Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Oct 1967

Vol. 230 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 40—Industry and Commerce.

Tairgim: Go ndeonfar suim nach mó ná £8,083,000 (ocht mhilliún ochtó thrí mhíle punt) chun slánaithe na suime is gá chun íochta an mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú lá de Mhárta, 1968, le haghaidh tuarastail agus costais Oifig an Aire Tionscail agus Tráchtála, lena n-áirítear seirbhísí áirithe atá faoi riaradh na hOifige sin, agus chun Ildeontais-i-gCabhair a íoc.

Tá sé i gceist agam dhá Meastachán Forlíontach a glacadh in éineacht leis an bpríomh Meastachán. Tá an chéad meastachán forlíontach le haghaidh £137,000 agus táan dara ceann le haghaidh £2,647,000. Sé £2,784,000 iomlán an dá Mheastachán forlíontach agus deontas iomlán de £10,867,000 a bheidh ann don bhliain.

Lean táirgeadh tionscalach ag méadú i rith na bliana so thart ag ráta níos airde ná an ráta méadaithe le tamaill anuas. Insan ráithe dar críoch Márta, 1967, bhí méadú de 7.9 faoin gcéad i méid táirgeadh tionscal déantúsaíochta i gcomparáid leis an dtréimhse céanna anuraidh. I rith an ama céanna bhí méadú nach lú na 9 faoin gcéad i gcás tionscal earraí so-iompartha. Do réir an eolais atá ar fáil don ráithe dar críoch Meitheamh, 1967, tá gach cosúlacht ann gur leanadh den méadú san toirt táirgeadh. I Márta na bliana 1967 bhí méadú de bhreis is 2,000 ar líon na ndaoine a bhí fostaithe i dtionscail déantúsaíochta.

I rith 1966 agus 1967 leathnaíodh agus géaraíodh ar an bhfeachtas chun tionscail nua a mhealladh. Thug mo réamhtheachtaí agus mé féin ar aon roinnt turasanna thar lear leis an bhfeachtas a chur chun chinn. Leathnaigh ionadaithe An Údaráis Forbartha Tionscail a gníomhachtaí isteach i réimsí nua agus géaraíodh ar an bhfechtas insna tíortha agus insna láthair tionscail a bhfuil cuma ortha go mbeadh an toradh is fearr le fáil.

Tá mé ag déanamh cúraim ar leith de go bhféachfar chuige go mbeidh bun-ábhar dúchasach agus bun-ábhair a cuireadh ar fáil ag tionscail Éireannacha eile mar bhonn ag oiread thionschamh nua agus is féidir. Tá roinnt dreamanna ag plé le seo agus déanann an tÚdarás aithbhreithniú rialta air.

I rith na bliana seo chaite cuireadh de chúram ar an Údarás cuidiú le tionsclóirí Éireannacha i mbunú tionscail nua agus pléann an tÚdarás anois le gach tairiscint do thionscail nua. Mar chuid den chúram seo, chuireas de dhualgas ar an Údarás an chlár um thionscail bheaga a thionschaimh, agus an scéim a riaradh insna réamhcheanntracha tastála. Tá sé i gceist agam go gcuirfí réimse seirbhísí agus cabhair eile a bheadh dírithe ar a bhfadhbanna ar fáil do tháirgeoirí beaga tríd an scéim seo. Trí bheart anna phraicticúla den chineál seo, tá súil agam go gcothófar méadú i líon na dtionscail mbeaga éifeachtach, go háirithe insna mbailte cúige.

Ag an 31ú Márta, 1967, ceadaíodh deontaisí do isteach is amach le £41 milliún ag Foras Tionscal. Íocadh £21 milliún den suim seo agus d'fhág san go raibh beagnach £20 milliún le híoch fós ag an 31 Márta, 1967. Mar aon le sin, bhí chaitheachas caipiteal ar fhorbairt estát tionsclach de bheagnach £460,000.

Bhí infheistiú iomlán caipitéal de bheagnach £88 milliún insna hairleogaí go léir, insna réigiúin neamh-fhorbartha agus eile, ceadaithe ag an 31 Márta, 1967, agus táthar ag súil go gcuirfear fostaíocht ar fáil do thart ar 39,700 duine.

Tá obair ar bhunú dhá heastáit tionscail ag Port Lairge agus ag Gaillimh faoí sheoil. Tá monarchain ar fáil ar chíos anois i bPort Lairge agus beidh na monarchain tosaigh ar fáil i nGaillamh i lár na bliana seo chugainn. Is féidir gur cabhair tábhachtach é do lucht tionscail seanbhunaithe, ar mian leo a gcuid tionscal a fhorbairt ach a bhfuil bac ortha toisc go bhfuil a náitreabh míoiriúnach nó uireasach, monarchain réamh-dhéanta a bheith ar fáil ar chíos.

De réir figiúirí sealadacha, b'é luach iomlán ár n-onnhmhuirí insna naoí mí dar críoch Meán Fomhair, 1967, ná £203 milliún, breis de £35 milliún i gcomparáid le h-onnmhuirí san tréimhse céanna anuraidh. Mhéadaigh allmhuirí de £18 milliún go £291 milliún; bhí laghdú, áfach, de bheagnach £16 milliún san "mbreis allmhaireachta" Chuidigh an Conradh Saor Thrádala linn ár nionad ar mhargadh na Breataine a dhaingniú. Ní h-ionann san, ár ndóigh, is a rá go bhfuil an gá d'éagsúlacht margaí onnmhuireachta ligthe i ndearmad againn. Le fada anois tá sé mar pholasaí againn cabhair a thabhairt d'onnmhuiréoirí na tíre seo freastal a dhéanamh ar mhargaí ar fud an domhain agus sa tslí sin cothromaíocht níos fearr de réir tíreolaíochta a bhaint amach i gcúrsaí trádála. D'éirigh go maith leis an bpolasaíseo mar is léir nuair a smaoinítear go bhfuil 40 faoin gcéad d'onnmhuirí d'earraí déantúsaíochta ag dul go tíortha seachas an Bhreatain.

In the Book of Estimates, the net estimate of £8,083,000 for the year 1967-68 compares with a sum of £8,669,560 granted in 1966-67 and shows a net decrease of £586,560. On the 9th March, 1967—too late for inclusion in the Book of Estimates— an additional sum of £1,288,000 was granted by way of a Supplementary Estimate, bringing the total amount granted in 1966-67 to £9,957,560.

It has been agreed that the subject matter of the two Supplementary Estimates will be discussed in this debate in conjunction with the main Estimate. The first Supplementary Estimate is for £137,000 and the second supplementary is for a sum of £2,647,000. The total of the supplementary estimates is £2,784,000 and the total grant for the year will then amount to £10,867,000.

The actual position is, therefore, that the Estimate for 1967-68, including the Supplementary Estimates already mentioned, is greater than the total sum granted in 1966-67 by £909,440.

Industrial production has continued to expand in the past year, and at a higher rate than for some time past. In the March quarter of 1967, the volume of production of manufacturing industries showed an increase of 7.9 per cent over the corresponding period last year, while the increase in the case of all transportable goods industries was not less than 9 per cent. Preliminary indications for the June quarter of this year are that the rate of increase in volume of production has been more than maintained. Employment in manufacturing industries in March, 1967, was up by almost 2,000 on the year before.

The preparation and reorganisation of industry to meet conditions of freer trade, one of the most important aspects of my Department's work, can be said to have commenced in 1961 with the surveys of the Committee on Industrial Organisation. The Government, acting on the Committee's recommendations, made arrangements for the provision of special grants towards the cost of re-equipment and improvement of premises. It encouraged the setting up of Adaptation Councils and Trade Union Advisory Bodies and provided financial assistance for them.

The Industrial Reorganisation Branch in my Department was set up to assist industry in the implementation of the Committee's recommendations and, in general, action has been taken to provide a climate conducive to the undertaking of industrial reorganisation measures. However, it is only industry itself which can take the effective decisions in relation to adaptation and the various schemes of Government aids will be of little avail if there is not among all concerned in industry a continuing determination to maximise our resources and increase our competitive efficiency.

The CIO distinguished between short-term adaptation—re-equipment, expansion etc.—and long-term adaptation measures covering such matters as rationalisation, co-operative marketing, training, research and design. Progress with short-term adaptation measures since 1961 is most easily illustrated by reference to investment by individual firms. The adaptation grants scheme which was introduced to assist programmes of short-term adaptation and which provided 25 per cent grants towards the outlay on buildings and equipment for firms adapting to free trade conditions operated with effect from late 1961.

The scheme was intended to last for a period of three years but was subsequently extended for a fourth year and there was a further and final extension to the end of 1967 with a deadline for the receipt of applications at the end of September this year. In all, the scheme was available to cover adaptation expenditure incurred over a period of six years. Up to the end of June last, on the basis of approved grants, planned investment in buildings, plant and machinery has been of the order of £66 million and the grants approved towards this total amount to more than £14.5 million.

It is particularly gratifying that in 1966 the approved grants exceeded £4 million with corresponding planned capital investment of £18 million, representing nearly one-third of the total up to the end of that year. This acceleration of activity in 1966 was no doubt due partly to the more definite indications of future trading conditions following the conclusion of the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain in 1965. There has also, of course, been investment by some firms who have not, for one reason or another, sought state grants.

I have mentioned already the setting up of Adaptation Councils and Trade Union Advisory Bodies. Adaptation Councils have helped to keep alive the sense of urgency generated by the CIO reports. Their main tasks from now on will be in the field of co-operative effort to maximise on an industry basis the benefits which should accrue from the individual investments by firms in adaptation measures.

Progress in co-operative activities and in improvements in techniques and attitudes is rather more difficult to quantify than investment by individual firms. There are, however, signs that progress has been made. Over the last few years we have seen a movement away from the secretive attitudes and competitiveness in a narrow sense which the CIO encountered so often in Irish industry. Out of this broadening of attitudes have developed rationalisation measures—whether mergers or inter-firm arrangements in production —which have left much of industry better fitted to meet free trade competition than at the time of the CIO survey.

There are signs of more progressive attitudes also in other aspects of long-term adaptation such as training, research and design, and joint marketing. The growing awareness of the need for better management and operative training is evident from the increasing extent to which the technical assistance grants scheme is being used. Industry is also, I am glad to say, much more alive, to the importance of research and design than it has been in the past. My Department in its contacts with industrial firms continues to stress the importance of research and design and to work for the strengthening of contacts between industry and the responsible bodies in these fields—the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards and the Kilkenny Design Workshops.

In certain industries, the employment of design experts has set a headline which I hope other industries will follow. The progress made by the Wool Weavers' Co-operative and the Menswear Fashion Guild Ltd. shows that properly planned co-operation in export marketing yields worthwhile results. There have been more recent developments in the footwear and furniture industries, and I am also aware that other industries are making plans for co-operation in exports. I would, however, like to see much more activity in this field. It is, I think, obvious that a well-planned export drive involving the combined resources of a number of firms will be more effective than the unaided efforts of the average single firm.

With the object of further stimulating activity in long-term adaptation, I have recently instituted a series of meetings between myself and the chairmen of the various Adaptation Councils and of bodies who have undertaken responsibility for adaptation in industries not having Councils. At these meetings we will be examining together the problems of the various industries, the extent to which measures recommended by the CIO have been adopted, and any other steps that can be taken to maintain the competitiveness of industry in freer conditions of trade. I have also arranged for periodic meetings with representatives of the trade unions. I am hopeful that these meetings will be of great value in helping me to keep intimately in touch with the problems of adaptation in industry and in particular in highlighting areas where my Department can be of assistance.

The campaign being conducted by the Industrial Development Authority to attract new industry from abroad showed good results in 1966. Of the 54 new enterprises which were established during the year, 40 had foreign participation and accounted for 90 per cent of the capital investment of £8.9 million and 95 per cent of an employment potential of 4,500. During the first nine months of the current year a further 46 new enterprises involving an estimated capital investment of £9.2 million and an employment potential of 3,100 commenced production. Enterprises with foreign participation were again well to the forefront accounting for 36 of the new enterprises and for 82 per cent and 85 per cent of the estimated investment and employment respectively. In addition at the end of September, 1967, there were 24 new factories under construction of which 16 had foreign participation representing a capital investment of £6.9 million out of a total of £7.9 million and an employment potential of 1,300 out of a total of 1,600.

During 1966 and 1967 the campaign to attract new industry was extended and intensified. Both my predecessor and I undertook a number of promotional visits abroad. Also Board members and senior staff of the IDA travelled widely in Europe and the US on promotional work and in connection with particular industrial projects. The Authority's representatives extended their activities into new territories and intensified the campaign in the countries and industrial centres which offered the best prospects.

Despite the fact that 1966 was quite a good year for foreign industry starting up here, it would be unwise to assume that we can escape the adverse effects of the slowing down in the industrial growth in Europe and the restraints which have been imposed by some countries, including Britain, on overseas investment. Enquiries from some countries have fallen off considerably and grants for new industries approved in the year ended 31st March last reflect the fall off from the previous year although they are in line with earlier years.

I am particularly anxious that adequate measures be taken to ensure that indigenous and other home produced industrial raw materials should be the basis of as many new enterprises as possible. A number of interests are involved in this and the matter is kept under constant review by the IDA.

During last year the IDA was assigned responsibility for assisting Irish promoters in establishing new industries and now handles all proposals for new industries. As part of this assignment I entrusted the Authority with the task of initiating the Small Industries Programme and supervising the pilot scheme in the test areas. A new Small Industries Division in the IDA is vigorously engaged in getting the programme under way. It is my intention that the scheme should bring to the small producer a range of services and other aids related to his particular requirements. By such practical measures I hope to foster the growth of efficient small industry, particularly in our provincial towns. Although the programme is new to Ireland various schemes to promote small industry have been in operation in other countries. The valuable contribution which small industry can make to national growth is well recognised among many of the industrially advanced countries where small establishments continue to provide a high proportion of manufacturing output and employment despite the tendency for most modern enterprises to increase in size. It is hoped that the programme will in due course be extended to all areas and will engender a new spirit of enterprise and self reliance in the community which is so essential if we are to achieve the economic expansion necessary to ensure full employment.

The Industrialists Promotional Panel set up in 1966 to assist the IDA in securing new industries, consists of some leading Irish and foreign industrialists who have established plants here. The arrangement is aimed at enlisting the help of the Panel members in initiating contacts abroad and in advancing the idea of Ireland as a location for industry. I understand that members of the Panel have helped in these respects. Some useful suggestions regarding the Small Industries Programme, as well as offers to help small industries, were made by members of the Panel. Panel members also furnished useful comments regarding industrial development grants.

A survey of grant aided industries, both Irish and foreign, was initiated in 1966 under the auspices of the IDA and is now nearing completion. Some of the information obtained from the survey has been of help in connection with the overall re-appraisal of the programme for encouraging the establishment of new industry which is also nearing completion.

An internationally experienced firm of consultants was engaged to assist the Industrial Development Authority in this re-appraisal which embraces a very wide field including examination of the existing financial incentives, the methods of attracting new industry and opportunities available for the establishment of particular groups of industry.

It is likely, however, that far reaching changes will need to be made over the whole field of our industrial development programme if we are to continue to meet with success in developing industry in Ireland to meet the goal of full employment and I anticipate the necessity for introducing new legislation in the near future.

The provision for An Foras Tionscal in the printed Estimate for 1967-68 is £5.5 million which was the same as that for 1966-67, after taking the Supplementary Estimate in March, 1967, into account. In the second Supplementary Estimate before the House I am proposing to increase this year's provision by £2.5 million giving a total of £8 million.

The actual payments made by An Foras Tionscal for the year ended 31st March, 1967, were £5.46 million made up of:—

£m.

(1) Grants under the Undeveloped Areas Acts

1.29

(2) Grants for projects outside the Undeveloped Areas

1.20

(3) Adaptation Grants

2.47

(4) Market Development Grants

0.08

(5) Industrial Estates

0.42

Up to 31st March, 1967 the total amount of grants approved by An Foras Tionscal was roughly £41 million, of which almost £21 million was paid leaving outstanding commitments, at 31st March last, of almost £20 million. In addition total capital expenditure to 31st March, 1967 on the development of industrial estates was approximately £460,000.

The total capital investment involved in all projects in the Undeveloped Areas and elsewhere approved as at 31st March, 1967 is estimated at £88 million and it is expected that employment will be afforded for some 39,700 persons. Out of the total of 315 new industries or major development of existing industries assisted by grants made by An Foras Tionscal, 186 were promoted either entirely by foreign interests, or by foreign interests in association with Irish interests.

For works of enlargement and adaptation, grants amounting to £14 million for 793 schemes requiring a total capital expenditure of £63 million have been approved up to 31st March, 1967.

In the current financial year to date grants made by An Foras Tionscal have reached a total of £3.8 million, of which payments in respect of new industries in the country as a whole have accounted for £1.6 million. Adaptation and enlargement grants have accounted for £1.8 million. The balance of £0.4 million was expended in connection with establishment of the industrial estates. A recent review by the Board of the further expenditure anticipated during the remainder of the financial year shows that payments on approved projects will amount to £4.2 million involving an excess in expenditure during the full year of about £2.5 million. The increase anticipated in this expenditure is mainly due to the unusual difficulties inherent in the framing of annual estimates of expenditure. These difficulties, which I mentioned to the House on a previous occasion, stem from various factors including the uncertainty of dates of payment in connection with new industries and the number and types of proposals which may be received in any particular year. The extension of the time-limit for application for adaptation grants to 30th September, 1967, has further contributed to the anticipated increase in expenditure.

Work on the development of two industrial estates at Waterford and Galway is proceeding. Factories for renting are now available at Waterford and the first factories will be available at Galway in the middle of next year. This should be a major inducement for industry to come to Waterford and Galway. The availability of readybuilt factories for renting can also be an important aid to existing industrialists wishing to develop but prevented from doing so by the inadequacy or unsuitability of their existing premises. I am certain that enterprising industrialists will not overlook this point. An Foras Tionscal is co-operating with the Industrial Development Authority in implementing the Small Industries Programme to which I have already referred.

From its establishment as a statutory Board in September, 1959, until the end of the financial year 1966-67, Córas Tráchtála has received grantsin-aid totalling more than £2.5m. The Export Promotion (Amendment) Act, 1967, raised the statutory limit for grants that might be made to the Board to £4.5m. The services and facilities provided for exporters by Córas Tráchtála include travel incentive grants, trade fair grants and grants for market research, design projects, packaging and various other purposes.

The provision for Córas Tráchtála in the volume of Estimates for 1967-68 is £600,000. When this figure was fixed it was not possible to give a firm estimate of the likely extent of the demands on the Board's funds. The demands for assistance under the various incentive grant schemes operated by Córas Tráchtála have been very heavy.

The present year has shown a considerable increase in activity in the export field by manufacturers. More and more manufacturers with the assistance of the Board are visiting export markets, undertaking market research, taking part in trade fairs and venturing on brand advertising in new markets. There has also been an increase in co-operative efforts to promote exports as shown by the special shows and promotions arranged by Córas Tráchtála for the footwear manufacturers, the ladies fashion trade, the men's wear manufacturers and the furniture industry. The additional £117,000 provided in the Supplementary Estimate is required mainly to meet the cost of export promotion. This is all very welcome activity.

A significant new development has been the introduction by Córas Tráchtála of a range of services for exports of capital goods. A special section has been established with responsibility for initiating industrial market research projects, organising trade fair participation and establishing contacts with buying organisations abroad.

The opening of new trade promotion offices in Melbourne and Port of Spain, Trinidad, reflects the emphasis which Córas Tráchtála place on the need for market diversification and the achievement of a better geographical balance in our overseas trade. Córas Tráchtála also organised last month major Irish promotions in Cincinnatti and Rochester, USA, and in Chester, Cheltenham and Bristol.

Kilkenny Design Workshops, which have so far interested themselves in woven textiles, printed textiles, silver and metalwork, ceramics, candle-making and woodturning, provide design and prototyping services for industry. Increasing competition at home and abroad makes improvements in design and quality urgently necessary for many of our established manufacturers. I had the pleasure of opening a permanent Kilkenny Shop to sell merchandise, designed by the Workshops and manufactured by Irish firms, in a New York department store. The products—representing the first generation of Kilkenny Designs in commercial production—include table linen and furnishing fabrics, ceramics and silver, gift ware, wood, candles, towelling and bedspreads.

Other promotions of new Kilkenny Design Workshops designed merchandise took place last month in both London and Dublin. Another interesting project is the proposed establishment of an international centre for industrial designers at Kilkenny where design problems and possibilities could be worked out in up-to-date conditions and in an atmosphere where free and fruitful exchange of ideas can be facilitated.

A favourable feature of industrial development in 1966 was the marked rise in exports of industrial products which increased by over £14 million or 17 1/2 per cent compared with 1965. Industrial exports for the first half of 1967 were nearly 30 per cent in value above those for the corresponding period in 1966 and this trend augurs well for the future. This rapid growth is attributable to the fact that the majority of the manufacturing undertakings established here in recent years are based on producing for export and many of them are only now coming into full production. The new undertakings which commenced production in 1966 and 1967 are in the main export-orientated and will be making an increasing contribution to our export trade in the coming years.

Provisional figures for the first nine months of this year show that total exports reached a figure of £203 million, an increase of £35 million over the corresponding figure for 1966. Imports increased by nearly £18 million to £291 million; the import excess, however, was down by nearly £16 million. A detailed breakdown is not yet available but the latest available figures indicate that industrial exports are continuing to increase.

The Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement has helped to secure our position in the British market. In the first full year of the operation of the Agreement Irish manufacturers took full advantage of the opportunities opened to them. Britain must be regarded as the most obvious outlet for our goods. This does not mean, however, that we are overlooking the need for greater diversification of export markets. It has, in fact, been the policy for many years to assist exporters to develop a better geographical balance in the pattern of their overseas trade. The success of these efforts may be measured by the fact that nearly 40 per cent. of our exports of manufactured goods now go to countries other than Britain.

Negotiations on Ireland's application for accession to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) within the Kennedy Round of trade negotiations were completed in June. Details of the tariff concessions made by Ireland have been laid on the Table of the House. On the conclusion of the negotiations Ireland's application, and that of the other acceding countries, was put to a vote of the member States and having obtained the necessary favourable votes Ireland will become a Contracting Party to the GATT one month after the signature of the Protocol of Accession. The protocol will be signed as soon as the approval of the Dáil has been obtained and the necessary motion will be moved at an early date. A White Paper will be issued before the motion is moved. Accordingly, I do not think it is necessary to go into the matter in any more detail on this occasion.

The question of legislation to deal with dumped and subsidised imports has been under consideration for some time past. Our original proposals in this regard have had to be revised in certain respects to comply with GATT principles and to meet our obligations under the Free Trade Area Agreement with the United Kingdom. A Bill has now been drafted and it is hoped to have it enacted fairly soon.

The Institute for Industrial Research and Standards continues to provide very valuable services to Irish industry and the quality and sophistication of the work expected from, and provided by, the Institute is constantly increasing. These services are becoming even more important in the present context of accelerated industrial expansion and adaptation. The number of firms availing themselves of the facilities provided by the Institute through its technical divisions and departments is growing annually and the Institute is constantly expanding its range of activities to meet the demand. The many Deputies who attended the Open Week of the Institute recently will, I am sure, appreciate fully the important and wide ranging functions performed by the Institute.

In addition to the widely availed of testing facilities provided by the Institute in its laboratories there are many other services of growing importance provided for the benefit of Irish industry. Members of the Institute staff visit industrialists and help to solve technical problems on the factory floor. Increased emphasis is now being placed by the Institute on Design and Development projects, some of which are being sponsored by industry itself. The Institute also secures research results from overseas through its contacts with research organisations abroad and assesses and applies these results for the benefit of Irish industry.

A number of Research Fellowships and Industrial Scholarships are awarded annually, and four prominent firms are now granting endowments to the Institute's fund set up for this purpose. The Institute is now playing a role of increasing importance in the field of consumer protection and it is open to receive and, if possible, to resolve in consultation with the manufacturer, genuine complaints about the quality of Irish made goods.

As I did not wish the Institute to undertake any major new developments pending an examination of the whole field of research and development, I had decided to give the Institute the same grant-in-aid this year as last, and accordingly the sum of £350,000 was included for this purpose in the printed Estimate. The Institute has represented to me, however, that increases in costs and the natural growth of a number of their existing activities would mean that they would not be able to maintain their services on the same grant as last year. I accordingly now propose to provide an additional sum of £30,000, included in the second Supplementary Estimate which is before the House, to enable the Institute to maintain and to some extent expand its services to industry but without, for the time being, entering into any major new field.

You will recall that in October, 1965, my predecessor introduced certain price restraints which were aimed at securing a measure of price stabilisation. These restraints aided by a vigilant consumer public and a generally co-operative reaction by manufacturers, importers, and wholesalers, have helped to slow down the advance in the Consumer Price Index. In the period since mid-August, 1965, the index has advanced by 12 points, compared with an advance of 21 points in the previous two years. The increases in the index undoubtedly reflected the 10th Round wage increase, increases in the cost of imported raw materials and, to an extent, Budget taxation.

I am sorry to say, however, that the position at present is not such as to allow me to forecast an early withdrawal of the existing general price restraints. I sincerely hope that a situation will not develop which would force me to introduce even more stringent measures. No equitable form of statutory price control can secure stable prices in the face of unavoidable increases in raw material or conversion costs. Nevertheless, I will continue to use my powers under the Prices Acts, 1958 and 1965, to maintain, as far as possible, the measure of stability achieved to date. I must emphasise that the real answer to increases in raw material or conversion costs is greater productivity which can only come about by mutual understanding between management and workers.

The first Supplementary Estimate of £137,000 is necessary to meet millers' losses on sales of flour and wheatenmeal in the period from 28th November, 1966, to 11th March, 1967, through maintaining previous prices for flour and wheatenmeal in that period pending the completion of the Flour and Bread Prices Advisory Body's report.

In October, 1966, I established a Prices Advisory Body under the Prices Acts, 1958 and 1965, to conduct a public inquiry into millers' prices for flour and wheatenmeal and on proposals by the millers to increase their prices. The Report of the Prices Advisory Body was completed on 22nd February last and was published on 10th March. I accepted the recommendations in the report, which were that millers' prices for flour and wheatenmeal should be increased by specified amounts to compensate for increased costs. The increased prices were put into effect by the millers as from 13th March last.

I should explain that in the grist for the production of flour and wheatenmeal, millers use a "mix" of homegrown and imported wheat. The homegrown wheat is considerably more expensive. The quantity of suitable native wheat available from the 1965 harvest for flour production was below average, and the millers made considerable savings through the use of a higher than normal proportion of lower-cost imported wheat in the grist. As had been the practice in previous years when a similar situation arose, these millers' savings were used to meet losses on the sale for animal feeding of wheat which had been found unsuitable for milling into flour and wheatenmeal.

The quantity of native wheat from the 1966 harvest which could be used for flour and wheatenmeal production was considerably in excess of the quantity from the 1965 harvest; this, of course, resulted in a higher grist cost to the millers as from 28th November, 1966, when they commenced using the higher percentage of native wheat. The millers sought my approval to an interim increase in flour and wheatenmeal prices as from 28th November to compensate them for this higher grist cost and for increases in other costs. I arranged with them to defer their proposed price increase until the report of the Prices Advisory Body became available and, at the same time, with Government approval, I gave them an undertaking that any losses incurred by them as a result of maintaining their existing prices subsequent to 28th November would be recouped to them. These losses totalled £297,500, but, as the millers had a balance of £160,500 savings on hands from the reduced user of native wheat in 1965-66, the net losses to be recouped to them in accordance with my undertaking amounted to £137,000, which is the amount of this Supplementary Estimate.

I recommend, therefore, that the House should approve of this Supplementary Estimate.

Interest in mineral exploration was maintained during the past year. Some 200 new applications for prospecting licences were received in 1966 and further applications in excess of 300 were received in the half-year ended 30th June, 1967. 428 licences were current at 30th June last.

The valuable lead/zinc/silver mine at Tynagh, County Galway, has had a very satisfactory first working year. The regular shipments of concentrates from the mine to European smelters since the beginning of last year are responsible for the substantial rise in exports of metal ores and concentrates for the year. The increase in appropriations in aid as shown in the Estimates is due mainly to royalties payable in respect of the mine under the terms of the State mining lease.

A lease of State-owned minerals at Gortdrum, County Tipperary, has been granted to the operating Company, Gortdrum Mines, Ireland Limited. The company announced last year the completion of a £2.2m. financing arrangement to bring this copper/silver deposit into production later this year and actually commenced production at the end of July. An annual output of about 16,000 tons of concentrates has been projected. Work to bring the lead/zinc/silver mine at Silvermines, County Tipperary, into production eary in 1968 is progressing. Projected annual production is 200,000 tons of concentrates. All the production of these three base metal mines will be exported and it is expected that the mines will contribute substantially in the years ahead to economic growth in terms of export earnings and employment. A further promising lead/ zinc deposit discovered at Keel, County Longford is still under investigation.

The outlook for barytes is good. Production in the Silvermines area increased last year and further substantial increases are expected when known deposits at Tynagh and Derryginagh, Bantry, are brought into production.

An option to purchase the assets of St. Patrick's Copper Mines, Limited, has been granted to an international consortium who are carrying out a study of the mines potential with a view to resumption of operations. The option is for a term of six months initially renewable for further six months terms up to a maximum of thirty months. The consortium is liable for the cost of care and maintenance during the option period and has undertaken to incur certain minimum expenditure on investigation and exploration.

The oil exploration licence of Marathon Petroleum Ireland, Limited, and Associates is due for renewal for a further five year term in respect of about 75 per cent of the original area. Drilling during the initial term did not have positive results. The companies' activities last year were confined to geological studies and seismic and marine studies in territorial waters.

Preparation of legislation to enable ratification and implementation of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf which governs the exploration and exploitation of petroleum deposits and other mineral resources outside the territorial waters is at an advanced stage.

Subsidies have been paid on ships built in Verolme Cork Dockyard from the commencement of shipbuilding operations. A total of eight ships have either been built or are under construction. Payments are made from time to time on the recommendations of a special committee.

The sum provided for such subsidies in the year 1967-68 is £350,000 of which £75,000 has already been paid. Total subsidy payments to date have amounted to £1,101,000.

The company called in the services of a leading firm of industrial consultants to examine their activities and to make recommendations as to possible diversification into other lines of industrial activity. Arising from their report and its consideration by the special committee, certain recommendations concerning the future of the dockyard are at present being examined by the Government.

The Dáil will be aware already that an order for a car ferry required by B & I has been given to the Cork Dockyard and the yard qualifies for a shipbuilding subsidy in respect of it.

Under the Irish Steel Holding, Limited, Act, 1960, and the Irish Steel Holdings, Limited (Amendment) Act, 1963, Irish Steel Holdings, Limited, was permitted to increase its share capital to £6,000,000 to be subscribed, as required, by the Minister for Finance in connection with its development programme approved by the Governsation ment in 1960. The capital subscribed to date is £5,749,995.

The general recession in 1965-66, especially in the building industry, affected the company's trading in its last financial year to 30th June, 1966, and the company showed a decline in sales of almost £500,000. The company made a loss of £65,657 in that year, but it is expected that a better picture will be disclosed for the company's latest financial year to 30th June, 1967.

A leading firm in the international steel industry has carried out a detailed survey of all aspects of the company, its potential and profitability, and has made recommendations which are at present under active consideration.

The bridge between the mainland and Haulbowline Island has been completed and is now in service. The bridge benefits the company and its customers by enabling trade to be conducted by road as well as by sea and it also opens up significant possibilities for industrial development in the Ringaskiddy area.

The nitrogenous fertiliser factory constructed by Nítrigin Éireann Teoranta at Arklow went into full production in December, 1965. The company now gives employment to 495 persons. The company's new plant for the production of concentrated complete fertilisers was completed early in 1967 and is now in production. Work was also completed last year on a fertiliser complex in Dublin, established by private enterprise. There is also substantial development in this field by private industry in New Ross. These developments have been supported by the allocation of State grants, and together with the State enterprise at Arklow, represent a very considerable advance in the national production of fertilisers.

I propose to give increased attention to the problems of improving the efficiency of distribution and the protection of consumers. Existing regulations designed to protect the consumer are to a considerable degree out-of-date in modern conditions. I have, therefore, prepared a programme under which these and related matters will be thoroughly reviewed. Some of the matters involved will require amending legislation, and I hope to put certain proposals before the House later in the year.

The Patents Act, 1964, and the Patents Rules, 1965, came into operation on 1st July, 1966. The Performers' Protection Bill lapsed on the dissolution of the Dáil in March, 1965. In the light of representations made by interested parties a revised Bill has been drafted by the Parliamentary Draftsman and it is hoped to reintroduce the Bill early in this session.

With the approach of freer trading conditions every effort must be made to increase our exports, and this can be achieved only by increased productivity. Every assistance that my Department can give to achieve this objective will be maintained and I can assure the House that the Government will not be lacking in financial support if the need arises. There is, I feel, a growing awareness by the workers and the employers of the greatest need for close co-operation if we are to surmount the difficulties of the immediate future and maintain stability on the home market. Notwithstanding the problems we were faced with in the past twelve months our exports reached an all-time high and I am confident that with the full support of all our people we can look forward to greater achievements in the future.

Having listened to what was perhaps the greatest marathon speech ever presented here on the introduction of an Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce, we might have expected every detail to have been covered and that nothing that anybody in this House would desire to comment upon in the field covered by the Minister would not have been covered in some manner in the Minister's speech. I want to point to two things which were not in the speech. First of all, I want to point to the fact that the Minister never mentioned the question of the permitted increase in the repayments to building societies for house loans, this increase being perhaps, on the average, three times the amount offered by way of extra interest by these societies. I regard the omission as deliberate and a failure to face up to the responsibility which the Minister has to answer to the people for his activities during the year and to treat the statement he presented here, on the activities of his Department, not only as something related to money but as a general report on his every activity. That omission from his speech shows a deliberate neglect of his responsibility in this matter and I want to charge him with it.

The other serious omission is the fact that he has not told us about the disagreement between the Congress of Trade Unions with his colleague, the Minister for Labour, on the proposals for the control and licensing of trade unions and other sundry matters. Up to a year or so ago, there was no Minister for Labour and this facet and heart of our industrial life was the responsibility of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Surely the fact that there is such a disagreement existing on these proposals—even though the proposals in the Redundancy Payments Bill are at present being debated by the House—is something that should have been commented on by a serious Minister for Industry and Commerce, who was not, as I contend he has been, soft-shoeing a problem in what has not been a very star-studded year in the history of our industrial growth?

I accept this perennial statement that we have increased our industrial exports and industrial output as so much political gimickry. Our position, so far as industrial and agricultural output are concerned, is such that if we did not continue to expand our industrial output spectacularly, we would be falling very far behind. Any suggestion of an increase in industrial output or employment must be viewed in light of the fact that we are very far behind and that as an industrial nation, we are a tiny component. Every day as we tend to use more industrial goods—from the time when we stopped using a cut-throat razor and started to use a safety razor—we create, even ourselves, a greater opportunity for industrial output and, as our fellows abroad do the same thing, a greater opportunity for industrial export.

That is happening in every nation and this glib statement that we have increased our output of manufactured goods by 7.9 per cent must be viewed in light of the fact that every nation is increasing its use of industrial goods of every kind, whether personal or in the following up of other industries, at perhaps a greater rate than 7.9 per cent. I should like to refer to the figures mentioned in the NIEC Report on Full Employment wherein the information is contained that if we are to reach the position of full employment by 1980 we will need an annual increase of 8.9 per cent— which we have not achieved this year —and an annual average number of 7,000 new jobs. The Minister in his entire speech made only one reference to employment—again it was a speech that was remarkable for what was left out—and that was to an increase of 2,000 employed in manufacturing industry. He made no reference to the total employment position, no reference to the number employed in the transportable goods industries, to employment within the transportable goods industries and manufacturing industry itself.

We have to achieve this figure of 7,000 new jobs per year in a situation in which, if we take the Government's definition, 72 per cent of the Irish industrial market will be completely open to British competition by 1975. Our system of giving grants to large foreign industrialists to create new industries here has been in operation for some time. Our system of adaptation grants, which I will deal with in more detail later, has been in operation for a lesser number of years. Is it not quite obvious that this challenge is not, in the first instance, being faced up to and, in the second instance, that we are falling by the wayside in our efforts to meet it?

We must do this in the situation in which most of our industries here were created as supply industries for our own people and not for export at all. May I give a clear example of that? A boot and shoe industry in my constituency, the second largest such industry in the country, employing 800 people, closed a fortnight ago because there had been a fire which had destroyed about one-fifth of its manufacturing capacity, which could have been replaced in a month, if so desired. We have to face this. Industrialists in a private enterprise economy—according to our Constitution and laws, they have every legal right to do it—may be reaching the decision that this competition from British industrialists under the Free Trade Agreement is going to hit our supply industries so badly that it is better for them to liquidate their companies, withdraw their money and re-invest. Again, I will deal in more detail with the position of that particular industry, if my voice allows me.

What are the other nations of Europe, including Northern Ireland, doing that we are not doing? They have the political guts to come out and say: "We will have growth centres in certain places. In these places we will give preference to arterial roads and other services. We will create there a climate for growth so that a person coming there and wishing to have a harbour deepened or quay facilities improved knows he has Government policy behind him." We have not done this. We have given a sum of £400,000 to the industrial centres at Waterford and Galway, which is a miserly sum in comparison with the millions for the other grants. This is the total approach of this Government to the fact that we must have growth centres which must be set up as centres of industry. Of course, this means a loss of votes. It means that at the Cabinet table the man who sits quietly, listening perhaps to a speech such as it would be necessary for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to make, might cut in at the end of the conversation and say: "Yes, it is right to develop Sligo, but you are going to lose a seat in Leitrim." These things have not been faced up to by the Government. It is clear and decided Fine Gael policy that we will face up to them when we get power. We are prepared to meet our people and tell them it is better that they should move from a place like Leitrim, where you could not have heavy manufacturing industry, to a port like Sligo than that they should be asked to move to Birmingham, Coventry and London. The Minister has not referred to this because he knows the Government's weakness on it.

It is also Fine Gael policy if we gain power to do as is being done in a very minor way in Waterford and Galway, that is, as well as continuing the existing grant system, introducing the system of building factory buildings in bays to which further bays can be added as required—the subsidisation of plant rather than the giving of large grants which have been spectacular in their failure. It is of no value, politically, nationality or otherwise, for Ministers and Government Deputies to say, as they have been saying: "You should not mention our failures because you will discourage anybody else from coming here." Our failures are known in every part of the world. The finger can be pointed at between £10 million and £20 million expenditure on new industry which has resulted in nothing but either the winding up of the companies or the employment of no workers or very few. I do not want to enumerate them or to point the individual finger. In at least two highly spectacular instances the Cabinet decisions under the Taiscí Stáit legislation had no relation to the Board of An Foras Tionscal.

The Taiscí Stáit legislation was created, I believe, because of certain happenings in my constituency. When the railway works at Dundalk closed there was an effort to bring other industries there to employ about 1,000 people. There was nothing wrong with that. The manner of financing this was through the Industrial Credit Company. The Board of the Industrial Credit Company in their report, and later at the time of the infusion, indicated that they did not regard this as a commercial risk. The Government at the time quite properly said they would underwrite the risk, which they did. So that they could disburse funds themselves directly by way of loan to industrialists, if they so desired, they passed legislation through this House called the Taiscí Stáit Act whereby they could by vote of the Cabinet give loans to industrialists at specified rates of repayment and interest. In two instances, they have done that with spectacular failure.

The other failures have been quite extraordinary. I have mentioned here a company in which a Minister of State, while a Minister of State, acted as chairman. The total subscribed capital was £46,000, where the amount of money involved from Government sources at present is of the order of £500,000 to £600,000. The Minister picked me up here on a supplementary question and corrected my figure of £700,000. I have corrected that figure now.

These are matters that should not have been left out of the Minister's speech. It is not pleasant for me to advert to these things, to advert to the building societies' repayment figures, to advert to the disagreement between unions on certain pending legislation, disagreement that has been public for the past 18 months, and to advert to the losses there have been in the provision of grants for industries largely from abroad. Therefore I take this opportunity to indicate Fine Gael policy, to continue grants, but at the same time, to put the accent on the provision of factory space at subsidised rents and to apply the money that would have been given in grant to the subsidisation of rents, fully aware that in many cases the grant may still be the way to do it. However, it is to be hoped that the spending spree bonanza, largely by predecessors of the Minister —and remember that one of them at one time was the present Taoiseach, lest anybody may think he is a man floating around with a halo on him— has ended, and that there will be a more sober appraisal and a better approach to the industrialists coming in from abroad and a more thorough investigation of their projects before hard-earned moneys are disbursed. We are in the position—I gave the figures —that we have not kept pace with our necessities if we are to employ all our people by 1980.

I should like now to deal with something else to which the Minister did not refer, and at the outset I should like to say how pleased I am to see this morning that in relation to the biggest mineral water company operating here —and of course most of us know that company is very much larger than any other and could be described as a colossus by our standards—an Irish company like Guinness has come in and, by means of a consortium of people, seen to it that this company will remain in Irish hands. The Minister did not refer to the necessity for opportunities for relatively smaller companies to go public, to use a common phrase.

We are in a time of take-overs and a time when companies that are doing extremely well find that with the amount of liquid capital now necessary to run complicated modern businesses, no matter how well they do, they cannot supply the necessary liquid capital from profits, and so comes the time when their commercial bankers say "no". They carry on. Good companies making profits do not fold up, but Irish capital which at the moment is being directed towards investment in industrial shares outside the country should have a far better opportunity for investment here in companies, large or small, that could go public rather than exist on commercial bank overdrafts. The whole system of commercial bank overdrafts is operated in respect of liquid capital over a short period. The usage here of overdrafts from commercial banks, as everybody in the business world knows, is for long-term credit, and then where there is a credit squeeze, the bank decides that instead of getting a repayment of perhaps 4 per cent of the total amount advanced, it requires a repayment of 20 per cent. Then the fat is in the fire.

There has been no effort by the Government to provide services for the flotation of companies on the stock market. Whether they are desirous of moneys available here getting into the National Loan and so being used by themselves instead of going into Irish industrial shares, I do not know, but it is true that while under legislation the Industrial Credit Company has the power to underwrite and provide moneys, the occasions on which the smaller Irish private companies have been in a position to go to the stock market and seek Irish money have been very few indeed.

This is a great mistake because it means that as these companies get into the situation I described in which, no matter how good their profits are, they cannot provide all the liquid capital necessary for a modern, complex business from that private source, they fall to be taken over by people from abroad. That is why I am delighted to see an Irish company involved in a take-over rather than one exclusively from abroad, and a good Irish company, probably our best public company. There is this necessity and it is one of the ways the Government have neglected attending to the needs of existing industry.

The existing industrialist has not been helped by this Government. In fact, I think it could be said that he has been discriminated against. I can give an instance in my own constituency again of a progressive young family of industrialists employing around 300 girls; sadly, it is girls but they pay them well. It is a very popular firm, very progressive, and almost 90 per cent of production is for export. They moved from a very old building and brought what had been a bank premises because it had a large area at the back. In the yard at the back, they built a large new factory and they used the premises out of which the bank had moved for their offices and showrooms. It was a very sensible thing to do, probably the best thing that could have been done for them.

They enjoyed £16,000 of an adaptation grant being, I understand, 50 per cent of the cost of building their factory and no percentage of the adaptation of the bank premises. A foreign industrialist about a mile away from where the first man is operating —and more luck to him if he can get away with it—drew £116,000. I do not know whether this is the case of civil servants writing on a piece of paper—which I could produce here if the Minister wanted to look at it, or I could read it out—and putting people in various little pigeon holes, but this to me indicated that in this grant system there is room for change and that there is something wrong in many individual instances.

Again, as I say, nothing at all has been done to help existing industrialists to develop and expand. With the cost of modern buildings, modern machinery, the cost of stock, the necessity to give credit for an average period of seven weeks—that is, assuming it is a monthly call or that you export and do not get the money on the first day of the month and that some people may keep you two months, resulting in an average credit of seven weeks—with all these demands on the liquid capital and investment capital, many private companies will have to go public within the next ten or 20 years or will have to be taken over by money from abroad. If the Minister does not create the situation in which that money and that opportunity are available here, then he is failing in his duty, and in 35 pages, he did not mention the problem.

The Deputy, of course, knows I am not responsible for the Industrial Credit Company.

That affords me the opportunity of dealing with this in greater detail. The Industrial Credit Company was formed for the propagation and encouragement of industry, and I know—and I am sure the Minister knows—that under its terms of reference, it has the power to underwrite the flotation on the stock market of a public company.

But the Deputy knows I am not the Minister responsible for it.

For the Industrial Credit Company? If the Minister desires to shift this over to the Minister for Finance, that is all right, but surely he is interested?

I am interested, but I want to point out to the Deputy that the Industrial Credit Company is not my ministerial responsibility.

That is the queerest set-up I have ever heard of but surely the Minister is interested in what I am talking about?

I agree.

What have you done about it? Nothing. The position whereby the maximum grant available for adaptation is 25 per cent, and the definition of adaptation can be as I have described, a factory, completely new, built by an existing company, whereas a company from abroad can get a 50 per cent grant, is something that does mean that the industrialist here is being discriminated against. I know why. There is a very practical reason. A landless man cannot get land under Land Commission legislation and the reason is that that disqualifies perhaps two-thirds of the normal rural parish. In the same way, there are so many existing industrialists, even in our small industrial set-up, that what the Minister wants to do is restrict the amount of money that will go out to them. I hold that the whole thing is far too restricted and that there should be an opportunity, if there is hope of new employment or of expansion of employment, to give an existing industrialist here just as big a grant as is available to the industrialist from abroad.

I should like to say that the work of Córas Tráchtála is extremely good and everybody who has had any dealings with them is very happy about their work.

Now I want to deal with something affecting my own constituency but which is also of general interest and challenge. I refer to the closing down of John Rawson (Ireland) Limited. The first thing we must say about this—and I think the Minister will agree with me—is that all public representatives in that area behaved in a most understanding manner and gave the Minister in his efforts to re-employ these people every opportunity without any interference of any kind. On all political sides, whether the Minister's side or my own, people understood the position that the shareholders on advice from the directors would consider liquidation of the company because of the fire which destroyed perhaps one-quarter of its buildings. The consideration of this and what influence the Minister could bring to bear upon them were matters which, I am sure the House will agree, were better dealt with behind closed doors and it was perhaps better that somebody like me did not know anything about what was going on but felt perhaps that the Minister was approaching the matter as well as he could and with the best will in the world to try to re-employ these workers.

Let us now look at the situation. There was not a record of heavy losses in this public company. In fact, it has been said—I have not checked the figures—that in the past ten years there were profits of £465,000. There was a loss last year but there was also a heavy bad debt on the Continent of America of between £20,000 and £30,000. There is one good thing about a bad debt, that is that if you mind yourself in future, it will not recur. There are 500 people in Dundalk now, many of whom are middle-aged, who are excellent shoe operatives, who have spent their lives, perhaps 30 or 40 years, from the time they left school and went to serve their time, in John Rawson's, and who now at the age of 50, with an expectation of another 15 to 20 years of good work, given good health and the opportunity to make good their effort, are thrown out on the street.

We have had intervention by the Government before in the same town. When 1,000 men were disemployed in the railway works, five new industries were installed there and happily, there is still considerable employment on that site and in the town, but John Rawson Limited decided to wind itself up and hand over to a liquidator and the sole contribution that has been made by the Minister in this matter—and we thank him for it—is the extension of the 66? per cent grant for undeveloped areas for an unspecified period to the Dundalk area in the hope of attracting another industry. We had the GEC moving out of Dundalk after building a new factory and in their place we have an American company called Echo. The only snag is that they employ only girls. The snag in the case of John Rawson is that any company, whether public or private, coming to Dundalk to do any work, unless it is to make shoes, will hardly select for its labour force these excellent shoe operatives of between 45 and 60 years of age. This means that without a move by anybody, except the extension for the future of an increase in grants in the town, we have seen these 500 people thrown out of work.

You could describe me, I suppose, as a private enterprise man but I wonder whether this was right. We have seen the situation emerge whereby in Cork—and quite properly—when the future of Verolme was challenged, we unanimously voted a subsidy here for shipbuilding. Mark you, this was not for capital expenditure nor money to finance an extension of the shipyards but a subsidy against the excessive cost of ships there against international competition. We are still doing this; it is referred to in the Minister's speech. Now we have seen wound up a company that was not losing money in large amounts, a company with a very good record, a company which had a sales organisation and had exports to America. I know company law and I know that private enterprise has the right to do that, but I feel that the Minister, who was given every opportunity over a long period of weeks to do anything he wished to do with no criticism from myself, from the Labour Party in Louth, the county council in Louth or from anybody there, has failed. I feel that perhaps he should have taken in the other boot manufacturers and talked to them about this.

A deputation to the Minister was sought which was to consist of the public men of County Louth. I indicated that I would certainly go on that deputation. The Minister indicated that he would prefer not to see us at all but merely to talk to the union. I want to tell him that this was a very definite mistake because some of the people on the proposed deputation might have been able to help him. His decision in this matter was wrong, but he took it. If he was doing his best and desired to do it behind closed doors, this was his responsibility and he should be left to do his best. I want to say now that his best has not been good enough and I am horrified by the situation that exists.

It is not his neck of the woods but the question of redundancy payments to these people arises and I will be raising that matter with the Minister for Labour shortly because the Redundancy Payments Bill will hardly become law until 1st January, but he has indicated by letter to me in another case, and has also indicated publicly, that where there was a situation that people were being put out of employment before the operative date he would see that they would not be at a loss. Whether this is to be done by vote of the House or not, I do not know. One thing is certain, within my Party, my vote will be in favour of supporting such a measure if there is a vote of this House. Again, that is the responsibility of the Minister.

I should like the Minister, when replying to the debate, to deal with this Rawson affair. I want him fully to realise that if there is any information that he might give which would prejudice in any way the future employment of any of these men and women, I am not asking him for it, but if there is any information he can give that can give these people hope or that will indicate that he is doing his best or that there is some opportunity for a new opening, then I should like him to say so.

The position is that the Government have sat by and have seen this factory close while there have been no spectacular losses. The footwear industry as a whole should have been called in and the matter should have been discussed and the question of the absorption of the workers investigated to the full, possibly in the town of Dundalk, because this is far too serious a matter, far too cruel a blow, to have been dealt with as it has been.

There was a deputation in my own house the other night and I saw there a man whom I happen to know because he is a member of my political organisation, sitting there without saying a solitary word for perhaps an hour. I know that this man has two girls in secondary school who are excellent students and who have done extremely well and are the pride of his life. Quite soon, that man will go on unemployment assistance and is faced with the possibility—I hope it does not come about—but the possibility and the probability exist—of taking these good girls from school and depriving them of their chance in life, which his efforts and his restraints in the matter of spending were giving them prior to the closure of this factory.

I want to emphasise to the Minister the seriousness of the matter and to say to him, as a private enterprise man, that there is a stage at which private enterprise can go too far and that is the stage at which a good Minister for Industry and Commerce can save the far from the fire.

I want now to deal with price restraints. We have a Minister for Industry and Commerce who makes great play about his great interest in price restraint. He has been taught that price restraints, while admirable if you can execute them, are often very difficult to apply. If you want to restrain the price of a loaf of bread or a bottle of stout, you can do so very easily because these are universally consumed commodities. If you want to restrain the price of a packet of cigarettes that bears a well-known brand name, then, of course, you can do so quite easily by specifying the price at which the item can be sold. But, in the field of clothes, if you take the suit which Deputy Dunne wears, which I wear or which the Minister wears and if on the next occasion you do not put a buttonhole in the lapel, you have an entirely different article which can be sold at an entirely different price. The Minister's officers have no more hope of applying price restraint to that necessary article of apparel than they have of flying to the moon. If you take shoes, another necessary article of apparel, the position is that when one goes to buy a new pair of shoes, one finds that the model has changed or that they have changed the label without changing the model and the shoes are sold at a different price and the Minister has no more hope of restraining the price than of flying to the moon. Price restraint, therefore, should either be factual or should be removed. It is only so much political codology to say you have restrained prices when your opportunity is only to restrain a minority of prices.

We have the Minister and his predecessor—which means, I suppose, if the two of them were at it, that the whole Cabinet were as bad as they— trying to restrain the price of a bottle of stout when the price of all ales had gone up, and they had to climb down. We had the row between the Minister here and the flour millers which is referred to in the most measured terms today in the Minister's script.

Let us just explain what happened. The millers said they were putting up the price of flour and the Minister slapped an order on them stopping them. If I can read—and I have no information on the matter—their view was that the Minister, or his predecessor, depending on when they changed over, had reduced the profits of Messrs. Goulding by something in the order of £458,000, to produce a loss, by refusing an increase in the price of fertiliser when the price of the raw material had gone up and the Minister's predecessor—I am certain it was he at the time because I described his activities as like those of a man with two club feet walking over a strawberry bed—had refused to increase the price of stout when workers had got their increase. Of course, in respect of these two items, the Ministers eventually had to stand down because it could be proved clearly that the cost of production had gone up and that it could not be absorbed. Gouldings were the ones who paid the penalty of the Fianna Fáil Cabinet's ineptitude and complete lack of knowledge of the matter.

Let us relate what exactly happened rather than as is described by the Minister in his script. The Minister slapped an order on the millers that they must not increase the price of flour. On 28th November, obviously, a date at the end of the harvest when they start to use the new season's wheat, at a higher percentage, as the Minister points out, the Minister appointed people to investigate this— the Prices Advisory Board. They spent from then until March investigating it. They proved the Minister wrong and as a result, with a great flourish in the papers and statements that he had won the day and had not changed the situation one way or another, the Minister had to eat humble pie and increase the price of bread.

May I say that I worked out figures on the back of an envelope the evening the Evening Herald suggested it might be 1d. It was 2d. If the Minister was properly advised, he would have seen what was happening and he would not have had to come in a second time and eat humble pie, and ask for £137,000 to pay for the period when he had his row with the millers. If the Government decide the price is too high and that they are going to subsidise it, fair enough. That is a horse of a different colour. We can decide that in this Parliament. That is something that would receive very serious consideration. But it is nothing like that. It is nothing related to the actual price of bread to the consumer, or whether the consumer has to pay too little or too much. It is related to whether the millers are charging too much for flour. The Minister appointed the advisory board and he is now eating his second collation of humble pie. The Minister's phraseology is good. One would almost think that nothing happened.

I want to advert to one figure to which the Minister referred, a saving of £160,500 from the reduced user of wheat in 1965-66 which reduced the loss as a result of the Minister's misdemeanour. I want to know—and I would be obliged if the Minister would tell me—did the millers agree at that stage that they had a balance of £160,500? That is a simple question. I should like the Minister to clarify this when he is replying.

There is no hope of price restraint in industry if the simple facts and figures indicate that there has to be a price increase. It is dabbling in petty politics to produce any other line of thought. Black is black; white is white; and two and two make four. It is as simple as that.

Agreed, but supposing they are looking for six instead of four?

They were not looking for six instead of four. The Minister proceeded to lose £297,500 because he did not know his job. That is what happened.

The Deputy knows they were looking for more.

They were not looking for more.

I will deal with it later.

I hope the Minister will when he is replying.

That is all right. We like to see the position in Verolme and Irish Steel Holdings progressing. Verolme gives big employment in Cork. It is financed by Government money. We have to keep it going. Looking at the figures for Irish Steel Holdings and looking at the very small loss, it looks as if that basic industry is rounding the corner. Let us hope it is. I want to assure the Minister that so far as Verlome and Irish Steel Holdings are concerned, we are in favour of those two projects and we will give them every support we can. We are delighted to see that a firm of consultants was taken into the Irish Steel Holdings industry. I hope that the active consideration which the Minister informed us is being given to its report will result in an improvement not only in the trading position and the profit position, but also in the employment position which is so important there.

The giving of the contract for a car ferry to Verlome is pleasurable for two reasons. One is that it will create employment in Cork and the other is that we will have another car ferry. This is more relevant to Transport and Power than to Industry and Commerce because the Department of Transport and Power look after tourism. With a great nation of 60 million people beside us, this car ferry will do a good job for our tourist trade. The fact that the car ferries are operating is clearly the greatest step forward that has been made in this field.

The Minister then referred to commerce and his sole contribution on commerce was that he will look after the consumer. I think I have successfully produced ordinary honest-to-God proof in this House that you cannot restrain prices when the necessity for an increase is obvious. The Minister and his predecessor tried to walk on two very big public companies and one consortium of companies, and in each case they had to stand down. In my view, it would be very unjust if people who are not as strong as Guinness's, Gouldings and the flour-millers were to be walked upon by Ministers who have very little commercial experience. I would advise the Minister, if I make so bold, to go slow on this. While it is his duty to protect the consumer in every possible way, he should investigate everything fully, and be absolutely selective in the field in which he applies that protection, and he should see to it that the middleman, if that is what commerce refers to, the workers in the factory, the directors of the factory and the shareholders are similarly protected.

Earlier on, I said that capital sums here and profits were not sufficient to provide all that was needed and that if we remove the profit, the ordinary day-to-day painting of the walls, the maintenance of the building, the buying of new machinery to keep pace with the times will stop. As I have already indicated, we are lagging behind. Any slowing down in our movement would mean, in racing parlance, that we would be tailed off.

I want to give the Fine Gael view on industry as considered by Fine Gael and indicated by them at the recent Árd Fheis, and the policy and line of policy to which they will adhere until such time as changes in the world require them to change. It is our policy to continue grants and incentives to existing and new companies and, at the same time, to expand the system whereby grants are given, at subsidised rents, for factory space and subsidised repayments of money loaned for the purchase of machinery. We want to expand the maximum percentage of adaptation grants in certain instances to the same level as grants for new industries. I have, I think, produced clear evidence of discrimination in this sphere. That does not mean, however, that if we were in power, we would automatically give the maximum grant to every industry; we would not have the money to do that. But we want it to be understood that we believe the Government have neglected existing industry and we want to put existing industry on a par with industry from abroad and to give the right to An Foras Tionscal, or to the Cabinet, if it is a Taiscí Stáit loan, to give to Irish industry, be it a public or a private company, the same opportunity to expand as that given to the industrialists who comes in here from abroad.

It will be our policy also to extend to successful applicants for adaptation and new factory grants outside the undeveloped areas remission of rates as to the full rate in the first year and reducing by one-tenth for the next nine years. This should be a help in the formative years in the expansion of an old industry or the creation of a new one. We want to extend this remission of rates all over the country and I declare it now as Fine Gael policy. We want to end forever the global refusal of grants for certain industries. I raised this with the Minister for Industry and Commerce on television recently—this question of the global refusal of grants, for instance, to bakers—and the stated reason for that refusal was that, in the view of the Department, or An Foras Tionscal, or whoever it is, these bakeries, because they were along the Border, could not exist in terms of free trade. This is, of course, the greatest cod.

When we become completely in terms of free trade with Britain and if, at the same time, we are within the Common Market by 1975, then there will be a universal price for wheat, a target price, an intervention price, a percentage to be used in bread, and the people in the north of Ireland will be under the same structures, laws, rules and regulations as we will be. Our objection is to the global refusal of grants. Every individual who seeks to give employment or seeks to defend employment has a right to an adaptation grant if he can justify it to the powers that be. Remember, our position may be unfortunately the defence of existing jobs rather than the creation of new ones. If 72 per cent of our industrial market will be open to British competition by 1975, surely the position will be that we will be faced more with the defence of existing jobs rather than the creation of new ones; and the creation of new jobs must come at the rate of 7,000 per year if we are to have full employment by 1980.

We, in Fine Gael, condemn in a general way the industrial work of the Government because, as I have said already, they have not created the infra-structure for the development of heavy industry here. They have not done that because they are not prepared politically to specify growth centres, lest those centres which are not specified turn upon them at the next election. This is a political problem for them, one they have to face. I trust that in these few words this morning I have shown the mistakes of the Government and the Minister in this very important part of our economy. Fine Gael, a truly national Party, are seriously interested in this matter. We have indicated the changes we would make, changes which would assuredly put the accent more on help for existing industry to make existing industry safer, more easily able to expand and to avail of the grants and loans now more readily available to industrialists from abroad, industrialists who have failed us so miserably in many instances.

I wondered this morning at the significance of the spares attendance of the Cabinet on the occasion of this very important Estimate and I am glad to see now that at least one member of the Cabinet has managed to drag himself away from Henry Moore's statue on St. Stephen's Green. I wondered if the members of the Cabinet were absent because of the unquestionable exhaustion brought on by their onerous labours or whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce had been, if what is commonly bruited abroad is true, like so many of our race in another sense, sent to Coventry. Be that as it may, 35 foolscap pages were read here this morning by Deputy Colley, Minister for Industry and Commerce. I searched those pages from the réamhrá to the conclusion for any mention of the European Economic Community and failed to find even one. Is it not quite a feat for a Minister for Industry and Commerce to take up one whole hour here this morning talking about such different aspects of his Department's activities without once mentioning that which is on the lips of every politician, statesman and individual involved in public life throughout the length and breadth of Europe, the Common Market? The Minister for Industry and Commerce has the distinction now of achieving that feat. What does it indicate? Does it indicate the beginning of a turning away from the former pseudo-joyful acceptance by the Government of our prospects in this European Economic Community? Whatever the reason, I should like the Minister to tell us why he never once mentioned the Common Market in his 35-page introductory statement.

There is also a complete absence of any reference to that noble animal, the Second Programme, a noble "baste" that was dragged from its stable by many a second or third string Fianna Fáil candidate and flogged down the road and past many a chapel gate on the road to electoral victory. There was no mention of this Second Programme in the Minister's introductory statement. These are circumstances that puzzle me because Ministers of this Government are never slow in their efforts to capitalise on circumstances which may bring them political advantage. One would have thought that they would have produced something with which to seduce the electorate in West Limerick and Cork on this occasion, as they have done so many times in the past, but apparently they are placing their main reliance in this instance on the former athleticism of their leader on the one hand and on sentiment and sentimental associations of the past on the other.

Among the many token words used by speakers in this House on this question of industry and commerce is "growth." Growth is something we hear about very often and invariably it appears in the newsprints on days following dinners. I wonder what exactly is meant by growth because it seems to me that to the majority of people who use the word, it simply connotes an expansion of their personal fortunes and their own bank balances and any similarity between what is called growth in the terms used in the circumstances I have mentioned and the true meaning of growth, which is economic growth, is purely accidental. We have had growth in the building industry and what kind of growth has it been? We have had growth of profit in the building industry on a scale unknown in the history of this country.

The Minister has been asked on occasion to take steps under the powers which lie to his hand for the control of prices to examine the racket known as the Dublin building industry and to discover for himself just how much of the inflated prices which are being demanded for houses built by this so-called private enterprise around the suburbs of this city, just how much of these prices is in fact pure and unadulterated profit. I would venture to say, and in fact I speak with some little authority on it because I have been told it by people engaged in the trade, that for every £4,000 house built by these gentlemen who pose as public benefactors, they carry home for themselves at least £1,000 profit and the balance goes to build the house in the shape of wages, materials and so on. That is bad enough.

One would imagine that in modern times we have advanced sufficiently in enlightened thought to agree that it should be a social principle that the person who puts least into any job should in no circumstances get the most out of it in terms of profit or in terms of the net money result, but when the particular product, in this case a house, is fobbed-off to the buyer——

Surely the Minister has no responsibility for house building?

Of course he has responsibility for house prices. He has the right and the duty and the obligation to look into the whole question of house prices and to control house prices and to have them, if necessary, reduced. Most certainly he has, and if he has not, it is a sad thing. I think he will hardly deny the fact that this lies within the province of his Department.

I would have thought that the Minister for Local Government might be responsible.

He has not the power at all to control prices. He has simply got the power to provide the money. The control of prices is a matter which rests with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It has been exercised in other spheres but this is a fundamental one and it is time it was discussed fully in this House. I hope when he is replying to me, if he does, that the Minister will deal with this and let us know what he has to say about it because I want to say what I have got to say about it and what I have to say about it is to express the point of view of thousands of people who are suffering as a result of the present situation.

The people who buy these houses are, in the main, young newly-weds or young people about to get married who, in most cases, have to sacrifice the majority of the small luxuries of life in order to assemble sufficient to put down a deposit on these houses and to try to get enough money together to buy a few sticks of furniture, as they describe them. The customary deposit nowadays on such houses in or about Dublin runs from £600 to £700 and in some cases more: £600 to £700 deposit. The repayments which will go on for 35 years run in the neighbourhood of £5 in respect of the loan which they must borrow in order to pay the rapacious builder and the rates, of course, increase with every year that passes until the maximum payable is reached at the end of ten years when full rates become payable on the house. As we know, rates are not a diminishing amount. It is in the nature of things that rates will, however imperceptibly in some cases and considerably in other cases, insist on increasing because costs increase as time goes on. Therefore such people face ever-increasing costs.

When one thinks of people like that —most of them ordinary people doing ordinary jobs, boys and girls having saved money the hardest possible way, struggling to provide a home for themselves — being battened on by parasites, which is what it amounts to, is it any wonder that one becomes indignant? Is it any wonder that there is abroad in this city and in this country at the present time a strong belief that some of these parasites can exercise political pull. This belief is abroad that they are looked on with a favoured eye. The Minister has it in his power to ease the public mind on that by instituting through his Department a thoroughgoing inquiry into this racket called housing in Dublin. If at the end of all I have mentioned the boys and girls had decent buildings to go into, it would not be so bad but they go into places where the tenants must come together and they can compile a list of over 200 defects in the building of houses in one particular estate. There are 200 defects after they have denied themselves for years to get into those places. The damn places are almost falling down: they were built by people who were never tradesmen and who have no idea of the work of craftsmen.

We are expected to shut up and say nothing about that. It is a public and well-known scandal through the length and breadth of this city. The Minister must be aware of it. Certainly members of his Party are aware of it but they are keeping their mouths shut because they have not the moral courage to speak about it or maybe they do not want to hurt the feelings of their friend. That is just not good enough.

Now, to move on from that or rather, if the Chair will permit me, to move back to what I was mentioning at the outset, the lack of any reference to the Common Market, I want again to say that there is no evidence available to us of sufficient realisation in this Department of the obligation which rests on the Minister and the Government to inform the public mind on this matter of the Common Market. So obvious is this lack of appreciation of our duty in the matter that the Minister not even once in his introductory statement mentioned the Common Market. Certainly I am the first to admit that I and many other people are in need of a great deal of information to clarify our thoughts on what is going to happen to us, if and when eventually we become part of a united Europe Common Market complex.

I was discussing this matter recently and it occurred to me that the pronouncements made by this Government in relation to the Common Market have been in the main of a kind directed to the farmers. It has been suggested to the farmers in many ways that in the sweet bye-and-bye in the days of the Common Market they will be, as it were, on the pig's back. This strikes me, to say the least of it, as doubtful when you think of the fact that farmers in Brittany were reported recently as pelting cobblestones at policemen, and they are in the heart of the Common Market. It does not suggest to me the most complete prosperity of the agricultural community, if they are doing that in a major Common Market country. If the farmers there are not being treated as they would wish to be by the Government, and are not getting their just returns for their labour, what justification is there for misleading the Irish farmers into the belief that the Common Market is going to do them any good?

It seems to be an effort to mislead the farmers. The Government have been forced to admit that our industry seems ill-equipped to participate in the great struggle for markets which will go on in Europe when all the barriers are down and no holds are barred. Irish industry, because of the fact that it was featherbedded over a long number of years, does not seem to have now at any rate the managerial muscle to enable it to get down and try to compete with the Continentals. The Government seem to accept that. They have been putting it over on the farmers because the farmers are deemed by Fianna Fáil to be more gullible, like the rural Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party. Therefore the Cabinet which consists, if you observe it, in the main, of city slickers, have been concentrating on putting it over on the simple, decent country people who will believe anything, as is obvious to us when we see the examples of the representatives they have in this House.

You should speak of your own Party, never mind Fianna Fáil.

In any event, what I want to say is that there is a message which I hope will percolate to the enlightened people of West Limerick, that is, that it will be no harm if they ask Fianna Fáil canvassers what grounds there are for believing that in a Common Market situation the agricultural community will prosper and what guarantee there is when the very people who make up the backbone of the existing Common Market are in open revolt against the force of law and order in their own country, France.

There has been a great effort—the Minister has participated in this, although he seems to have taken his foot off the accelerator in so far as this document is concerned—to put over a con-man trick about this business of the Common Market. The simple hard economic fact is that Arthur Griffith and Griffithism, is no longer valid, if indeed it ever had any validity as an economic concept, and that we can no longer live, if we could ever do it—it is only a matter of guesswork, of making our own judgment of it, but we certainly cannot live today unless we are part of the world at large and, more particularly, unless we have links with the biggest market available to us, Britain. It is a fact that whatever Harold Wilson does we do and all the to-ing and fro-ing and trotting from here to there by the present Minister or by the Minister for Finance is completely irrelevant because what Harold does determines our future, and that is the plain fact of the situation. If de Gaulle will not let Britain into the Common Market, we will not get into it and if he does let them in, what choice have we but go in? What choice have we? What is all this damn nonsense about pretending to reactivate our application and all the rest of it? Every man in the street knows, and this Government should know, that they are putting their finger into their eyes; they are dealing with people of far greater intelligence now than 40 years ago. The man in the street knows about the position of independence and there is little or nothing we can do except to this extent and that is where the Government are falling down. The people are not being allowed to know what to expect when eventually it will happen, if it will happen. The people are being kept in the dark. I am not saying that it is possible to give a completely accurate picture of what life will be like.

I was listening the other month to somebody from Brussels in the Shelbourne Hotel talking about taxation, income tax, and so on. He was one of the Common Market people. There is no question about what he said on the added value tax. There seems to be no question that our cost of living must take a convulsive leap. What organisation have the Government in mind for meeting that situation? In one of the newspapers yesterday, somebody expressed the view that Britain would gain entry to the Common Market in six months. Perhaps it could happen. Anything can happen in the world, as we know. If Britain goes in, we are told, our application is synchronised with that of Britain. Supposing this does occur and supposing we enter the Common Market and people have this added value tax in existence at any time, and we have to accept it, there will be, as I say, an appalling leap in the cost of living in this country. What plans have the Government for such a situation and what have they told the people about such a situation? Has an estimate been made at all about what living will be like in that condition of things?

As I said before, we are suffering from a complete lack of knowledge. Does that, in fact, reflect the Government's lack of knowledge? If the Government do not know, they should say so and not be pretending. In any event, if this situation arises, we certainly will need, it is obvious, a far more accurate appreciation by whatever Government are here of the desirability for a conscious organisation of society to meet the problem. I say a conscious organisation of society. I have listened to Deputy Donegan speaking quite honestly as a private enterprise man, which he has a right to be, as every person has a right to be whatever he wishes in his political beliefs. Surely it is obvious that the history of the world has shown, and is showing more clearly every day, that you cannot leave the welfare or the existence of a great number of people to choice, to the vagaries of an economic system depending on chance rather than planning.

That is so.

It is at this point that we would part company. The Labour Party believe that society must be organised and there is no other alternative but to organise it from the centre. Society must be organised to meet the world of the future. Therefore, socialism and socialistic institutions and forms will become more and more important and no matter what the Government of the day who will sit in this House call themselves, the inevitability of socialistic institutions is as plain as a pikestaff. The only way the world can order its affairs is by setting up forms of community which will provide a more successful form of human justice—I would not suggest that we can ever gain perfection in any form of human endeavour —but a more human form of justice and that is our desire for socialistic forms of institutions. So that, to that extent, we in the Labour Party feel that we are nearer than other Parties to the solution of the problems with which the country will be faced.

Do you believe that?

It has become more and more apparent, if you listen to people talking and if you look at TV and hear young people discussing the affairs of the country, that the old slogans no longer interest them. They are thinking hard thoughts as to how life will be organised for them. They will not be satisfied with the old sentimental background in the midst of which many of us were reared and drenched and indeed suffered. Paddy the Irishman's day is gone and this of course is inevitable. Enlightenment, as James Connolly foretold, as any man with common sense could have foretold, comes with the advance of civilisation instead of through people getting their blood up and talking about things of no consequence whatever to them, things that happened before they were born. It may be they would be better off if nothing happened—if you get my point.

There is no evidence of any political leadership, I must say, from the Department of Industry and Commerce in this Estimate statement. It is a statement which I would suggest —and I do not criticise in any personal way—could be made equally effectively by the most anonymous civil servant in the Department. We need in these days political leadership, and by political leadership, I mean an indication of where we are going, of where the country is going and how it will face the problems of the future.

These things worry workers and I am particularly concerned about that. I am concerned, of course, about everybody in my constituency whom I represent, but I would be dishonest if I did not say I am more concerned about the people who work in industry and on the land who may find their way of life disrupted, may find themselves unemployed, may find the condition of their lives revolutionised by the Common Market changes. In that situation, we are getting no indication of leadership at all from the Minister; we are getting no political leadership, nothing to give us the idea: "Well, at least, this is in safe hands." People do not feel that way: there is a complete absence of confidence. That is wrong, and it is wrong to see so young a man allowing that to develop. We are on the Continental Shelf all right. I noticed the Minister referred to that, but not in the sense we mean.

On this occasion I should refer to the Electra factory, a factory which has ceased operation and which was situated in part of my constituency, in Ballyfermot. Some 80 workers altogether were laid off when they returned from their holidays and left without wages. They are still without moneys which were due to them; they have not been paid yet. Apparently they must await the working out of a very lengthy legal process in which there are involved receivers, liquidation and so on before they will be paid what is due to them. This is a matter which requires the consideration of the Department. Things of this nature should not happen. Workers cannot afford to be left without wages. Somebody said it was only a matter of a couple of weeks, but a couple of weeks without income to a worker's house can spell disaster. It creates debt, induces debt, induces the employment of credit, which most wise people want to avoid.

It is most important that the Minister should take some steps to ensure there will be no recurrence of this, not alone in Ballyfermot or in the Electra firm but in any firm where the State can exercise control. It is surely a reasonable proposition. We think it essential that the first charge on moneys in any firm should be the wages of the workers. The wages of the workers should be the first consideration, because in most cases in these factories, the workers are the very reason for their existence. If it were not for the fact that these operations provide employment, there would be no case for coming to Dáil Éireann and asking Dáil Éireann to subsidise the manager, whether he be foreign or native, by way of factory space or any other contribution unless it could be established be would help to provide jobs for our people. When this happens, it creates grave problems.

What I am suggesting to the Minister now is that it should be possible to set up a Contingency Fund. He said himself he knew of one case only of this type—it is quite possible, and it is to be hoped that there are very few and there will be no other cases. In view of what the Minister has said, that it is a rare occurrence, it should be possible for the Government to make a fund available which will meet emergency situations of this kind where, if a firm does collapse—a firm in which State funds have been invested —and there is the question of payment of wages, care will be taken of that before anything else is done in regard to the company's assets.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I should like to express our support for the Dundalk people in their efforts to have some industry brought to the town in replacement of what they have lost in the Rawson factory. Dundalk has suffered some very heavy blows in matters of this kind. They are deserving of special consideration in that town, and one could not but agree with what Deputy Donegan had to say about those workers who are unemployed— so many of them in the middle-age bracket with a single skill and that skill, perhaps, not easily saleable now. It is something to which the Minister should direct his attention. Of course, some steps have been taken by increasing the inducements to industrialists to go to Dundalk but they are hardly enough.

It occurs to me—as I think of a town like Dundalk and this calamitous fire which resulted in so much unemployment—that this more or less crystallises our Common Market problem. This is something like what will happen to the whole country. We may well find many instances of cases such as Rawson's, which may not be extinguished physically by fire, but merely by the fierceness of the demands of Common Market competition, with equally harmful results as in the case in Dundalk. It is a prospect upon which one does not like to dwell, something which is worrying, and it is to that kind of thing the Minister should direct his attention rather than to the ordinary mechanical administration of his Department, to which his introductory statement adds up.

Finally, we all look forward with a certain amount of puzzled curiosity to the next edition of Whitaker's Almanac which will be known as the Third Programme. Let us hope it will prove more deserving——

The first page will be difficult; you will have to deal with the Second Programme!

I have no doubt that it will be thrilling and absorbing and that its utility as a political instrument will be exploited to the full.

It could last for 18 months.

It could indeed. I suppose it is in incubation for the next general election. I imagine that is what is behind the plot. All I ask is that in this next edition, please let them try to be a little nearer the facts because it really embarrasses us as Members of the Dáil to see these tales of mystery and imagination produced by the Government being proved to be what they are, exercises in codology. Mind you, they must cost a good deal of money to produce. Therefore, if we are to have it again, let us have some veracity in the prognostications which will appear in it and let us have some indication, which is not in the Minister's statement today, of the kind of Ireland we shall have, if and when the Common Market becomes a fact.

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá ar an Meastachán seo. Meastachán tábhachtach atá ann agus bhí ráiteas fada ag an Aire. Ní dhéanfaidh mé tagairt ach do chúpla pointe.

It is good to learn that at a time when there are financial difficulties and commercial difficulties all over the world, we are able to report an increase in productivity and also that industry has employed more people. Naturally enough, nobody is satisfied with this: we are all anxious that the number employed should increase, but the fact that we have had increases suggests to me that we are moving in the right direction.

Reference was made at some length by a previous speaker to the European Economic Community and the Minister was castigated because he did not make any reference to it in his statement. This proves to me that the Minister is the realist I know him to be, because events of the past few days must convince almost everybody that it will be some time before we or Britain are admitted to the EEC. At last, we have outlined for us the objections of the French people to the admission of Britain to this organisation and it appears once more to involve the factors of money and progress. General de Gaulle has said to Wilson: "The company of which you are chairman is not able to pay its way. It is in debt. Until such time as it is able to pay its way, you are not acceptable to enter into business with us. Further, the goods you produce, which are represented by your money on the world market, are not acceptable to us. They are not up to the standard of the world market, and until you do something about it, on this second point also, you are not acceptable to us either."

That is just what happens between any two companies that propose to amalgamate in a commercial world. Perhaps it has advantages for us because it is obvious that many people are not aware of the implications Common Market membership has for us. They will now have found time to learn and their learning will not be to convince them that we should stay out but to convince them that they must prepare for entry.

This preparation must be done under the broad heading of adaptation. It appears there are still companies and people, whose industries will depend on their ability to go into the Common Market and on their competitiveness, which have not yet sought those adaptation measures. Now it appears there will be further time for them to do so. On this question of adaptation, I endorse what Deputy Donegan has said that those companies which are not now entitled to adaptation grants should still be open to receive them.

The constituency I represent is not a highly-industrialised one. Reference has been made by the Minister to the small industrial programme and I should like to congratulate him on introducing that programme to different areas of the country. The small industrial programme is one that must help us in non-industrial areas: It will provide us with the nucleus for development of those who wish to develop in a small way; it will give an opportunity to provide in a small way the skilled labour necessary to develop small industries. This, to my mind, is the provision of capital which is so essential for people who start in a small way, like a man who is a tradesman as a sideline, who goes a certain distance, sees opportunities but finds he has no capital available to him to develop further. This capital may not be available through ordinary commercial channels but it is now available through this programme. My constituency has benefited to the extent of five or six efforts, I would say, and all of those who have benefited by it are pleased with it and they now feel that something concrete is being done for them.

I must associate with the small industrial programme, the county development teams. They do not come under the Department of Industry and Commerce but their work is so closely knit with the small industries programme that one must think of the two in the one context. Those teams are doing excellent work. They have helped some people to become enthusiastic; they have encouraged them to develop a little further and they have encouraged other people to enter into other fields of activity, and all in all there is a different atmosphere prevailing wherever these county teams have entered. Like most organisations, that organisation depends on the secretaries who are on those county development teams. The secretaries I have dealt with I have found most efficient, courteous and helpful.

The Minister said, in passing, that much of our success in the export market has been due to our Free Trade Agreement with Britain. We must agree with him. The Agreement was criticised severely by certain people, but I have no doubt it has proved itself, not alone in the industrial field but in the agricultural field. Last year, when pressure was being put on the British Government by the National Farmers' Union in Britain to stop agricultural imports, the Agreement protected us. Once more this year, at the Conservative conference, pressure was exerted again and the Agreement was again there. But for it we would be in a much worse position, industrially and agriculturally.

I hope before I leave this House, be it sooner or later, that the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce will at some time include an item which will cover the development of a big industry in or around my constituency, naturally enough, the Sligo-Leitrim-Roscommon area, one of the most difficult areas in the country, economically, to develop.

Industries take money and perhaps take a lot of enthusiasm and research. I have thought for some time that it may be possible for the Department to do something in this line in the area to which I refer. We have been promised that, if we get into EEC, this will be done by regional schemes or regional surveys. Something on a very large scale has been done in southern Italy, in Bari and Taranto. I feel that my area must be similar to this area in southern Italy and that the Minister should advert to this. If any proposals are made to him that a big industry can be induced to go in there, I suggest he should follow them up as far as possible. Alternatively, he should have a survey made in the area so that it would be ripe, so to speak, for regional development if the extra money became available or if circumstances suggested that it would be wise to do so.

Reference has been made to fixed prices with particular reference to flour prices. Deputy Donegan found fault with the way the Minister dealt with this problem. I am aware that the Minister is well able to look after himself in replying to Deputy Donegan but, having heard what Deputy Donegan had to say, I should like to comment on it. Here was a situation where the flour millers said they were losing money. This meant that the price of bread had to be increased. Had this been done right away, without any investigation, had the Minister said: "Right, show me your figures" and, having done so, had the Minister again said: "I accept this. Go right ahead. We shall allow an increase in the price of bread"——

And he lost £295,500.

What does the Deputy mean by "lost"?

Lost. The Minister said the price of bread had not to go up and he was wrong.

I did not say any such thing.

The Minister said it about 45 times.

The Minister instead said: "You must not increase your prices until I investigate the financial background to this." No doubt the Minister had at the back of his mind that, if he did otherwise, the people on the opposite Benches would ask why an investigation had not first been held into the matter. This, to my mind, is what the Minister did. This, to my mind, is what he should have done. He could have done the opposite — he could have allowed the increase and sought recoupment afterwards from the flourmillers if they were overcharging.

This brings up the old question of what exactly to do in this situation. I consider that the Minister did the proper thing. I presume the extra money proposed to be paid to the millers could have been passed on to the people buying the bread. Instead the Minister proposes to pay it.

£297,500.

In this way, it could have been met. However, no matter how you approach it, you cannot have the two ends of the stick. Prices must be controlled fairly. The price must be one which is fair to the producer and to the consumer.

Hear, hear.

In this way, the Minister must be very careful about accepting the figures of one body rather than those of another body.

Hear, hear.

An inquiry is the only way to get the answer to this problem.

I shall now move from a field about which I know very little to one about which I know nothing. From listening to debates here, I know this is an exercise permitted to Deputies. I want to refer to Rawson's, Dundalk. Anybody taking up a newspaper in the morning and reading that an industry has closed down will get a bit of a jolt. If it is done for economic reasons, there is nothing that can be done about it. However, if it occurs following an accident such as a fire, the problem appears to be a different one. Here, one feels, is an industry which was a going concern and, but for an accident, would continue to be a going concern. A fire takes place and it closes down and the directors and shareholders decide not to re-open the factory. This has occurred in Sligo and in Athlone. I feel we should seek some answer to this type of problem.

I have often felt that a problem such as this is a direct challenge to the workers concerned. The most recent case is that of Rawson's, Dundalk. Men are skilled for this industry but their skills are not suitable for other work. Could these men organise themselves or become organised locally in such a manner that they could say: "We shall put up a new factory. We shall work in it under certain circumstances. We shall make this a going concern again. We have the markets. Our former bosses are drawing out. We have not the management but we are seeking it"? This is a field of activity for the unions, for the Department and for local people.

Money could perhaps be made available from the unions for capital investment in an industry such as this, on behalf of the workers. I do not know enough about unions in this connection. Perhaps union money is tied up and cannot be used for a purpose such as this. Perhaps, on the other hand, a change should be made and each worker should contribute something towards the establishment of a fund for a purpose such as this. Then, when, for example, a fire occurs, the union would be able to make a contribution, the Department would be able to make a contribution and perhaps local people would be able to make a contribution and the concern could be put in motion again.

General de Gaulle—this man who, next to God, seems to rule our lives— offered workers shares in factories. I wonder what the effect of this will be in the Common Market? Will it be taken as a subsidy to the worker? Will the example be followed by the other countries of EEC? Personally, I see nothing wrong with it, but I do not see this aspect of it. If you take the company such as Rawson's in which the workers had, say, 20 per cent interest, and the place was burned down and the insurance company recouped the owners, then at least the workers had this 20 per cent of the recouped money to use again with the union money, together with Government and local money, to restart the company. This would be one answer to the problem of factories which are burned out. It is a totally different problem if a factory goes out of business for economic reasons, because the market is not there, no matter who produces the goods.

Again, there is this question about which we hear so much and to which we refer ad nauseam: the buying of Irish goods and the selling of Irish goods. This is still a vitally important aspect of our commercial life. We have to impress this more and more on our people, not so much now, to support Irish industry per se where it has been developed, but to make our people conscious of the fact that the more we move into the free trade community the more will be the compulsion, if you like, from advertising of one kind or another, for us to buy other goods. The bigger companies probably have more money for advertising and quite possibly, they will be using the same advertising all over the English-speaking world. We should keep harping on this in order to develop the resistance of our people to this approach so that they will continue to support Irish goods. I am not advocating that they should support inferior goods or goods that are extra dear. I am also not suggesting that we can develop our industries to the extent that we can employ all our people on the home market alone, but I am conscious of the fact that if we are negligent in this matter, the more free trade develops the more we will suffer. Whereas free trade could be a great boon to us, if we do not approach it the right way, it could be a great loss to us.

The Minister referred to the fact that there was an increase of 2,000 employed in manufacturing industries this year. There seems to be some confusion here when one compares these figures with the figures issued by the Minister for Social Welfare. The Minister for Social Welfare issued a statement saying that there had been an increase in unemployment of 11,000. We often hear it said that there are lies, damn lies and statistics, but we have to take the figure of the Minister for Social Welfare as being the true figure. These are undeniable facts, and if the Minister for Industry and Commerce is trying to create confusion, this is the place to have it ironed out. The Minister states that "Inquiries from some countries have fallen off considerably"—this is in reference to the starting of industries here—"and grants for new industries approved in the year ended 31st March last reflect the fall off from the previous year although they are in line with earlier years." Earlier years should not be referred to in this House because we have not got a great record in that respect. I am concerned about this because we have an industrial estate being developed in Galway and it is not very encouraging to hear it stated that there has been a falling-off in the number of industries interested in coming here.

I should like the Minister to state what definite proposals he has in this regard. I do not mean wild proposals but solid proposals for these industrial sites which are being developed in Galway. We have a very bad taste in our mouths over the Potez industry which is a monument to Fianna Fáil failure. I do not like to strike that sore thumb too much but there we have a building which has been left idle while across the road the Minister is having a number of other buildings erected. Please God, something will come of them but I should like to know definitely what is going to happen. We also had the closing up of homes arising from the position of the Potez factory. We had young men who were settling down in those homes, and hoping to rear families in them, having to pack up and go. There is this feeling of insecurity among the people and it is up to the Minister to show them that there is some definite future for them.

The Minister referred to the Institute of Industrial Research and Standards. Some time ago I was present for the Open Week in the Institute and from what I could see, that Institute seems to be working on a shoestring. It is about time that something more definite was done about it. One had to lower one's head to enter some of the buildings. To expect some of the experts we hope to retain in the country to live in these conditions is asking too much when these men could be induced to go elsewhere for more attractive incomes. Some of the best of our men are employed there and let us not lose them. Let us not be pennywise and pound-foolish. We are facing the challenge of the Common Market and we are going into it green when you compare our standards with the standards of others who have been established over the years, and if we are to meet this challenge, our only hope is to work this Institute to the full.

I am glad the Minister has had second thoughts in regard to giving the Institute an increase over this original Estimate but it is too little too late. If we are to give industry a shot in the arm in order to face this challenge, we must concentrate on quality. Quality will sell and quantity can come afterwards. First, let us attain the standards that are so important. This Institute can provide the necessary assistance in that respect. So far, it is a poor effort. I am not criticising the efforts of those there, but it is an aspect of our industrial development which will have to be improved. Let the standards of what we send out compare with or even improve upon standards abroad. Take a cheap ballpoint pen like this. The House is littered with them. You might start to make a few notes, but before you are finished, it will run dry. These are the things we have to get off the market. There might be better priced pens, but these are the sort you might get if you walked into a shop when your pen ran dry. We have to put a decent article on the market.

Reference was made to flour. Bread is an important item of diet in this country. If one is dieting, one is inclined to cut down on bread and potatoes; nevertheless, bread is the sole meal for many of the poorest of our people. For the purpose of the record and for the benefit of the Fourth Estate, I would like the Minister to deny that the price of bread will be increased when the by-elections are over. Prior to the last by-elections, the Minister was challenged in this House and he denied there would be an increase in the price of bread. We can take his denial with a pinch of salt.

The Deputy would not care to document these statements, I suppose?

I will leave all that to the Minister. I want him to say "yes" or "no".

That is the way to do it.

It is all right for the Minister to reply. The unfortunate people down the country may have to eat bread when he can eat cake, and they may not be able to eat much bread either. Outside all the church gates in Limerick and Cork I came across the same groups in the Kerry by-election—more factories are being built every Sunday morning than this country will have workers to work in. I saw the Taca men driving up in their Mercedes in Kerry and promising factories. The people there are still waiting for those factories. I do not think we will have sufficient men to build the number of factories that are to be built in West Limerick and Cork at the moment.

Their candidate tried to walk around one there, but they would not let him in with his television camera. He picked the wrong one. It was established in the inter-Party days and never got a grant.

It is disgusting to see these Taca parasites. They came into my area with their big promises. If the Minister challenges me, I will name them in this House. Their paws were greased for one purpose—for grants— and they paid back with the £100 plates for Fianna Fáil. It is about time they were stopped. I do not want paper hopes for industry. On a previous occasion, when I made reference to the closing of the Potez industry in Galway, I was told by the then Minister, Deputy Childers, that the closure was due to the mild weather causing people to refrain from purchasing heaters. People do not forget these things. It is not when the winter is in that you sell heaters. So, how could the Minister make that statement? You must sell them beforehand. I concede, however, that they produced a good heater there. The trouble in this industry was that you had not the men on the floor who knew how to run it. Those in the swivel chairs knew nothing about it because they were put in there by Fianna Fáil for one purpose—to act as Taca men when the occasion arose. No matter what politics they hold, if we do not put men into these positions on their own worth, we can forget about industry, forget about the challenge of the Common Market and remain in our own little island.

Our application for entry to the Common Market has already been referred to. In another debate, we in the Labour Party have been expressing our concern about the effect on employment if we do enter the Common Market. It is obvious that industry here is not equipped to compete on even terms with some of the industrial giants of Europe. It is also becoming more obvious that many of the people who control our industries will not take the necessary steps to bring about a situation in which we possibly could compete in such a market. I know the Minister and his Department have been making great efforts to persuade these people and to encourage them, but I think the Minister will agree that the results of these efforts leave much to be desired. Many of these industries have been sheltered by the present Government and by successive Governments through the imposition of tariffs. By virtue of these tariffs, many of the people controlling these industries have become quite wealthy.

The attitude of many of them would appear to be "We have made our pile. If we go out of business tomorrow, we can live for the rest of the time God has allotted to us and we will have a considerable sum of money to pass on to our children." They would appear to have absolutely no consideration whatever for the country and, in particular, for the people whom they are employing. If the present situation with regard to these industries is allowed to continue, the Minister will have to agree that there is no doubt that there will be vast unemployment in this country if we do enter the Common Market.

The previous Fianna Fáil speaker said that next to God, General de Gaulle seemed to rule our lives. However, I think it would be fair to say that the actions of General de Gaulle are the only gleam of hope that Irish industry has, in that General de Gaulle has made it quite clear that neither Britain nor, consequently, Ireland, will enter the Common Market for some time to come. I would say to the Minister that he has a responsibility other than to employers. He has a responsibility to the people who are employed and who far outnumber the employers. It is the responsibility of this Government to ensure by any method that these employers take the necessary steps to safeguard the future employment of our people.

There has been considerable talk about the establishment of new industries. There is no doubt that to some extent we must attract foreign money here, foreign know-how and, I suppose, avail of the foreigners' access to markets for the particular products they are producing. However, our experience of foreigners coming in and establishing industries has been very sad in a number of cases. I know the Minister must be sick and tired of hearing about Potez, but when it is considered that something in the region of £2 million of the taxpayers' money has gone down the drain, the Minister will appreciate that quite an amount of talk, criticism and soul-searching must take place in respect of an industry that never got off the ground but yet cost the Irish people such a vast amount of money. I cannot understand how money to this amount can be handed out, without an assurance at least that the business will start and that there will be some benefit to the Irish people by way of employment. The attitude in the replies given by the various Government spokesmen, including the Minister, gives no reassurance that adequate steps will be taken in future to ensure that there will not be another "Potez" costing quite a few pounds in taxpayers' money.

The Minister mentions that promotional tours have been undertaken by himself, other members of the Cabinet and also by officials of his Department. Personally, I think these visits are both necessary and desirable, but instead of vague generalities in regard to the success or failure of such a tour, the Minister should be able to come back and tell the House and the country just how successful the tour has been, what industries he envisages will be established here as a result of the tours undertaken, and not come back and say in a general way that he has spoken to a number of American or other industrialists and that they have shown considerable interest. This type of thing is just not enough. I would urge the Minister to be a little more explicit as to the results, good or bad, of a tour; they cannot all be good and we shall accept that, but we are entitled to know what concrete results have been achieved.

I do not want to delay the House, but, before closing, I would remind the Minister that he has a grave responsibility to the workers, and with the way things are developing and with the attitude of a large number of people in Irish management, the future of our industrial workers, in the event of our joining the Common Market, unless certain measures are taken by the Government, is not one to which they can look forward with any degree of hope.

I appreciate the fact that the Minister in introducing this Estimate and in promulgating this policy on industry is working under certain difficulties at the moment, in that, in spite of all the happy prognostications that have emanated from the Fianna Fáil benches through a predecessor in office in the Department of Industry and Commerce about Ireland being certain to get into the Common Market by 1970, that does not appear, from the best observations I can make, to be realisable at the moment.

I should like to congratulate the Minister for Industry and Commerce on taking a new line which is divorced from those of his predecessors, in that he has come to realise two things. One is that the decentralising of smaller industries is essential to our economy of the future. The second is that we cannot maintain or advance our economy by putting all our eggs in one basket. It has taken a long time for it to penetrate into the minds of those directing our policy that the advice tendered by OECD some years ago, that Ireland should endeavour to diversify its trade, was sound. If we look back over the years, we see that our industrial policy, as adumbrated by Deputy Seán Lemass, who has now gone into semi-retirement in the back benches, was a policy of heavy industry and tariff protection. Only recently a journal called "Industry"—I regret that, having come in in rather a hurry, I have not got it to hand—suggested that a change in Irish industrial policy was more than necessary. I feel I am pushing an open door when I mention these facts, in that, as I said at the outset, the Minister for Industry and Commerce is apparently cognisant of the fact that it has taken a long time for it to be appreciated by those who should appreciate it, that diversification and the basing of our industry on a decentralisation policy, outside Dublin and the bigger centres, is desirable socially and economically.

I would go further, and many would probably agree with me, and suggest that we should base our industrial expansion on such raw materials as we have at our command. Our agricultural community are not, perhaps, prospering as they should. It may be regarded as a kind of treason to make a remark like that but an Opposition Deputy like myself is allowed to indulge in a little treason in his public utterances from time to time. With respect, I suggest to the Minister that any worthwhile and durable expansion of industry must be based on the raw materials we have at our command. Therefore, I think that the policy of Deputy Lemass, involving the heavier type of industry and necessitating the import of raw materials and working under protective tariffs, must, at the present stage, lie in ruins about him. Consequently, I am glad to see that the Minister is thinking on different lines. It has taken, shall we say, a more modern school of thought to achieve this.

I suppose it is difficult for the Minister to formulate a long-term policy for industry when the situation regarding our accession or otherwise to EEC is dubious. It need not be. In my opinion—it is not so much that I am expressing the opinion of my Party— there would be no controversy or disagreement on this point that we should endeavour widely to diversify our industrial expansion and our trade. I am rather tired of hearing the old cliché repeated at different political or quasi-political functions I attend when somebody says: "Whatever Britain does we do." I think there is no country in Europe or in the world with its own sovereign government that is so utterly dependent on another economy as we are on the British economy today, and as we have been through the years.

Even New Zealand which, perhaps, is the absolute epitome of the Commonwealth idea, in that she exported her agricultural produce to Britain and received particular consideration in the British market, has set out to widen her horizon. It is interesting to note that the New Zealand Government is now exporting agricultural produce to the Nigerian market and also to many other parts of the world. That is the sort of policy I should like to see formulated in our Department of Industry and Commerce. We must consider what we are going to do, whether in the foreseeable future to remain as John Bull's Other Island or to accept the national responsibility imposed upon us by being a self-governing State? If we do, our relations with our neighbour can still be happy, but at the same time, we can go further afield.

Only a few nights ago, I was talking to several diplomats who told me they felt that we could not really strike out on our own without doing what the British did. I asked them one question. There were three of them representing comparatively small nations and I asked if they had their entire trade with one country. They replied that they traded far and wide and even then, they were not satisfied with the position as it was; they were endeavouring to expand their trade all the time. That is what I want to convey to the Minister; that we should try to expand. To do so, we must look to the places that are likely to buy and will be in a position to buy. After all, we are not very far from Europe. In case the Minister has any doubts on that point, his colleague, the Minister for Transport and Power, has recently accepted that the Wexford coast is as near to Europe as any other part of Ireland. We are not very far from Europe or from the economy which has one of the greatest purchasing powers in the world today, possibly second only to the United States. We do not seem to make any tangible effort to get into that market.

True enough, there have been discussions. Periodically, Ministers, surrounded by advisers, travel to Europe and have discussions with various people but do they work on the general basis of trying to develop the idea that the British market is not giving us the economic and social return desirable here? Do they think perhaps at times— and I direct my remarks particularly to the economists—that we have 30,000 persons still crossing the water, not entirely to Britain, but to other parts of the world, seeking employment and that of those 30,000, a great number, I regret to say, are persons of high educational standards who must seek employment elsewhere? Do they advert to the fact that we have a high measure of unemployment? Again I come back to the economists. I admire their views on figures but not on social conditions and economics. We have a large measure of unemployment which they tell us will be alleviated at the present rate of progress in 1980, as I think somebody said. That is poor consolation to a man with a wife and family who realises that he will have to emigrate in the very near future.

For that reason, I suggest to the Minister that he should forget all about the British negotiations for entry to the Common Market. Take it from me —and I am not disclosing anything; I am telling an open secret—they are a dead letter for the time being and will be into, shall we say, the reasonably foreseeable future. The industrial policy of the Government should be to look for a transitional stage. It is too much to expect that a Fianna Fáil Government, who have always been anti-British in the struggle throughout the Economic War and throughout the Civil War, during which they would have burnt everything British except their coal, would reverse the volte face they have now done of jumping completely into the British market. I respectfully suggest to the Minister and his Government that they endeavour to look for a transitional stage. I do not like to ask too much because I feel that is as far as they are likely to go, that they would look for a transitional stage in regard to this very fine market which is available to us as it is to other countries under the auspices of the GATT and the OECD and trade agreements that can be formulated between their representatives and our representatives.

I would go further. It would be a move of considerable interest and considerable advantage if the Government were to invite the Chancellor of Germany, Herr Kiesinger, whom I have the privilege of knowing personally, to discuss here a trade agreement with this country and further to discuss the transitional stage for a sovereign Irish State—I specifically use those words—within the confines ultimately of the European Economic Community.

I know that any discussions, trade or otherwise, that have taken place with Italy have ended in unanimous congratulations all round. I appreciate the fact that Italy has gained much from European unity but I would like to go further and say that French trade representatives should be invited to Ireland. France, being the richest country in Europe and increasing in wealth since she found political stability, is more likely to offer direct trade to us than any other country in Europe. I am unaware—as of course so many Deputies are unaware as to what negotiations are taking place or have been taking place—that any negotiations at political level have taken place other than the sort of mythical visits to Eureopean capitals that take place as to whether Ireland will get into the Common Market, the tour, shall we say, of prestige, which is merely following in the footsteps of Mr. Wilson and the Right Honourable George Brown, popularly known as "our George" in political circles in Britain. That is not the sort of thing that gets Ireland anywhere.

What Ireland wants is to create an individual outlook, a trade outlook. The European Economic Community was founded on the basis of trade and it is a trade agreement. It is, if you like, a political institution also in as far as all the wars through the ages of history have been economic wars: somebody has something which somebody else wants. But, as against that, it was agreed by the late Dr. Adenauer, a great statesman, and the late Herr Schumann and Signor Gasparri of Italy that the unification of these countries on an economic basis would secure for Europe political and economic stability.

In spite of all the unhappy prognostications emanating from various people, I still believe that European economic unity is the foundation for prosperity and stability and peace in the world today. Therefore, I come back to the question: why should we waste time, why should we wait on the developments from the tours of the Taoiseach and whoever he takes with him to European capitals? I am delighted to see him going. It is a necessary activity in modern political life. At the same time, I should like to see the Minister for Industry and Commerce looking for a transitional agreement with the European Economic Community and with any other sphere of activity in the economic world where that is possible. It is always a good thing to be in before the other fellow. The unhappy feeling that I have is that our policy here is directed to waiting on the tail of the United Kingdom and, if you like, of the Scandinavian countries. The other European countries have not waited on the tail of Britain. The other European countries, to my personal knowledge, over the last three or four years, have been doing the very thing I am suggesting a sovereign Irish Government should do today, so, perhaps, the Minister would think on those lines.

In the time at my disposal I have read as much as possible of the Minister's speech introducing the Estimate. I have formed the impression that there is some new thinking in industrial circles in Ireland or in his Department. Local industry is the key to our success, and local industry is useless if it is based on imported raw material, unless that raw material is transportable here at easy freight rates by air or some other means. I am satisfied in my own mind that more money is being wasted in this country, money that could perhaps be better expended—I am not a socialist by any means—on seeing that the Irish people at home got a decent standard of living. I believe that any money expended for the purpose of increasing our industrial output, and for the purpose of building up a sound fundamental economy, is money well spent. Of course, it would bring in its train all the social benefits that are desirable, and would maintain and keep our people at home. Industry and commerce seem to be the only way in the modern world.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share