Corish made some reference to the response to adaptation grants. Again, I think he may well have misunderstood the purpose of the adaptation grants scheme. It has reference to more than exporting firms. One of the purposes of the scheme is to ensure that industries in this country would equip or readapt themselves as a matter of urgency in order to withstand competition on the home market and also in order to expand their potential in export markets. The test, of course, being applied is that the type of expenditure involved will have to be unusual expenditure over and above ordinary replacement obligations that any industry would have from year to year. The response, while slow at the start, has been reasonably satisfactory in latter months and, as the Taoiseach said, it is probably true that the bulk of those industries that could be assisted by way of adaptation grants have now made formal application. However, there possibly are some industries who, because of the present difficulties that the surcharge will create, may have to think twice about applying for adaptation grants and it is in order to help these industries to formulate plans—and again I urge them to formulate these plans quickly —that the adaptation grants system has been extended, not to the end of next year as Deputy Corish suggested, but to the 31st March, 1966.

Deputy Corish, in this context also, mentioned a case which I suggest is not relevant. The case he picked out was the case of the motor assembly industry and he said that only one out of a total of 15 firms had taken advantage of the adaptation grants system. In the case of the motor assembly business, the Committee on Industrial Organisation reported rather adversely on its prospects in free trade conditions. The fact is that they have set up a committee representative of the whole industry, and, as he knows, many of them have already undertaken and are undertaking plans to expand their output. One small motor assembly industry has come to me to take advantage of the special offer—and it was a special offer, I repeat—outside the special adaptation grants system—whereby they could switch production on to another line and so retain the men and other personnel they have in employment.

Mr. Cosgrave

Under what scheme was that offer made?

Mr. J. Lynch

It was a special offer made on the publication by the Committee on Industrial Organisation of their report on the motor assembly industry.

Dr. Browne

I am afraid I am not clear. Did the Minister say only one has accepted?

Mr. J. Lynch

Only one firm out of the ten to 15 assembly firms have accepted that special offer. The offer was that they might go out of assembly, switch production to some other manufacturing line and so retain their workers, and at the same time the Government would give facilities for the importation of cars so that they could hold their position in the car distribution business as well.

Deputy Dillon asked what is the meaning of the proposal by the Government to give assistance to the extent of 50 per cent of the net burden on exporting industry. The details have not been worked out. Different remedies will have to be applied in different cases and it will depend on the examination of each firm's or each industry's case. The intention is to relieve exporting firms of a certain portion of the financial burden which necessarily falls upon them as a result of the British surcharge.

Deputies will understand that there will be cases where this financial burden will not be the full amount of the British surcharge. There have been and may continue to be cases where Irish firms succeed in persuading their British customers to share part of the surcharge. That has been mentioned in a number of cases. There may be other cases where because of the demand for the goods in question, because of the quality of the goods in question, Irish exporters may not have to adjust their prices at all to the full extent of the surcharge in order to maintain their exports to the British market. As I said, it is intended that there will be immediate discussions with representatives of producers and exporters with a view to devising the scheme that will give effect to the Government's proposals.

The House will appreciate that any such scheme must aim at ensuring a fair distribution of the burden between exporters and industry and in this connection I cannot understand Deputy Corish's suggestion that in order to meet this financial burden the Government ought to find means other than by way of taxation. It is obvious that this exercise will cost money and the Government, as Deputy Corish knows, has no means of providing money except out of taxation. The relief given must be available quickly and in terms that will leave the exporters in no doubt as to where they stand. The object of the discussions which, as I said, will be held tomorrow and on subsequent days with producers and exporters will be to devise a scheme that will satisfy these criteria.

Deputy Corish mentioned that some firms may resort to increasing prices on the home market in order to recover some of the surcharge on the British market. One of the tests in order to procure assistance at all will be that the firm or the industry itself must have made positive efforts from their own resources or with the assistance of their customers to overcome the effect of the surcharge. However, over and above this, this scheme can only be worked with full disclosure of invoices and other export documents; if it appears that in any case a firm has increased its prices on the home market, and this information will emerge very quickly, I can assure the House and the country that my Department will not be sympathetic to any firms that resort to increasing prices on the home market in order to recoup some of their potential losses.

Deputy Dillon asked how temporary all this is likely to be. Of course, he cannot expect us to provide the answer but the provisions of the British legislation have now been announced. The Act is intended to be in force for one year; nevertheless, side by side with the publication of the Bill, the British Government have stated that they hope to be able to reduce or abolish the surcharge in advance of the 12-month period. Obviously their legislation would have to provide a sufficiently long period in order to ensure that they would have overcome the problem.

We cannot be sure, however, that the imposition will last only 12 months because there could easily be amending legislation extending the period but it is hoped that, by and large, the period of the surcharge will be a matter of months. In that connection, too, in so far as British public statements are concerned, the day after the conversations the Taoiseach and I had with Members of the British Government, the Minister of State in the Board of Trade announced in Scotland that he expected that the surcharge would last deep into the Spring. Whatever that means I do not know but it would appear that he had in mind months rather than a full year.

There is one other important thing to remember in all this and it is that this 15 per cent surcharge will not leave our exporters in any worse position vis-à-vis their competitors from other countries in the British market. The 15 per cent surcharge in our case will represent only a 15 per cent tariff; in the case of exporters to Britain from other countries it will be 15 per cent on top of whatever the existing tariff is. To that extent, therefore, we will maintain our advantage over our competitors from other countries in the British market. There will, of course, be the difficulty of meeting competition within the British market.

I do not think I need refer to the other measures that it is proposed to take but I might mention in more detail what is proposed in regard to the "Buy Irish" campaign. I agree that, generally speaking, there ought not to be a need for an ordinary much less a special "Buy Irish" campaign because every Irish man and woman, every member of the buying public, ought to realise it is good national business for them to buy Irish. There is also the implication in an intensive "Buy Irish" campaign that Irish goods may not be as good as what is offered from other countries. However, nowadays we can face criticism in that respect realising that our industrial goods have in recent years been achieving spectacular success on foreign markets and therefore in buying Irish we know we are buying good quality and good value as well. Nevertheless this is an opportune time to bring home more and more to the Irish people the necessity to buy the products of our own factories.

I must say, while I was expected to take the initiative in this campaign, I was encouraged by the spontaneous response I got from many quarters immediately the surcharge was announced. Suggestions came to my Department and to other Departments that different sectors of our community were anxious to pull their full weight in any campaign the Government would wish to undertake. As the House is aware, certain organisations, particularly the National Agricultural and Industrial Development Association, have over the past half century been regularly campaigning in this direction. This was one of the organisations that I invited to send representatives to a special meeting in my Department last Wednesday. I also asked representatives of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Federation of Irish industries, the Federation of Trade Associations, the newspapers and Radio Éireann. The Association of Advertising Agents, and other organisations have since indicated their support. As the Taoiseach said, this will have to be a fully professional campaign. It is impossible at this stage to anticipate what the cost of it will be put I hope the voluntary effort which has been stimulated will help to minimise the cost of the campaign to the Government.

Representatives of certain newspapers have offered to provide advertising space free of charge and I hope this will be possible in the case of all newspapers. A further meeting of this group will be held tomorrow. I hope that it will be possible, as a result of that meeting, to announce the positive measures that can be undertaken. It is the intention to have active people and not just a committee sitting back and offering advice. We want active people going after all these organisations and ensuring that this idea percolates right down to all levels. It was for that purpose I invited ICTU so that they could, in turn, imbue their respective trade unions and the individual members with this idea. The Federation of Trade Associations who were represented, through their constituent associations, will have the opportunity of bringing the necessity for taking a full part in this campaign home to their members.

Apart altogether from these efforts, to use someone else's words, unless we can get behind the counter to the assistants, the shopkeepers and store owners to ensure they give Irish goods a fair showing and provide their customers with the opportunity of buying Irish, without first being shown imported goods, unless we can do that successfully, it will be difficult to make a success of this campaign. Further details will be announced in the very near future when, I hope, the first fruits of the campaign will be evident also.

With regard to Córas Tráchtála, and the intention to make extra funds available to them, those extra funds do not appear as a subhead in this Estimate because Córas Tráchtála have sufficient funds available at the moment. However, it will be necessary at a later stage to bring in another Supplementary Estimate to enable Córas Tráchtála to take the extra special measures required.

In support of what has already been said in the House, I agree that the finding of alternative markets in other parts of the world will not be an easy matter. We shall have tariff obstacles to overcome. It will take intensive and continuous effort, and the production of quality goods mainly, to get a foothold in these markets. Recently I adverted to the success we have achieved in the German market. In the past six years, our exports have increased in value from £1 to £6 millions approximately. This increase has been assisted by the setting up here of some German industries which are engaged in the manufacture of goods for export to their own home market. Nevertheless, I shall encourage—I know it will not be necessary to do so to any great extent—Córas Tráchtála to seek out other markets which it may not have occurred to Irish exporters to try.

By and large, I believe we will have the co-operation of everybody concerned. The public know what will be involved for them. Industrialists know what will be involved for them, as well as their workers. Deputy Corish seemed to blame the industrialist for any shortcomings we may have in our industrial set-up but, as I said at the outset, this is a problem for all of us and, no matter how hard an industrial executive works, or the man in the shop works, there is room, I believe, for improvement everywhere—I am confident that that improvement will be forthcoming —in order to ensure that we can surmount this present difficulty. As the Taoiseach said, the measures we take now will not only help us to solve the present problem but will give us greater strength to expand our exports considerably in the future.

Mr. Cosgrave

This particular Supplementary Estimate and the circumstances in which it is introduced raise two problems: (1) the immediate steps necessary to deal with what we hope will be a short-term problem and (2) the long-term question of trade and markets. The House is familiar with the circumstances in which the levy was introduced. This is not the first time in the world's history that agreements, written or otherwise, have been unilaterally broken. It is, however, the first occasion, I think, on which a trade agreement of this nature has been unilaterally altered without any consultation. If consultation had taken place prior to the introduction of the levy, it might have enabled a different decision to have been taken so far as our case is concerned. I think we were entitled to expect that international standards of commercial behaviour had improved or were, at any rate, thought to be better than formerly. Had Britain conferred with some of the international organisations dealing with economic and trade matters, such as the IMF, EFTA or GATT, certain criticism that has emerged, and which has not been confined to this country, might have been, if not avoided, certainly lessened, and there might have been a better understanding of the problems involved.

In 1956, when we had to take action to deal with the balance of payments problem, account was taken and preferential arrangements were made and permitted in respect of British imports. We could reasonably have expected that similar considerations would apply in reverse when the British Government felt obliged to impose a levy in respect of imports. "Necessity knows no law" is a bad basis on which to conduct international affairs, politically, financially, or economically. The effect of the levies in our case is much more severe than it is in regard to other countries. In the 12 months ended last June, the total value of the exports from this country to Britain was over £152 millions, or about 75 per cent of our total exports, compared with, as the Taoiseach mentioned, five per cent in some cases and 2½ per cent in others, with the possible exception of Norway. The predominance of our trade with Britain accentuates the severity of the 15 per cent and highlights the need to take whatever steps are possible to have this levy removed at the earliest possible opportunity as well as the immediate short-term action, and we hope it will be short-term, which this Supplementary Estimate is designed to meet.

During this discussion the Taoiseach said by way of interjection, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce reiterated it in the course of his statement, that under the 1960 Agreement, consultations had regularly taken place at official level. If that is so, and I do not doubt it, I should like to inquire did the special consultations attempt to keep the British Government informed about the basis of our trade? When it was announced by the British Government, after the election, that they proposed to take action to deal with the balance of payments situation, was any aide memoire or other representation, verbal or written, made to the effect that our trade with Britain was of a very special character, that in recent times it depended on the trade agreements referred to but that anteceding any of these trade agreements, we had, over many years, a special pattern of trade with Britain and, as was emphasised in the course of this discussion, that this country is one of the best customers for British exporters and traders? Was it also pointed out that this country implements in full, in theory as well as in practice, the terms of the various trade agreements made not merely with Britain but other countries?

The problem posed by this levy has been discussed in considerable detail and the measures to alleviate it have been outlined in so far as it is possible to go into detail, by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Leaving aside the immediate problem for the moment, I want to get some information as to what long-term plans the Government have for dealing with our future trading arrangements and what long-term policy it is proposed to adopt. On this aspect I thought the Taoiseach was somewhat vague and imprecise. Is it proposed to renew or revitalise our application to join the EEC? Even with the serious doubts which have been expressed in many quarters as to the future prospects of the EEC, is it intended either to pursue the original application for full membership or, as I gathered from the remarks of the Taoiseach, to seek some type of association or contact with that organisation other than full membership? In view of the altered circumstances, has consideration been given to the question of joining EFTA? The impression created by statements elsewhere, as well as by comments at the recent meeting of the Council of Europe, and indeed by the comments of the Danish Foreign Minister, would indicate that there are grave doubts about the future of that organisation. I gathered from the Taoiseach that the question of pursuing our application to join GATT was also under review.

I believe the time has arrived when we should have a fresh look at the whole of our trading arrangements. It is easy for people to be exasperated and given to the free expression of opinions to the effect that trade agreements which are not kept are not worth making and that, because an agreement is broken, we should not make trade agreements. I do not think that after full consideration and serious examination anyone can really agree with that view. I believe we have got to endeavour to ensure that some trading arrangements are entered into. It is in our interests, in the interest of any small country, as well as in the interests of bigger countries, that, if possible, some multilateral trading arrangements in some organisation of wider membership should be available under which this country or other countries would have certain trading rights, and that some system of sanctions might be possible in the case of a breach of the rules or regulations, which is not always readily available where bilateral agreements are concerned.

I can appreciate the fact that the Taoiseach and the Government, because they seem to have no definite view on this aspect, have taken no definite decision, due to the fact that the immediate future of the EEC and of EFTA is unsatisfactory and it is not possible to be precise or definite. In those circumstances, however, I believe we should consider the question of having direct representation in the headquarters of these organisations so that we may be informed of the very latest position and adequately briefed on what the prospects are as well as what is the general thinking in these organisations.

In that connection it is a welcome decision that we should not further reduce tariffs, as was contemplated, next January. I do not know whether we got any advantage from the two reductions already made. They probably did not do a great deal of harm, and they have done a great deal of good, but it does not seem that we have got any compensatory advantage because these decisions were taken on the assumption that this country would ultimately be a member of the EEC. While that seemed likely enough some years ago, the French Government altered radically, for the present, if not for a considerable time, the prospects of membership.

The decision not to proceed with a further cut in tariffs will naturally be welcomed but it emphasises the importance—while our bargaining capacity, political influence and the impetus we can give to any of these discussions is obviously not unlimited—as a country vitally interested in the future of European as well as world trade, of taking the initiative, in conjunction with other countries, in endeavouring to secure a general arrangement either in one of these bodies or in co-operation with others, under which certain terms would be applicable to members in the hope that they would provide a permanent opportunity for improving trading arrangements, as well as the prospect of a degree of stability.

The heavy adverse balance this country has had with continental countries emphasises the need to look afresh at the whole problem. It has been our experience that these bilateral trading arrangements, while satisfactory from many aspects, have, in the main, meant that this country on average buys about four times from these countries what they buy from us. It should also indicate to the British Government, if it is necessary, that, so far as trade with Britain is concerned, the balance is in their favour. For many years the balance was fairly even, but last year it turned in favour of Britain.

The decision to establish Córas Tráchtala was taken after an inquiry initiated by the inter-Party Government. As a result of discussions held at the time with representatives of the Marshall Aid authorities and representatives of traders and other organisations in this country, that decision was taken in the belief that initially we had to seek expansion of our exports to the dollar area. Subsequently, the activities of CTT were extended to other countries as well. More or less at the same time, the Government at that time initiated a "Buy Irish" campaign. For that reason I welcome the announcement that another "Buy Irish" campaign is to be undertaken.

It is essential that campaigns of that sort be undertaken periodically. In the past it was regarded as something akin to patriotic duty for people to prefer goods of Irish manufacture. It may be that because of the emphasis in recent years on internation trading and the possibility that we would become members of EEC the emphasis on giving preference to Irish goods has lessened. For that reason it is important that the question of the dependence of employment in industry should be brought home to all sections of the community. To that end the Government should convene meetings between the representatives of employers' organisations and trade unions so that a joint effort will be made in regard to the problems confronting us as a result of the levy. It should not be confined to questions of wages, salaries and conditions of work but should deal with the whole question of economic development as affected by the levy. It may be only to a limited extent as far as certain undertakings are concerned, but united action can be taken only if there are joint consultations between the Government, the employers' organisations and the trade unions.

The prospect that this levy may affect industrial development here is a serious aspect. It may have an effect on an industrialist planning to establish new factories or contemplating expansion or further development. It has been stated that it affects the view hitherto held by outsiders that there was unlimited access to the British market. The consequences of that may not have been fully understood or appreciated by the British Government when the decision to impose the levy was taken. From the long-term point of view, this aspect is a serious one. It places doubt on the availability in the future of that market. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the statements which have been made about the British market, and given some credence by the measures introduced today, would indicate that the levy may not last longer than 12 months. On the other hand, the fact that an interference of this sort has occurred places in jeopardy the whole prospect of our future exports to that market in view of the opportunities which existed in the past and the rights we had under the various trade agreements.

The fact that these international organisations are in difficulty at present means that we should as far as possible initiate, either directly or in consultation with other countries affected, moves to secure some arrangement which would safeguard our trading interests as well as ensuring that certain sanctions would apply where breaches of these agreements take place. The proposals announced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce will to some extent alleviate the anxiety felt by many individuals employed by firms affected by the levy. A great many persons have felt a great deal of concern since the levy was introduced and have obviously awaited with anxiety the proposals to remedy or alleviate the situation.

It is important that, while a realistic appraisal of the situation should be made, no statements should be made blaming certain sections of the economy for any of the problems which exist. I agree with Deputy Corish that the observations by the Minister for Transport and Power do not help in a situation of this sort. If a Minister has no direct responsibility in a matter it is better to keep out of it and to leave it to the other Ministers who have. This is a national problem and can be dealt with only on a national basis. It will require the united efforts of all sections whether employers or workers, whether representatives of management or representatives of trade unions, as well as the assistance which is provided directly by the State to ease if not to eliminate the difficulties which exist and so enable not merely those directly concerned but the country to weather the difficult circumstances created by the introduction of the levy and thereby safeguard the future of the economy.

Mr. Corry

I should like to express my appreciation on behalf of some industries in my constituency for the ready manner in which this matter is being tackled by all sides of the House. It is not a Party matter. It is a matter of difficulty in which we find ourselves. Whether or not we like it, we must remember that the only danger is the interference it will have on the industrial revival which was started in this country and which is continuing very successfully. We are finding employment for our people today in this country.

In some ways, what has happened has been a godsend. It will bring people to a realisation of what is happening. Eighty per cent of our exports comprise agricultural produce —produced by the poorest paid section of our community. There is a growing resentment amongst our agricultural community in regard to what is coming back for the good food they are exporting.

It is a scandal that we should produce and export butter at practically an uneconomic price at the expense of a subsidy from the taxpayer in order to bring back a tambourine or a flute for a pop singer. I would advise Deputies to make an examination of this book Trade and Shipping Statistics. They will be amazed to find that last year we imported pop singer's instruments at a cost of £792,745 and, again, for the first six months of this year we paid £376,835. That represents a total of £1,200,000 expended on musical instruments in the past eighteen months and paid for by the farmers' butter and the farmers' produce—80 per cent of our total exports.

If you go further you will find that something like £3,076,835 was paid last year on the importation of novels, newspapers, periodicals, greeting cards, printed tickets and cheque books. From January to July of this year the sum was £1,857,000. Surely we have enough printing premises in this country to print what we want and what bank is importing printed cheque books from England?

Let us see what is happening and get some realisation of the facts. The Minister wants £2,500,000. What I have read out represents £5 million worth of imports. Clap 50 per cent on them. If a banker in this country is taking money from the Irish people and getting his cheque books printed in England then let him pay for them.

I find that in the half year from January to July, 1964, £750,000 worth of English tablewear was imported. Where is the occasion for it? In Cork, we have the Carrigaline Potteries. We also have the Arklow Potteries in Wicklow. Anybody who was looking at television the other evening saw the beautiful things which are being produced there. What about our balance of payments position?

From January to June of this year, £780,000 worth of toys and table games were imported. I have a very grave objection to the importation of such articles. I have mentioned about £6 million worth of imported stuff. How much employment would that give to our people here? If the 15 per cent will have no other effect than to force Ministers, Government officials and the rest of them to examine the position for themselves and to see what can be pared, it will have done good. This country has gone daft. Fancy importing £1,200,000 worth of musical instruments. Is there any justification for it and, if so, what is the justification? Those are things we should consider.

The only good thing about this breach of agreement, as we may call it, is that at least we did not agree to it and we are not in the position we found ourselves in after the 1956 Agreement when the unfortunate farmers were mulcted and their beet acreage slashed for three or four years through Ministers not knowing what they were doing. One Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, woke up in June, 1960, to the effect of what he did in 1956 and said that it was not brought to his notice at that time that there was any breach of the 1948 Agreement. At least this is out in the open. I have as much respect for an agreement made with one British Government as another; I would have more respect for an agreement made with a fighting dog: at least you could give the dog a kick and he would not come back. Those people have no respect for word, honour or anything else. They have proved that repeatedly.

I do not wish to say more except to hope that when, as the Minister rightly states, taxation must be imposed to provide money, the Minister will read this book and pick out the luxury goods that are coming into this country. What is made in Ireland is not good enough now for the people of Ireland and so we have Italian shoes and other things. If they want them, make them pay through the nose for them. It would not take me three hours to find the full 15 per cent that is being bled out of us now in these books, without hurting anybody except those who deserve to be hurt.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I think I am doing no injustice to the Taoiseach if I say that in effect what he said was that we had relied in our economy on our exports and trade with Britain and that he had done all he could to rectify the situation resulting from the serious blow which has now hit our economy and that he had done so unsuccessfully. He proceeded to discuss generally our relations with EEC, EFTA and GATT and I do not think it would be unjust to him to say that we did not get from his speech a shred of hope that anything was likely to accrue to us in those directions.

It is about five or six years since the OEEC, of which this country is a member—we subscribe to it and have representatives and advisers there— intimated to our Government that our economy was endangered by having all our eggs in one basket. Perhaps what has happened during the past few days may bear results in the future and whoever is in a position of responsibility here may realise that it is necessary for us to diversify our trade and exports. We are probably one of the few countries of the world in such a parlous situation that if anything goes wrong with our trade agreements with the United Kingdom, we suffer the most severe repercussions, leading to unemployment, difficulty in export trade and so on.

On top of that, to cheer up the House generally, the Taoiseach, rather as an afterthought, said we ourselves were facing a balance of payments difficulty. He let it out quietly that the sum involved was in the neighbourhood of £40 million. Was that an indication that if what has happened had not happened, it might have been necessary to take action to rectify our own balance of payments situation? When we in the inter-Party Government were forced to do that in 1956, it brought screams from the Fianna Fáil Opposition at that time.

I want to stress, that if we are to expand and increase our economy, we must do what every other country has been doing in the past five years. I think Deputy Dillon already referred to the fact that we faced entirely different circumstances ten years ago from what we are facing now. It is not the first time I have suggested to the Government that they should go out and do what other countries are doing. We have a Minister who represents the Gaeltacht and who appears to me to be presiding over the obsequies of the Gaeltacht which is gradually sending its population away to build up the industry and economy in Britain, the US and other parts of the world. It is long overdue that we should have a Minister of State or a Minister for Trade who would go out and seek trade.

I do not know if the Minister for Industry and Commerce who is listening is aware of it but I know he had some experience in Europe at the Council of Europe before he became Minister for Industry and Commerce: I understand he has been to innumerable foreign conferences and he must be aware that trade, particularly in Europe where we must look for expansion if our trade with the United Kingdom is in jeopardy, is procurable only at political level. I do not want to say anything against our devoted civil servants who go to international conferences and do their best to expedite the expansion of our economy but we must always remember that they have no negotiating power. The initial negotiations in all cases must be carried out by Ministers, even though they have to be finalised and cleaned up afterwards by civil servants.

That is where I indict this Government. This situation has been growing gradually; it did not arise overnight. On the Taoiseach's word this afternoon, we are facing balance of payments difficulties, and apart from any difficulties that have arisen in the trade between this country and the United Kingdom, there would surely be a situation in which the Government should realise what they were facing and should have done something about it before we reached the position in which we now find ourselves.

We are now in the position that we are importing raw materials from Britain, processing and manufacturing them and exporting them back to the United Kingdom and paying 15 per cent duty on them. Someone should take a prolonged look at our economy. They should realise, if we are to step out of a situation in which we find ourselves, and which to a large extent we have been in over the past 30 years or so, that we should have a new economic outlook and we should have a new drive for expansion in keeping with the modern trend of events in the world. We, in the main, rely on our agricultural exports to carry us through our trials and difficulties. It is true to say, in the building up of our economy, that the export of our livestock is largely responsible for carrying our industries, enabling them to buy the raw materials to service such industries and to build up our economy.

The position is no different from that of any other country in the world. Twenty years ago, the agricultural economy was responsible for employing an innumerable number of people. Today, where six men were employed before, we have one or two employed. Therefore, we have to diversify our rural outlook. We have got to try to absorb into employment the people who were employed in agricultural industries before. We can do so by the setting up of local industries and local production in some shape or form to endeavour to keep the people in the country. That is where we have fallen down. That is where, in spite of the glossy future the Taoiseach painted for us, we must do something to find employment for those people who were formerly employed in agriculture. We are still the only country in Europe without full employment. We are still the only country in Europe who are sending out our people to help in the economy of other countries.

It is surely time someone took a serious look at the situation. I should like to suggest to the House that we are, as I have said before, largely dependent on the exportation of agricultural material. We are largely dependent on the export of livestock to the United Kingdom. The Minister will accept the fact if he has studied trade figures, that there is an ever-growing shortage of beef in Europe and everywhere in the world and that there is an increasing demand for it.

I suggest to the Minister, if he wants to offset some of the difficulties that will face us in the industrial arena, that he concentrate on the processing of agricultural raw materials and on the processing of beef for which there is a ready and reliable market in the foreseeable future. I would go so far as to say that there is a market for that for the next 15 or 20 years.

It would have been a help to the House if the Taoiseach had something to offer, if he had some plan of campaign. The Taoiseach came in this afternoon and offered some palliatives. We have a situation now in which our economy is disorganised. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has this scheme whereby those who are affected by this surcharge will be able to get benefits by the introduction of subsidies or supports which he is prepared to give them. He is not able to tell the House how that will work. In fact, I am not surprised he is not able to tell the House how it will work. He emphasises it will be complicated. I believe it will take a great many more civil servants and involve considerable expense to the country as a whole.

When the Irish people read their newspapers tomorrow morning and read the statement of the Taoiseach they will realise that it boils down to this. We have backed everything on our entry into the British market. We have been let down by the British. The Taoiseach is 40 years in public life and he ought to know the British Parliamentarians' expediency and that their hearts and hands are ruled by expediency. He ought to have known that and he ought to have foreseen the present circumstances. When the people read the papers tomorrow morning, I hope when they read through the Taoiseach's speech, they will see some measure of hope for the future and some indication of the policy. I could not get it myself but I may be very stupid. The Taoiseach mentioned EEC, EFTA and GATT but he did not give an indication of whether he is going to seek membership or a trade agreement. We do not want our economy to go haywire. We should get up and do what every other country is doing, that is, go out and look for a market. That will stabilise our markets better than all the woolgathering by the Taoiseach.

Mr. Coughlan

I come from a city that has depended more or less on the British market because we, in Limerick, are situated within 11 miles of the industrial area at Shannon Airport. Last year, it was estimated that £1,500,000 was spent in the city of Limerick as a result of the industries which were created, built up and developed at Shannon Airport. There are, at the moment, 2,000 workers employed at Shannon and the majority of the industries there concentrate on the export trade. In fact eight per cent of the total Irish exports to Britain comes from Shannon Airport and, for that reason, we are particularly perturbed in Limerick in regard to the 15 per cent surcharge.

I would appeal to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce that whatever liberties are granted and whatever provisions they intend to make with regard to the safeguarding of these industries, Shannon will get a particular place and that the two or three industries at Shannon which are completely dependent on the British market will get full and due consideration by the Minister. Unfortunately there is an over amount of female labour employed there, badly paid and working hours that would not be tolerated, I imagine, in any other working area. Some of the workers at Shannon are coming, not alone from Limerick but ten or 15 miles beyond Limerick. In fact, some of them are coming a distance of 30 miles beyond Shannon. The result is that employment is spread well round, not in the contiguous areas around Limerick but as far away as Cork. I would appeal to the Minister in the considerations that will be given in the near future to whatever industries are affected by the imposition of the 15 per cent surcharge, that Shannon get a particular place and get particular recognition and consideration. Exports from Shannon now enjoy a substantially good name in England and it would be a pity and tragic if, through the imposition of this 15 per cent, this market and the good name industrialists have in Shannon were lost and they had to start all over again to seek markets elsewhere. I want to impress that on the Minister.

Side by side with the effect of the 15 per cent on exports from the Shannon area, we have in Limerick a current period of depression in industry, particularly in the clothing industry, where we have the three leading factories of Ireland. I imagine we employ more people in the clothing industry in Limerick than does any other area. The advice was given in the past by the Taoiseach and by the Minister for Industry and Commerce that we should produce, expand, and prepare ourselves for entry into the EEC, and these people took the Taoiseach at his word and accepted the assurance given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and increased production and expanded their industries. The result is that last week we had a severe lay-off in the clothing industry in Limerick. One factory alone dispensed with 50 employees, all because of the fact that it is overstocked. They cannot sell what they have on hands because they expected to cater, not alone for the home trade but also for the export market. This did not materialise and the forecast and assurances given by the Taoiseach have fallen by the board and these industries are now left facing a very difficult situation.

The Taoiseach said he would finance, as far as he could, the industries affected. I wonder where the money will come from to tide these industries over this 15 per cent proposed for six or 12 months, or for God knows how long. If we can do so by some subterfuge or another or by way of introducing a Supplementary Estimate I wonder why it was not possible to increase the meagre, miserable amount of 2/6d we gave to the old age pensioners. It is a good thing that we should raise this money but I wonder whether these unfortunate people will be stricken again by this Supplementary Estimate which I expect will be introduced in the near future.

It is all very well to say we will do this and that and that we can find millions for this and that but unfortunate people expected to live on an extra 2/6d a week are a different proposition. I hope these unfortunate recipients will not be affected by the money which is to be collected to tide us over this period.

There is another consideration which the Taoiseach did not mention. I was not in the House when the Minister for Industry and Commerce was speaking but I was surprised that the Taoiseach did not refer to these industries which have been exporting some of their surplus and who now find themselves no longer competing in the British market. I am afraid that whatever was exported will now be dumped on the home market. The result will be that people who already have stocks on hands will not get rid of them for the next three or four years. I wonder what provision the Taoiseach has made to meet that emergency. He has not mentioned it today. I do not know whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce mentioned it or not but it is a situation that could have serious repercussions on the business life of the people of Ireland today.

The Taoiseach did not mention either that some of our Irish industries are capitalised one way or another by major industries in England. Some of our industries in Ireland have a signed agreement and have become more or less subsidiaries of bigger industries in the same line in Great Britain. The position, as I see it, is that while the subsidiary in Ireland will be affected the parent body in England will thrive because of the fact that we cannot send anything to them. I wonder was this matter discussed by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce during their talks lately with the British Prime Minister? Everybody knows the tie-up, particularly in the boot and shoe and leather trade that exists between Ireland and England. Everybody knows the tie-up also existing in the steel trade, in the manufacture of nails and screws and the tie-up existing between the different manufacturing industries in this country and Great Britain. But the Taoiseach never mentioned one word about that today, or that anything on those lines was discussed either by himself or the Minister for Industry and Commerce during their visit to London. I am surprised at that. The workers employed in these industries will be the people affected unless they take their bags and go across and work in the parent industry in England. The board, the directors and management will not be affected. That situation, as I see it, could have grave results as once these men go away it is hard to bring them back. I am surprised the Taoiseach or the Minister for Industry and Commerce did not put that before the British Prime Minister. It is elementary as far as I am concerned.

There is another matter on which I thought the Taoiseach would have assured the House, the nation and the smaller industries in the country, namely, that he would now be prepared to make available loans or grants for the extension of the small industries. We had Deputy Dillon telling us of 30 people employed in Castleblayney and 30 more employed somewhere else. We all know that and we all have made representations on behalf of old-established organisations employing 30, 40 or 50 men—men, mark you— for loans and grants and not one penny piece could they get even if they could prove in a bona fide way that their claims were just and that they needed this money for the extension of their industry or business so as to employ more male labour.

Now is the time for the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce to turn their sights on that target. They are crying out all over Ireland. In Limerick, every time I made representations on their behalf, I was turned down; yet a German can come in and get what he wants. It is only the man who has been established ten, 20 or 30 years who does not get help.

Finally, I should like to impress on the Minister for Industry and Commerce the need for some kind of redundancy compensation for people thrown out of work because of this tariff. It would serve the double purpose of keeping workers at home and of tiding them over the next few months. I should like to bring to the Minister's notice the terrible anxiety, fear and dread among workers in Limerick because of this tariff. Many of them are employed at Shannon and have saddled themselves with SDA payments and other financial commitments. They are now in absolute jeopardy.

Mr. Booth

If the last speaker believes he has made a constructive contribution to the national economy, I am afraid he is in for disappointment. He has referred to fear, dread and anxiety, just as Deputy Esmonde did before him when he gave us tales of woe and disaster.

Mr. Coughlan

I am facing facts.

Mr. Booth

This is no time for that.

Mr. Coughlan

Is it a time for bluffing the people?

Mr. Booth

That is exactly what the Deputy has been trying to do. I am trying just to face facts. If the Deputy had kept to facts, if he had kept to things he knew something about, we should have been doing much better.

Mr. Coughlan

That is what the Deputy should do.

Mr. Booth

If he had referred to a recent speech of the Chairman of the Exporters' Association, a man of courage and vision, he would have read his statement that definitely this 15 per cent would not be a disastrous blow to the Irish economy.

Mr. Corish

Not even a body blow.

Mr. Booth

I shall take up Deputy Corish's interjection, his reference to a body blow. He is trying to quote the Taoiseach but he is misquoting him. What the Taoiseach said was that this might be a body blow to our economy. I agree with him: it might be but it need not be, and, if we have any courage or real ability, it will not be. It rests in our hands whether it is or is not. The Taoiseach, in his introduction of the Supplementary Estimate this afternoon, did not produce the tale of woe Deputy Esmonde related. He faced facts fairly and squarely.

The Taoiseach did not say we were in a serious balance of payments difficulty. What he said was that he had pointed out to the British Prime Minister that we also had a balance of payments problem. That is something we have known all along: it did not arise last week or the week before. It was clearly forecast in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion that a period of imbalance in our payments had to be faced. That is inevitable in an expanding economy, so no one has been taken by surprise except the members of the Opposition who have not read the Programme or, if they have, prefer to forget it. There was nothing defeatist in what the Taoiseach said today. The only defeatism has come from the Opposition Benches. This is no time for preaching woe and disaster. It is a time of challenge which may very well be to our ultimate advantage.

Mr. Corish

Hear, hear.

Mr. Booth

If Deputy Corish is really supporting me in that, I wish he would also encourage members of his own Party——

Mr. Corish

I do now know whether Deputy Booth heard my speech or not.

Mr. Booth

No, but the Deputy gave me a supporting "hear, hear" on that point, and I am delighted he is beginning to see the light.

Mr. Corish

Beginning? I did not wait for Deputy Booth to make me see the light. He is being offensive.

Mr. Booth

It certainly was not meant to be offensive.

Mr. Corish

The first few sentences of the Deputy in reference to Deputy Coughlan were not complimentary.

Mr. Coughlan

He knows no better.

Mr. Booth

I hope the Labour Party are happy now.

Mr. Coughlan

The Labour Party are always happy.

Mr. Booth

Deputy Coughlan did not sound happy in his speech.

Mr. Coughlan

If the Deputy worked at Shannon, he would not be happy.

Mr. Booth

The Deputy should make up his mind as to whether he is happy or not. Let us look at a British importer. British importers of Irish goods have selected this country as their supplier for four reasons, one of which is not love of dear old Ireland. We have been selected simply for hard economic reasons, under four headings. First, they want our goods because the material is what they require—good material; secondly, they want good design; thirdly, they want good delivery dates; and fourthly, they want a reasonable price.

These are the four considerations which influence any British importer in selecting goods from this country. Only one of those points has in any way been disturbed, that is, price. Much of our industrial production going to Britain is in the form of small units—boots, shoes, clothing apparel and so on. The actual increase in price on a pair of shoes will be, comparatively speaking, very slight, and I believe our industrialists will be able and willing, in their own interests and in the interests of the country generally, to cut back slightly on their profit margins in order to bridge the gap between the previous price and that which will rule now under the new tariff conditions.

There is every evidence in the British economy that most of the factories there are working at full production. They will find it quite impossible to satisfy the sector of the British home market which they have not been supplying up to now. Consequently, I do not see any immediate danger of any set-back to our economy here. If there is any reduction in orders, it will not come for two or three months. No reputable British company —and most of these importers are reputable people—will consider cancelling orders due for delivery at the end of October, November or December. These importers would normally be ordering three or four months in advance and will now not be able to cancel these orders. Therefore, the problem will, to a large extent, be theirs initially.

They have elected that Government and that is their worry; but, I believe that these importers will be prepared to make some effort to keep their prices down by cutting their own profit margins as well and it is for that reason that the Taoiseach made it perfectly clear that the support which could be granted in suitable cases would be only 50 per cent of the amount necessary to keep the prices of our goods exactly the same in future as they have been in the past.

I believe that Irish industry is well able to meet this challenge. I have much more confidence in Irish industry than members of the Opposition have. I have no respect for any industrialist who panics in a situation like this and starts letting his employees go. When you get people like Deputy Coughlan coming in and blaming the Taoiseach for this happening, I think things have come to a pretty pass altogether; and when he goes on to say that an industrialist in his area has overstocked with material, and blames the Taoiseach for that, I say that that is rank bad production planning, rank bad market investigation, rank bad salesmanship. That is all there is to it and any man who gets himself into that position has only himself to blame and I do not think he should expect, and I certainly do not think he should get, any support or any consideration from the State if he finds himself in that sort of difficulty.

I believe that we will survive this challenge without too much difficulty at all. I do not anticipate that the amount of support which will be necessary from State funds will be anything extraordinarily large. I sincerely hope it will be comparatively small. The main thing which we have got to get out from this House today is that this House is united in its support for any measures which the Government may take to help industry which deserves help but it has been to my mind a tragedy that there has been such alarmist talk from the Opposition benches. That is no credit to the Parties concerned. It will not give them any Party advantage but it might do grave damage to the national economy and to the national morale. I would hope that we would get a unanimous vote in favour of this Estimate and that the country would feel there is no panic in this House, not just on the Government benches but that there is no panic on the Opposition benches and that in this moment of difficulty we will all co-operate to get out not only as well off as we went in but even better.

All these challenges are opportunities and nothing more and any businessman knows it. If you are in business, if things are too easy you will go to seed. It is only when things become a little bit difficult, when the unexpected turns up, that a businessman shows what he is really made of. I have the same confidence in our people as the Chairman of the Exporters' Association has in his own members and he is a man who knows what he is talking about. There is no question of our exporters in the past making exorbitant or excessive profits. I think their profit margins have always been small enough but there is sometimes a need for squeezing a little more as a temporary measure and, with the co-operation which I have every expectation will be forthcoming, I do not think this will be a load on the community.

Therefore, let us consider this issue as a national business in which we can all join together without feeling we are letting our own side down. There is no question of Party advantage arising whatsoever. The Taoiseach has made his view clear as he made it clear to the British Prime Minister. He has also looked forward to the future. Some of the Opposition speakers, particularly Deputy Esmonde, appeared to be confused as to what he said. He was perfectly clear to anyone listening to him. He did look forward to a new trade agreement with Great Britain and he also made it perfectly clear that the main reason for that was that the present agreement was an obstacle to our entry into GATT. He was perfectly clear on that. He was not trying to whitewash anything. He also stated that it should be a means towards securing for us better trading relations and expansion of trade generally with Great Britain at the same time, but the main objection to the present agreement, apart from its having been broken, was that it was an obstacle to our entry into GATT and as a small country it is essential that we should have the backing of an international organisation which will ensure that agreements to which we are a party are properly kept.

We are in a vulnerable position if we have just a bilateral agreement between Great Britain and ourselves. Up to now we believed that such an agreement would be strictly upheld by both parties. It has been a shock to us to find that a Government in difficulties, as the British Government find themselves, have seen fit to break that agreement. I do not think anyone could have forecast that. Personally, I do not believe for a moment that the situation in Great Britain is half as serious as the present British Government make it out to be. I think there is a lot of Party politics involved in all this and that the picture is being painted far more black than it really is. I suppose it is almost inevitable that a Government that have just scraped into power with such a narrow majority after a long period in the political wilderness are in a fairly desperate situation but I do not believe that the British economy is tottering towards disaster. I would venture to forecast that it will not be more than five, or six months at the most, before the cry goes out from the Cabinet in Westminster that by reason of the resolute steps which have been taken for the protection of the British economy everything has now been rescued from disaster and the green light is switched on again.

Mr. A. Barry

I hope it will not be like our green light.

Mr. Booth

I think it will be. I think it will not be long before the green light is switched on. I do not believe that, even while the red light is on at the moment, we have any reason to panic or to run away.

I would hope that the message going from this House to the nation would be: We are facing a period of some difficulty but nothing which is insuperable. We are facing a situation which we can deal with by resolute cooperative action and by taking that action, joining all together, we will be able not only to maintain our economy but to go forward in a way which in our wildest dreams we have never dared to hope for. We can do it and I believe we will. Any Opposition Deputy who gets up to say the contrary is doing a very bad day's work for the country. I am not asking anyone to adjust the facts to his own convenience. I am not doing that myself. I am not asking anyone to cloud the facts at all. I think the facts speak for themselves and are not nearly as grim as some people would like them to appear to be.

I feel that the bill which will eventually be presented for payment will not be large. It would be very nice if we could have spent the money on something else but I believe that in the end it will prove a very wise investment and that when we do get a new agreement with Great Britain at least the British Government will have learned the lesson that the breaking of international agreements is not a wise thing and should never be repeated and we will also have got the protection of GATT which we do not enjoy at the moment.

Furthermore, I think this will present us with a new challenge to end forever our almost exclusive dependence on the British market. I hope it will encourage our industrialists to search Europe and further overseas for new markets. Our materials are excellent. Our design is improving very rapidly. Our labour is becoming better trained. Our rate of productivity has increased. These are things which must be said because so many people prefer to think the opposite. The facts speak for themselves. Irish industry is progressing and can compete in any market.

I am absolutely satisfied that this is not a disaster. I do not really believe it will be a serious setback but only on condition that everyone puts his shoulder to the wheel, gives a good strong shove and makes sure we have no divisive elements whatsoever among us. The Opposition can make a useful contribution here or can become merely destructive. They have been very destructive today but I hope that is the end of it and that from now on they, too, will put their shoulders to the wheel.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The speech made by Deputy Booth was both ill-advised and ill-timed for two reasons. First, he offers comment on British politics. He offers comment as to whether or not the British people were right to change the Government, and makes reference to the slender majority which the new Government enjoys in Britain. Secondly, he says that the Opposition have not offered anything constructive but have adopted a destructive role in this matter.

The last speaker must have a very short memory because Deputies who have spoken here this evening have reminded him and the House that during the term of the inter-Party Government, in 1956, when this country had a very serious balance of payments problem to be tackled, the Fianna Fáil Party, when they were in opposition, did not deal with it in the same spirit as they are now asking the Opposition to deal with it.

Fianna Fáil always seem to want the confidence of the House and the country and to get the full support of the Opposition in every line they take whenever a difficulty arises when they are in office but when they are out of office, they are always prepared to take advantage of whatever Government are in office, and even though the difficulties may not be of the making of that Government, Fianna Fáil are always prepared to put the blame on their shoulders.

This Party has taken the patriotic line in regard to this problem and no matter what Deputy Booth may think or say in this House, the members of this Party realise that this is a serious problem for the country. It is a serious problem for the industrial workers and for the manufacturers. It is not a problem from which any one Party has anything to gain or wants to gain anything. It is a problem that calls for the support and co-operation of every Party and of everyone in this House. I am quite satisfied that this problem with which the Government now finds themselves confronted is one on which they will have the backing of the House. The evidence of that is the fact that no Deputy has spoken against this Estimate.

Why are the members of the House supporting this Estimate? Because we believe in Irish industry. No matter what may have been said in the past about Irish industry and Irish manufacture, we can produce in this country an article for export that can stand second to none in any part of the world. We on this side of the House do not deny that fact. On the contrary, we take credit for the first industrial seeds sown in this country. In a debate such as this, it should be borne in mind that successive Ministers for Industry and Commerce from the time the State was founded have played their part in the establishment of industries and in industrial expansion. That was continued by the Fianna Fáil Government when they were elected in 1932 and by the inter-Party Government of 1948. The evidence of the interest of those Governments in Irish industry was the setting up by the inter-Party Government of the Industrial Development Authority. The Taoiseach, who was in opposition at the time, offered serious criticism to the setting up of that Authority. His opposition was so fierce at the time that he said the moment he got back into office he would repeal the legislation. He got into office but he did not repeal it. On the contrary, he continued on exactly the same lines as were initiated at the establishment of the Industrial Development Authority.

Again we see that from this side of the House a very useful contribution was made to Irish industry by the late Deputy Norton as Minister for Industry and Commerce and there is clear evidence that this side of the House was keenly interested in Irish industry. When Deputy Sweetman was Minister for Finance his policy was to grant certain financial concessions to industrialists to assist them in setting up industries for the purpose of providing employment and for the purpose of manufacturing goods for the export market.

It is, therefore, ridiculous for Fianna Fáil to claim that they are the only Party who have any interest in Irish industry. Irish industry is the concern of every Irish Parliament and Government and of every Irish man and woman. That is why every Deputy is standing behind the Government in relation to this problem. The Minister for Industry and Commerce explained a few moments ago to the House that before the British general election Mr. Maudling had stated there was a balance of payments problem to be tackled but that Mr. Maudling left over the problem until after the election. If the Minister for Industry and Commerce knew the difficulties that faced Mr. Maudling at that time, why did he not immediately sit down and endeavour to foresee what steps would be taken by Mr. Maudling to rectify the balance of payments problem if he were re-elected to office; on the other hand, if there was a change of Government in Britain, as there was, what action would the new Government take to rectify the balance of payments problem because it was a matter that had to be tackled and tackled courageously by a new Government?

Mr. Maudling made it clear that a problem existed in Britain and would have to be tackled. Due notice was thereby given to this country and the Minister for Industry and Commerce told us tonight that he was aware of the position. The Government should have considered what possible measures would be taken by Britain to rectify the balance of payments position in that country but, apparently, our Government sat motionless until the new British Prime Minister announced the measures to be taken, and without any prior notice.

It should be made clear, and we have made it clear in the country, that this Party are extremely sorry that the results of the negotiations between the Taoiseach, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the British Prime Minister were not more favourable. They received good wishes on their mission and, naturally enough, no embarrassment was caused by this Party: no comment was made by the Leader of this Party beyond offering his best wishes for the success of the delegation.

It should, I think, be pointed out for record purposes that the present Government never had good negotiating ability with the British Government such as the Cumann na nGaedheal and the inter-Party Government had. There is clear evidence that on every occasion these Governments went to Britain to negotiate, they returned with something gained for this country, bringing back an agreement which meant more money going into the pockets of the people or increased markets for Irish products. The 1948 Trade Agreement, which dealt with agricultural products, resulted in putting millions into the pockets of Irish farmers. At a later stage we had the sorry spectacle of the former Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture going over to Britain to negotiate and coming back with less than he had when he was going.

It is only right these things should be put on record. Because of the poor negotiating ability of the Government, I think our industrialists, our manufacturers and the people generally were not expecting a great measure of success. The record is not a very good one. Nevertheless they had our good wishes and we are extremely sorry they did not do better. The very least they should have been able to negotiate was the same facilities as we gave British imports in 1956 when we had a balance of payments problem in this country. The Taoiseach had a strong weapon in his hand and, no matter how bad the British balance of payments problem may be, ours was just as bad in 1956. There should, therefore, have been reciprocity on the part of Britain in her crisis and I, for one, believed the Taoiseach would not come back without the same concessions at least as this country gave Britain in 1956.

We must face facts now and the fact is this 15 per cent may be in operation for a year, or longer, for all we know. It may not be in operation for a year. Irish industries are asked to face the challenge. I have every confidence that Irish industrialists and Irish manufacturers will meet the challenge with both credit and distinction and with the full co-operation of the trade unions. The trade union movement is perhaps one of the greatest movements in this or any other country. I believe every single citizen will respond to the appeal to "Buy Irish" and use to the fullest extent possible Irish manufactured goods.

What has prompted me to speak tonight is the fact that I represent a highly industrialised constituency, Laois-Offaly. We have some of the finest industries in the country in that constituency. The Minister for Industry and Commerce will, I am sure, bear in mind the difficulties of every branch of Irish industry but, as Deputy Coughlan said earlier, he should have special regard to the boot and shoe industry. That industry should have special care and special attention. Recently the factory in Birr got an order for 5,000 pairs of shoes and boots from Little-woods of Liverpool for delivery next January. Let us hope such orders will not now be cancelled. I am glad that, as a result of the Estimate which has been introduced, and which we support, it will be possible for orders of this kind to be met. Had this Estimate not been introduced, I am convinced this industry in Birr would be faced with redundancy in a very short time and good operatives would be likely to leave the industry if there were short time. In my opinion, that would have a very serious effect on the industry generally.

We have another shoe factory in Edenderry. That factory exports approximately 40 per cent of their output to the United Kingdom. Their biggest export line is "Hush Puppies". They are exported to the British Shoe Corporation. That body has its own factories in Britain and the argument is why should they pay more for "Hush Puppies" manufactured in Edenderry when they can manufacture them in their own factories without any levy. "Hush Puppies" are a very profitable export line, an export industry in which it would be impossible to carry anything like the 15 per cent levy for any length of time. There are 420 workers employed in this industry and I feel the measures being taken under this Supplementary Estimate may partially solve their difficulties.

Another industry in my constituency with which I am gravely concerned, is the moquette manufacturing industry in Birr which also gives very good employment. They are exporting moquette to the value of some £40,000 to £60,000 per annum to Britain, a figure which represents one quarter of their total sales. In recent times this firm has endeavoured to purchase new machinery and plant with a view to extending and expanding in every way possible. They have organised their export sales arrangements and the levy would certainly be a very serious blow to the industry. The action contemplated by the Government will certainly help in some way to remove their difficulties. This moquette industry is one of the finest not alone in Ireland but in Europe. There is first-class management; there are highly skilled operatives, and their product is regarded as probably the best in that line that can be produced in any part of the world.

We have in Tullamore the firm of Salts (Ireland) Limited, and in Portlaoise we have the Irish Worsted Mills, which manufacture textiles and worsteds. This industry gives employment to hundreds of workers and is the main source of employment for practically every family in those areas. I have already given the facts to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The export of cloth and made-up garments is something we greatly value, something which gives substantial and profitable employment, and no matter what money is asked for in this Estimate, this House will gladly give it to maintain the steady employment at good wages, being given by woollen, worsted and textile industries. Again we can see that the greater part of their export trade is to the United Kingdom.

I should like to direct the attention of the Minister to the need for assisting in every possible way the jute industry. We have a very successful jute industry in Clara, Offaly, and also one in Waterford. This industry is probably one of the best known in the world. It is also one of the best managed industries in any part of the world and provides substantial employment. In Clara, it provides employment for approximately 600 people and if there were redundancy or short time in that industry, it would have a very serious effect on the town as a whole. Another industry with which I am concerned is Erisinn Peat Products, Ltd., Birr, where they manufacture peat pots and their largest market is the British market. Peat pots are also manufactured in Scotland and without the import levy, it would be difficult enough for the Birr industry to compete. Therefore, I hope the Minister for Industry and Commerce will bear in mind the competition which this industry has to face from Scotland in the British market, and constantly review the situation with a view to maintaining a full measure of employment in that industry, which is managed in a very creditable manner and operated by skilled workers. Another industry is the firm of Peerage (Ireland) Limited which is also in Birr. This industry was extending and was about to seek markets abroad. There is ample scope for their products on the British market and again I would ask the Minister to bear this in mind, because of the very useful volume of employment given locally.

The Minister, in conjunction with the Taoiseach, should utilise to the fullest possible extent the officials in our embassies abroad to obtain new trade. An example of what can be done was given by Messrs. D.E. Williams of Tullamore when Mr. Williams, who is one of our leading industrialists, visited the USA and elsewhere and, as a result, the sales of Irish Mist and of Irish whiskey have gone up considerably. The Tullamore whiskey can be described as being the best quality Irish whiskey and is known throughout the world.

Those are just a few of the industries in which I am personally interested, particularly in regard to the workers, and that is why I agree with the Government in any action they may take to safeguard fulltime employment in these industries. If there should be redundancy, half-time, or short-time, it will be the duty of the Government to compensate the workers who may lose their employment as a result of this levy, or as a result of conditions which are not brought about through any fault of theirs and which will be outside the control of the Government.

When private industry can compensate for redundancy, what is to stop the State from doing likewise? I recall when the maltings at Mountmellick closed in 1939, when Messrs. Arthur Guinness withdrew their contract from the maltings, the firm of Guinness gave the workers very substantial sums of money to compensate them for their loss of employment. I am sure the memory of the Taoiseach is sufficiently good to recall this because he received a deputation at the time. He may have forgotten it but he was Minister for Industry and Commerce at the time and was extremely helpful. It was the first time I saw the Taoiseach and he was extremely sympathetic to the pleas made in regard to the closing of that industry.

I want to say that I have every faith in Irish industry and every faith in every industry in my constituency. I know the value of those industries and how they provide full-time and profitable employment. It is to the credit of all the officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce that Irish industry has reached the stage it has reached today. I do not see that we have any reason to complain about the state of Irish industry. I believe in Irish industry. I am convinced it will overcome this difficulty, the same as it overcame difficulties in the past. We must have faith in ourselves. It does not sound sensible to hear the Taoiseach having to ask people to buy their own goods. Surely our people ought to be sufficiently public-spirited not to have to be asked to buy Irish? That ought to be part of good citizenship.

For some reason or other we in this country always felt our goods were not as good as those from abroad. All they had to do was to send over a poorer quality article with a different label and, according to our people, it was a far better article than the Irish one. Nothing is further from the truth. Our products are as good if not better than any in the world. I do not think there is any need to solicit the support of the unions for this campaign, because every worker knows the highly skilled staffs engaged in industry and the top quality of the products. Is it not strange that after 40 years of native government we have to urge our people to be sufficiently patriotic to buy the goods made in their own country by their own fellow workers, goods which have stood the test of markets abroad? When we see Irish goods of every description holding their own on the British market against world competition, it ought to be sufficient evidence of their quality to win for them the support of our own people. Our people have a duty to buy Irish, to wear Irish, to eat Irish——

Mr. Coughlan

To drink Irish.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I particularly advocate that. I say they have a solemn duty to drink Irish.

Mr. J. Lynch

The Deputy should show a little example!

Mr. Ryan

Have you any mineral water factories down there?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

We have a fine new mineral water factory in Birr. We have one in Portlaoise and one in Tullamore. They are under first-class management, give good employment and produce the best product. Our industrialists have nothing to fear. If they can produce a product which gains recognition abroad, I do not see what they have to fear.

I do not agree with Deputy Booth when he says that manufacturers should try to cut their profits. They cannot be expected to do so when they have high overheads to meet. If the Department were to investigate the profits Deputy Booth wants cut, I believe the manufacturers could show that their profits are extremely slender and would not warrant any reduction whatever. The imposition of the 15 per cent levy has caused worry and anxiety amongst all those industrialists. Surely, on top of that, it would be unfair to ask them to bear any loss as a result of the problem that has arisen.

I want to say something now about the industries in the constituency of Deputy Coughlan and Deputy O'Donnell—the industries in Shannon. They are a credit to this country. I was tremendously impressed by them, because I saw the number of workers employed there. When I see workers gainfully employed, I am quite satisfied. I would much prefer to see them working in Shannon than working in various cities in Britain. I was impressed by the work undertaken by Mr. O'Regan and the energetic board, who deserve credit for the initiative they showed and the volume of employment they are giving. That should go on record. We should try to encourage those industries.

There is one problem I would refer to the Taoiseach and the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Industries have been set up in recent years with substantial aid from the Government. Some of them are now competing with industries that had to be set up without one penny of the taxpayers' money. I had intended raising this matter on the Control of Manufactures Bill, and I will raise it on that when the time comes. I would ask the Minister to keep under review the position where a company set up with State aid tried to capture the markets of an industry solely financed by the company itself. Surely those companies which have stood on their own feet and have been no liability on the State should be given some preference over industries that had to be subsidised to a great extent by the State? I would not like to see subsidised industries putting out of business industries that were established by the hard work, savings and investment of private citizens, who did not call on the Government for a penny to assist them.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 12th November, 1964.