It seems to me it would be more appropriate today to address a meeting of the Dáil either in Cork city or in West Limerick than in Leinster House. From both sides of the House, Deputies are in the south and south-west.
The Minister, in opening his remarks on this Estimate, dealt first with the problem of employment and the record in relation to employment on the industrial side of our economy in the past 12 months. The increase of 2,000 persons employed in manufacturing, to which he referred, in that period is nothing like enough. It is not enough merely to cover the displacement of personnel at work elsewhere, much less to include also the natural increase in the population. Unless we can make certain that industry during the period ahead substantially steps up that employment content, I fear we are going to find the same thing in the future as we have today but perhaps even more accentuated.
The Minister is as well aware as I am that in the past ten years the number of people at work in Ireland has dropped by exactly 100,000, from 1,142,000 in 1957 to the figure of 1,042,000 in 1967. This reduction obviously will affect the life-blood of the country and represents a situation the remedy for which is, to a very large extent, the responsibility of the Department of Industry and Commerce. There has not been a sufficiently imaginative approach to this problem. Before one considers the increase of employment by additional manufacturing points and outlets, one must look first at existing strata of manufacturing industry and satisfy oneself whether it is adequate.
I think the Minister is responsible in the Government for the largest number of State companies. Certainly, he would be responsible for the largest number in connection with their production. Perhaps the Minister for Finance, by virtue of his position as holder of shares, might be concerned with more, but from the point of view of the working of various State companies, the Minister for Industry and Commerce is the member of the Cabinet most concerned. What we lack in relation to State companies we lack to a large extent in relation to the whole consideration of policy in industry.
I do not want merely to criticise the present Minister or even his predecessors in Fianna Fáil in that Department, but there has never been a proper analytical directive addressed to sectors of industry as to what can be done or of should be done or where the outlets lie. In relation to State industries, of course, the responsibility is one that rests absolutely on the Minister concerned. In relation to private enterprise industry, it is not so much a directive as an indication of and leadership towards the best methods of improving the situation that are necessary and desirable.
I was very struck by a publication issued the other day by the Minister for Labour. It contained one of the very few directives there have been and a clear analysis of the job a particular body set up by statute had to do. The various State bodies under the Department of Industry and Commerce have not had any such clear directive, or if so, it has never been published as it certainly should have been published from time to time and referred to pretty regularly in this House. The Industrial Development Authority are entrusted with the task of endeavouring to expand industry. They are limited— correctly, in my view—by statute by the restriction that they are not allowed to provide goods to compete with existing industries that are doing the right job. This does not necessarily say that one should not have competition with existing industries where the product to be produced is something that will revolutionise an industry or will mean that the end product in which it is used will materially reduce the price and increase the utility of the goods. If there is to be a new, revolutionary approach arising out of the development of the industry, then I think that is something one must take into account or else we would be standing still all the time and never moving on in any respect.
Be that as it may, in regard to the work of State industries, it seems to me that when that provision is there, it is all the more important that State industries should not move into the sphere of private enterprise, where private enterprise is operating. If the Minister encourages or permits State enterprises to do so, he will undermine the whole fabric of our industrial production and make certain that, far from getting the co-operation and anxiety to co-operate in improving and streamlining our industrial production, he will get antagonism and suspicion all the way. In that respect I was appalled to hear recently, and to get the rumour confirmed by the Minister, that the Minister proposed to permit one of the State bodies to reverse a decision that was made in 1947. I have had some correspondence with the Minister regarding the matter but it is of such very grave national importance that I must refer to it here.
In 1947 a Bill was being initiated to widen certain powers of Ceimicí Teoranta and there was a pretty considerable discussion in relation to this widening of powers that was envisaged in the Seanad at that time. I was then a member of the other House—I shall not say whether it was Upper or Lower. The then Minister, Deputy Lemass, took part in that discussion and I have re-read the debate and completely refreshed my mind on it. That has borne out my recollection that the Minister at that time appreciated the danger there would be to existing Irish industry if Ceimicí Teoranta carried out what they then had in mind. In consequence of that, there was only a trifling production, for the purpose in fact, I think, of carrying out what had been arranged beforehand and it was changed afterwards.
There are other aspects of this with which I want to deal. There is, first of all, the aspect of two State bodies adopting contradictory roles and, secondly, there is the individual aspect in relation to the production of potable alcohol by Ceimicí and the danger to the whole image that that could create. It seems to me that it is nonsense for Córas Tráchtála to be endeavouring, in so far as they can and correctly endeavouring, to assist the sale abroad of Irish-produced spirits and to be doing their utmost in conjunction with the distillers to find markets for the sale of spirits abroad, if all the time they were doing this, another State body knew of a market for potable spirit and would not tell anybody about it. It seems to me that that displays a lack of cohesion and a lack of co-ordination that is lamentable.
The argument made, I gather now, is that Ceimicí know where spirits can be sold, but yet they have not disclosed that knowledge to Córas Tráchtála. Frankly, I do not know whether it is a market for a grainproduced spirit or for one made as the rest of Ceimicí's alcohol is made, from potatoes and molasses. If it is a grainproduced spirit, as I say, then it seems to be lamentable in the extreme, if that market was available, that there is no co-ordination between Córas Tráchtála for the purpose of ensuring that it could be filled by the distilleries that there are in Ireland who produce, as I am sure the Minister will agree with me, excellent potable spirits of various sorts, whether it is from potstill whiskey to patent still whiskey at Midleton, or gin or vodka. It is of considerable importance to realise that the discussion of 1947 took place in the then position that neither gin nor vodka was, as far as I am aware, distilled or produced here.
Be that as it may, all these spirits are made from grain and the high reputation that particularly Irish whiskey has achieved, and that Irish spirits have achieved, has been built up because they did eschew methods of production that are utilised in other countries for potable spirit. Within the past 20 years, I have myself come across in my professional capacity two cases where people, not very reputable, were endeavouring to buy spirit here in Ireland and to sell that spirit abroad as Irish spirit and do untold damage to the image of the products which I have mentioned. They failed, but I am very much afraid that what is involved here in this case is another attempt of the sort, and that unless public attention is drawn to it now, having regard to the letter I have received from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, irreparable damage will be done to this trade and to this manufacture.
As I said, we have already adequate capacity to produce spirits from grain in the various private enterprise distilleries here in Ireland. If this market which is supposed to exist is one for a grain-produced spirit, then it seems to me that it should have been the duty of Ceimicí, if they knew of it, to associate with Córas Tráchtála to ensure that that market was captured. That is the primary purpose of Córas Tráchtála and a definition of the purpose with which I do not think the Minister for Industry and Commerce would quarrel for a moment. If, on the other hand, the demand is for a neutral spirit based on potatoes, or otherwise than grain, then I think the shipment from Ireland of a neutral spirit made in that way as Irish spirit would do infinite damage to the reputation of our proper potable whiskeys, gin and vodka abroad.
The Minister, I am sure, realises that the people who are concerned in this trade in other countries do not go into it with kid gloves and if they are in a position to be able to say that Irish spirit is shipped abroad for potable use made from potatoes, then there is the danger that we would get the same reputation as the hooch of America in the prohibition days.
I believe that the former Minister for Industry and Commerce, having watched him carefully at that time in the Seanad, was absolutely satisfied of the danger of what I have said. Regardless of his exact phraseology, I am certain that Deputy Lemass then as Minister for Industry and Commerce left every member in the Seanad and, let me add, the distillers who at that day were in the Public Gallery, under the clear impression that he was going to ensure as Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking in the corporate sense, that Ceimicí would not be allowed to risk damaging the image.
The Minister paid me the compliment in his letter of saying he had read the debate concerned. I think he cannot have read the whole debate to get the atmosphere of which I am speaking because it is quite clear in my recollection that in the course of that debate the then Minister was absolutely persuaded of the risk of damage.
I do not know what the capacity of the distilleries in Ireland is. The Minister has that information available. I do not know that down through the years they have made a real effort not merely to maintain the quality of their primary product, Irish potstill whiskey, but also to diversify into other types of whiskey and other types of spirits such as gin and vodka. I do know that they funds, with the large part of their funds, with the addition of State grants, in an endeavour to get markets abroad. I think there has always been a limited appreciation and understanding of the difficulties in relation to that market.
The major difficulty, of course, in relation to potstill whiskey is the fact that it has to be kept for so long and that so much working capital, therefore, is tied up in it over the years. The distillers are very satisfactory purchasers and output markets for grain products in Ireland and it would be quite disastrous if as a result of somebody in another country trying to be clever and fooling those who are concerned in Ceimicí over this, the immense market that there is for Irish barley through the appropriate distillation into whiskey and the other spirits were lost to us and to the farmers concerned.
The trend appears to be towards certain types of spirit. Even though it would be quite easy and considerably cheaper for Irish distillers to obtain a base other than Irish grain for their products, they have always steadfastly refused to do so, and correctly refused. I am certain that if they had gone elsewhere for their raw material, whoever was Minister for Industry and Commerce of the day, and whoever was Minister for Agriculture of the day, would have taken a very poor view of it, and would have correctly taken a poor view of it.
This is a State-owned company which has a responsibility—just as there is a statutory responsibility on the Industrial Development Authority of which I have spoken—not to enter a field which is adequately and fully served by private enterprise here. Even more than that, as a State-owned company, it has a task and a duty to do its utmost to preserve the national image of our products. It would be quite unthinkable that an Irish State company would provide alcohol from potatoes or molasses, or the two together, and sell it abroad as Irish spirits and permit—and here we must pause for a moment—a foreign purchaser to dispose of it in a market abroad where Irish distillers were endeavouring to sell their better product and more expensive product because it is better.
When we sell raw material like that abroad, we lose control of it. We cannot lay down conditions, or if we did lay down conditions, we cannot enforce them if there is any possibility of spirits of that sort getting into bad hands and I believe that it can only be bad hands for which a market is now to be supplied. I want to make it quite clear that I am not suggesting that Ceimicí or the people concerned have any part in what I might call the deceit involved. They are being fooled by it. I think that it is the foreign purchaser who is endeavouring to get something and then pass it off as Irish spirit at immense danger to our national industry here.
I do not want to raise this in what I might call a political way. I want to deal with it as something I genuinely believe to be a very dangerous approach nationally. I hope the Minister will have another look at it and that he will examine it much more minutely, and that if he is not above it—and I do not think he is above it— he will have a word with his predecessor who was there 20 years ago when this matter came up before. I think he will find that his predecessor was persuaded then, and I feel certain that when the Minister sits down to consider the problems and dangers and difficulties objectively, he will be able to assess those dangers and prevent what could be quite disastrous nationally in my view. I do not know whether he will get in tonight. I do not expect him to answer this off the cuff. I am asking him to make a re-assessment of the position and to consider, in the light of that reassessment, whether there is not the grave danger of which I have spoken.
In what I have just said, I have been referring to Córas Tráchtála in a sideways manner. They have done a very good job but, at the same time, I think it was a wise decision to split their work from the Kilkenny design work. The work that has been done in relation to design this year must give great satisfaction to Deputy J.A. Costello who always preached that it was necessary and desirable to bring the application of Irish art to design for Irish industry. We are all glad to see that some steps have been taken in that regard.
At Question Time today, Deputy Flanagan raised the desirability of ensuring that in relation to any Irish export, there should be a flow of products once a market had been tapped. It is essential and vital, as the Minister accepted, that there should not be a rushing in, so to speak, to a market without a proper assessment in advance as to what the potential was likely to be. Córas Tráchtála have fulfilled their function in that respect, a function that should be sustained during the period ahead. Again, there, I have never seen published—perhaps the Minister will be able to correct me — any clear policy directive to Córas Tráchtála other than: "Go out and sell what you can." We must be much more precise than that type of vague generality.
One reason why I always felt that a different body, but a body akin to the Public Accounts Committee, would be useful in relation to State-sponsored bodies is that the very necessity of such a body existing to deal with the broad aspects and not the day-to-day activities would have the effect of ensuring that there would be analytical consideration of policy directives in a detailed way for each State industry. In the public service decisions are taken as a matter of policy. It is clear that the policy decision rests with the Minister. In a State-sponsored body, the policy decision should not rest with the State-sponsored body itself alone. It should be directed and laid down by the Minister, with the help and assistance of this House, with publication in this House and, of course, only after consultation with the people in charge of the State body itself.
As I say, one of the reasons I have always advocated the Special Committee on State Accounts, to give it a title for the purpose of distinguishing it from the Committee on Public Accounts, is that I have felt that the establishment of such a committee would go a long way towards making it an absolute necessity that that type of detailed directive would be available, publicly available for discussion not merely in this House but by people outside as well, people who are concerned and who are themselves working in trade and commerce. The Minister should see, particularly in those companies which are set up without a special Act—if there is a special Act, there is at least some indication in the statute setting up the company—that something more is published as a special directive, a detailed directive; one way of ensuring that such a directive is published would be to ensure that it would always be inserted as part of the company's annual report and accounts, laid before this House, and published in the newspapers.
There is much too woolly an idea in relation to many of these companies. We cannot afford that woolliness. Part of it arises from the lack of management consciousness, a lack with which we have been afflicted over the past years, a lack which the Institute of Management has done a good deal to dispel in recent years. From time to time, we have had a great deal of attention focussed, and correctly focussed, on the effects that restrictive practices have, but restrictive practices are not the whole story from the point of view of harming the development of industry. It has been true, I am afraid, that at the management end until recently we had not been giving enough attention to the function of management, the development of management and the ensuring of management getting abreast of modern conditions. To some extent the training courses and the allocation of grants have met some of that lack, but only some of it. It is a tradition that will have to be broken down quietly and with patient persistence on the part of whatever Minister is Minister for Industry and Commerce. It can only be done by a constant leadership from the Minister of the day to show where we are going. It was the fact that we built up too much behind the high tariff wall in the pursuit of self-sufficiency that enabled people in management to feel that they need not go out and adapt themselves to the type of productivity necessary to ensure survival in this modern age.
I know, of course, that many industries which were built up behind a high tariff wall had people of vision in them who did not feel like that, but I am afraid it was certainly true of too many of our industries, and it is certainly unquestionably true that the Governmental advice and direction available at the time did not take any account of what was necessary and it is partly because of that bad example in the past that even a short while ago, when it seemed likely we would get into a community area, if I may so describe it, progress was not made and no steps were taken until very lately, and even now progress is not being made.
The Minister at Question Time today mentioned the position in relation to the motor car industry. We were hoping that a decision would be taken yesterday by the Community at their meeting. Our decision should have been taken a couple of years back. There should have been consultations, the consultations that are now taking place. The Minister mentioned the provision of anti-dumping legislation. We made it quite clear, when we were talking in terms of the Free Trade Agreement a year ago, that that was a step towards the Common Market, accepted by us as such, and it was essential that there would be adequate safeguards to prevent dumping in order to ensure an easy transference from one type of economy to another.
I do not think the Minister has been very successful in relation, for example, to the car industry in the provision of anti-dumping arrangements. The flooding of the Irish market with foreign-produced cars is something that has not merely caused unemployment in Cork city but has caused very widespread suspicion and unease in all who are engaged in this industry. It is a difficult matter to see at what point one can determine that imports are excessive and that imports are, in fact, dumping imports. That is one of the many things in life in relation to which it is extremely easy to have hindsight. We have, however, to face the situation that it is there and it is the task of the Minister to have foresight. In relation to the car industry, those employed in it are most apprehensive that the Minister has not had adequate foresight and that they are therefore in grave danger from the point of view of their employment.
Times change and industry changes. It cannot remain static. One cannot hope that any particular industry will always remain one which will be popular from the point of view of the products manufactured and consumed. We will have to diversify our manufacturing industry and in that diversification, provide that the slack will be taken up in those industries that fall by the wayside. If we do not do that, we will not provide the overall improvement in manufacturing industry and the employment that must be there to take up the loss there may be in other spheres, and particularly the drift that there is—this is true of every country—from the country to the town, quite apart from the natural increase in population which is to be anticipated and must be catered for.
I must confess that I detect in the Minister's speech too much of a note of complacency in talking about the growth we had and the increase in employment of 2,000 last year, and the statement that there was the same growth in the first quarter of this year as compared with the first quarter of last year. We want more than the minimal amount of increased employment and increased growth. We must have a pretty extensive breakthrough if we are to provide for our people in the foreseeable future.
