Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Nov 1967

Vol. 230 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Vote 40—Industry and Commerce (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a sum not exceeding £8,083,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1968, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including certain Services administered by that Office, and for payment of sundry Grants-in-Aid.—(Minister for Industry and Commerce.)

Mr. Sweetman

When we were discussing this Estimate the other night I dealt with certain aspects, some of which have been somewhat reinforced by events in the interval. The Minister will remember that one of the things I raised last week with him was the manner in which two of the State bodies under his aegis had failed to co-relate themselves and that we had what amounted to Ceimicí Teoranta trying to take over a function that should more properly be that of Córas Tráchtála. I was surprised by the number of people who, outside, commented to me on the few remarks I had made in this respect the other evening.

One of the most interesting comments I heard was that this effort by Ceimicí Teoranta arose perhaps from the examination of their affairs by the Litton Organisation and that in their efforts to diversify and widen the base of Ceimicí Teoranta for the purpose of diluting their higher executive expenses, this had been considered. One can have sympathy with the efforts of any of these efficiency experts, management consultants—call them what you wish—in endeavouring to get a basis for an individual concern. That, however, does not absolve the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or indeed any other Minister in any other sphere, from being the person who in his job and from his job calculates the national interest, as apart from the individual interests of State-sponsored bodies.

I was amazed by the number of people, some in private business, some not in private business, who seemed to go out of their way deliberately to contact me and suggest that it was very wrong if there was any suggestion such as that I had indicated. I know there was such a suggestion from the letter the Minister wrote to me. At least I must pay tribute to the fact that he was honest enough to answer me categorically in that respect. I believe that when he sits down and considers the matter in its proper function and pattern, he will see that the interest of one State body is not the national interest as a whole—that the national interest as a whole would be very much damaged by an extension of the operations of a State body in the manner I suggested.

On the last occasion, too, I made some reference to the fact that it seemed undoubted that the manufacturing industries and transportable goods industries were not making anything like enough progress to pick up the slack that inevitably was arising, year in year out, in relation to those employed in agriculture. We were glad last year that, according to the Minister's speech, some 2,000 extra were employed in manufacturing and transportable goods industries but it is nothing like enough and it is something that this year may very well be offset by another threat. We had discussions here at Question Time today in relation to the Common Market and the factual position in relation to our application. Stripped of the verbiage, I cannot feel that there is anything that one can construe out of the Taoiseach's remarks today, and his remarks in public in Europe and since he came back, but that any extension of our markets in Europe must be deferred for a considerable time.

Indeed, as I understand the Taoiseach today, the phrase "a considerable time" is not one we on this side of the House coined in interpretation but is one which was used by General de Gaulle himself. In that position, we have to consider very carefully whether the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement of last year carries with it the promise that was then made by the Government that it would be a sure stepping-stone towards our accession to the Common Market and that it would have, and that it did have, within its framework adequate provision to prevent disemployment in our industries through the flooding of our markets. The conditions that were considered at that time were that, with the advent of our accession to the Common Market around the corner, it would mean a substantial improvement in outlets for the efficient Irish industry and, at the same time, a substantial improvement in outlets for the livestock part of our agricultural production—the cattle, sheep and dairying industries in particular.

It was in the acceptance that there would be that expansion in our efficient industries and for that side of agriculture that people here were prepared to consider the inevitability and the urgency, if one may use the phrase, of certain changes in the structure of industry in Ireland. We must all accept that if there is a restriction in certain industries then, unless at the same time we can ensure an extension in other industries, an enlargement of markets in these industries, employment in manufacturing industry will fall.

One of the things I fear about the new developments is that we shall not get the extension, on the one hand, that the Common Market would give us and yet, on the other hand, we shall get a restriction in certain industries brought on by the Free Trade Area Agreement. If the two were there, I think the balance would be in our favour. The two are not there. It seems to me that we shall get the unfavourable breeze without getting the favourable. One of the worst examples of it, from our point of view, is the motor tyre industry. The phenomenal increase in imports of tyres for motor vehicles which has arisen as a result of the Free Trade Area Agreement has endangered the employment of many engaged in that industry. In some respects, unfortunately, it is not merely a question of endangering: it is a question of having done so. It has created, also, an air of unease, and understandably so. If we have not, simultaneously with any wave there may be against certain industries, a wave in favour of others such as accession to the Common Market would give then we shall be caught in an interim position for much longer than was visualised and one that will be particularly unfortunate.

We had hoped, too, before the Minister came in with this Estimate, that we would have some clearer view of where the Government saw the motor car assembly industry would go in the period ahead. That industry, as we know, involves the employment and the lives of a very large number of our people. It is unfortunate that the Minister was not able, some considerable time back, to give a clearer picture of what the Government saw in this respect. It is part of the same pattern I indicated in relation to State-sponsored bodies. We are not seeing anything like enough of a clear picture of objectives by the Government and by the Minister in relation to them.

If, in relation to every State-sponsored body, there were as clear a statement, objectively, of its functions, hopes, desires and possibility of future attainment as the Department of Labour have put out in relation to An Chomhairle Oiliúna, we should be travelling a desirable road. It is not often that I pay tribute to something that is put out by the Government but that which was put out by the Department of Labour is a clear statement which could well be imitated.

I was disappointed, too, that the Minister did not give us more of an indication whether there are any hopes of off-shore exploration here in Ireland in relation to petroleum and gas and the distance over which we have rights in that respect. Are we now on the 12-mile limit? The mining industry— and I suppose one can associate with it the effort to find petroleum and natural gas — is something that has grown up substantially here during recent years. It has grown up largely because of the tax incentives of 1956, amended, extended and improved by subsequent Ministers for Finance. I do not deny for one second that the initial incentives have been substantially improved in many respects. During the period ahead, I hope we will find that there will be a better chance of the lower grade ores being recovered as a result of these incentives. I should like to see some evidence that an effort was being made to search for the possibility of petroleum and natural gas under the offshore shelf. I was very glad to see in the papers the other day a suggestion that one of the larger international mining concerns was thinking of setting up an aluminium smelter here. I hope that is true and that the Minister by his injudicious Smelting Bill, which was introduced earlier this year, has not spoiled the possibility——

Mr. Colley

It does not affect it the slightest.

Mr. Sweetman

On the contrary, the definition of smelting in that Bill does include aluminium. The Smelting Bill may have been introduced by the Minister with only the baser metals in view, but the smelting of ore and ore concentrates seems to be something that clearly covers aluminium as well, at least on the advice given to me by those who are in that technical line of country. The Minister is like me in that respect: he is only able to consider the drafting on the best technical advice that he can get.

Mr. Colley

I agree.

Mr. Sweetman

And the technical advice I have got is that it also includes aluminium. If my advice is right, then I fear that the Bill, which happily has gone to some type of limbo for the moment——

Mr. Colley

You will have it shortly.

Mr. Sweetman

——would have prevented Rio Tinto, or anybody else, dealing with smelting of that sort. I hope, too, we will find in the immediate future that the development in Longford in the mining industry by that particular firm will be such as to give further assistance to our balance of payments. It is peculiar thing and one with which the Department of Industry and Commerce is especially concerned, that the major politico-industrial issue of today is not what it used to be. It used be the relations between the trade unions and society. Everybody will agree that the issue now has changed from that sphere to one of the relationship between the Government and the private sector of industry. We have that, on the one hand, in the Prices Bill and on the other, in the Restrictive Practices Bill, while on another side again, we have it in the method of operation of State-sponsored bodies. It is perhaps unfortunate that in that respect we have not had as clear a view as one would like of the occasions on which and the policy for occasions on which the Government, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce in particular, should intervene.

As I mentioned the Prices Bill, may I ask the Minister categorically to tell us whether the rumour that is running around this town is correct, that inside the next week to a month, we are to have another increase of 2d in the price of the loaf? It has been mentioned to me from all sides, not necessarily by people concerned with politics, as we are, but by public contacts all around, that an increase of that size is inevitable. We had on other occasions increases of that sort arriving just coincidentally after the voters in constituencies went to the polls. If an increase is inevitable—and I can understand the Minister in these days of rising expenses finding that it is inevitable—I would ask him at least to have the honour and honesty to announce it before Thursday, and not after it. Equally, I should like to give him the opportunity of having the chance before Thursday of denying the rumour that is abroad, if the rumour is untrue. I am, as I say, giving him the chance of denying it and I would welcome that denial.

I mentioned a minute ago, before I got on to the Prices Bill, that the present political issue is perhaps the degree of intervention that is desirable by the State in relation to the private sector of the economy. It is always very easy to plead in a general way the national interest. It is always very difficult to show in relation to any action or intended action that that individual action is something that in the long run is going to go contrary to the national interest.

But it seems to me that Government must be involved with industry in a variety of different ways. In the first place, it must obviously be involved as the protector of the people, in the sense that it is concerned, amongst other things, with restricting industry from damaging the people by polluting their air and water, from unjustly invading their living and recreational areas, from abusing through excessive marketing power their rights as consumers, accepted in the Restrictive Trade Practices Act to which I referred; by treating them harshly as work people, accepted in our labour legislation; by harming their interests as shareholders, accepted in the Companies Act; and so on in many varied fields.

The Government must be concerned also in industry as the provider of services of a widespread kind, such as postal and telecommunications — although, goodness knows, some of us may feel at present that the inefficiency of our postal deliveries and the continued breakdown in telephone services require something of a breath of fresh air. The Government are also responsible for the provision of the infrastructure and facilities in respect of transport. Again, we have had from time to time grave misgivings in that respect. There is also the safeguarding of services connected with health, police, protection from fire, services in the production of energy, education, labour exchanges—all those are things which obviously must be provided by the Government.

The Government must also be a customer responsible for the expenditure of a very large proportion of the value of things the nation produces. It must be concerned as an industrialist with managing industries like the ESB, the railways and the State-sponsored bodies. It must be concerned with the management of the nation's resources. It is in this latter respect that I wonder whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce is doing all that should be done. I wonder is he mobilising our raw materials and resources? Is he providing the incentives for that mobilisation that is necessary and desirable at present? He has certain schemes in his Department for adaptation and for market analysis, but they do not go anything like far enough. They are not pursued with the energy the times require. We are not getting that sense of urgency across to people in all walks of life, particularly those in management. The clarification of objectives is something all managers say is not done sufficiently, said particularly, I suppose, by the new ones coming on the scene.

In the long run in any private enterprise economy—and I hope we will long remain one—it is the lead the Government can give by incentive and by leadership that will ultimately determine the pace of the economy. I do not think we are getting that leadership in industry from the Government and the Minister at present. One of the reasons we are not getting it is that there is not a sufficiently frank facing up to and public acceptance of the problems of the day. I do not think we are going anything like far enough in making it clear that research in industry is vital to improve technology and productivity. We are not going far enough to provide for companies engaged in industry to have the incentives by way of tax remissions and otherwise to get on with the job of that research, to do so on a long-term basis and know where they are going in long-term development. That must be governed first by where we are in relation to trade abroad.

I would welcome from the Minister a new leadership in that respect. I would welcome from him something more than what I may describe perhaps as a pat on the back for some new opening. There must be a much more realistically designed campaign to make it clear, first, that we want a wide expansion and, secondly, that in relation to that expansion, if a person is able to make a profit out of it, he is doing something that will improve the community as a whole, will increase the national interest and that it is not immoral to make a profit.

Mr. Colley

Hear, hear.

Mr. Sweetman

I believe the profit motive is the greatest motivating force we can have. While I want to make sure that people are not able to utilise restrictive legislation or restrictive practices to prevent enterprise, I want to make equally certain that where there is enterprise, the reward for that enterprise can accrue for the individual in the shape of profit. If it does, I personally have no doubt whatever that it will accrue in a far wider way to the national interest in production, in the balance of payments and in the extension of our employment of people at home.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce each year gives us an opportunity of reviewing the entire situation in so far as it affects every section of our community. Seeing that the Department of Industry and Commerce covers such a very wide field, we think it only right that we should make reference to employment in industry, the establishment of industry, the export of the products of our industry, and the furtherance of the participation by our people in a Buy Irish Campaign.

The more we produce for export the better and the healthier it is for our economy. When we see the vast amount which is imported into this country we often ask ourselves, after so many years of supporting Irish industry, whether we have as yet achieved our high ambitions in that regard. I have the greatest admiration and respect for all who are engaged in Irish industry. Our industrialists and those engaged in industry are certainly playing a very important and noble part. It is only right that we should take this opportunity of expressing our appreciation to them. We can produce in this country commodities of as high a standard if not higher than those produced by any other country in the world, and certainly of a standard equal to, if not better than, that of the goods imported here today.

That can be very easily seen in the footwear industry. When the Minister is replying to this debate, he should make a special reference to the footwear industry. I do not know what has happened in relation to this industry. We have seen a number of shoe factories closed down and there is a good deal of unemployment and short time in the footwear industry. At the same time, we see in every big store we enter, large supplies and a great variety of imported footwear.

Is it that the Buy Irish Campaign has failed in relation to Irish footwear, or is it that the Government have allowed the footwear industry to collapse completely? In my constituency, there were two very important factories, one which is closed down altogether and the other which is not working full time. I fail to understand this situation when I know that the workers engaged in the manufacture of boots and shoes in these centres produce footwear of such excellent quality. I venture to say that the footwear which is produced from our own factories is as good as, if not better than, the imported boots and shoes that we see prominently displayed in all our shop windows.

I have wondered what has been the cause of the collapse. Has it been that those who are purchasing boots and shoes here in Ireland are buying the imported boots and shoes in preference to those made here? If that is so, then our Buy Irish Campaign has failed. I cannot understand the mentality of people who buy imported goods when by buying an article that is manufactured here, they are, as well as cutting down the necessity for imports, keeping their fellow workers in employment and contributing generously to the country's economy. Is it that this message has not been sufficiently conveyed to the public?

I would ask the Minister to give the House the full picture in relation to the footwear industry, in regard to the short time that is taking place therein, and the growing amount of imports of boots and shoes, in spite of the excellent standard of Irish-manufactured footwear. I feel I should pay this tribute to those engaged in the footwear industry. They are highly skilled operatives, and I feel safe in saying that those engaged in the industry across the sea or elsewhere cannot be any more highly qualified than those here in our own country. We must endeavour to break down the prejudice on the part of some consumers that home-produced articles are not as good as imported ones.

I believe in Irish industry and have faith in the workers of this country who have perfected their skills in Irish industry. I believe in the policy of assisting, promoting and investing in Irish industry. While there has been a good deal of criticism in relation to Government policy in fostering industry in preference to agriculture it must be realised that in the modern world in which we live all our labour force cannot find employment on the land and therefore industrial development is necessary.

It is encouraging to see the growth of Irish industry during the past 25 years. Tribute must be paid to all Ministers for Industry and Commerce, to Deputy Lemass, to the former Deputy Morrissey, to the present Minister for Industry and Commerce and to all who have held that office and who believed in a future for Irish industry.

I am sure the Department of Industry and Commerce are inundated with requests from various areas and from development associations for the establishment of industries. There is nothing easier than to ask that an industry be set up but regard must be had to the raw material to be used. The most profitable industry is one based on home-produced raw material. Naturally, such industries are few and far between. For most of our industries we have to rely on imported raw material.

In recent years, I have wondered whether it was a wise policy to grant special facilities for industries sited west of the Shannon which were not applicable in other areas. If we invite foreign investment and if industrialists are prepared to invest their money and their skills in establishing industries in this country, is it right to encourage them to go to any particular area where probably transport costs may be higher and where there may be a problem of availability of raw material? The generous grants made available by the Government are a great encouragement to industrialists. However, grants were made available for industries sited in certain parts of the country which were not available in other areas where industrial development is equally necessary and desirable in order to provide the local employment which cannot be secured from agriculture. I am glad to note that in so far as the Industrial Development Authority and the body charged with the allocation of grants for industries are concerned there is no distinction now as between areas. That is as it should have been. The removal of artificial boundaries in this matter will be for the benefit of the country. The country will be taken as a unit and facilities will be universally available for the establishment and promotion of industry.

I want to avail of this opportunity to express my personal delight at the development and progress in the industrial estate at Shannon. Deputies on all sides of the House may have their views in relation to investment in that industrial estate. I have said here, and it is on record, that I firmly believe in the development of the industrial estate at Shannon. The test is the number employed there. If men and women are working and have their pay packets at the end of the week, to me that represents progress. It is far better that Irish men and women should be working in an industrial estate like that at Shannon rather than at the same type of work for the same employers in Germany, Britain, the United States or Canada.

I want to say again that I have been impressed by the lay-out of the industrial estate at Shannon and by the manner in which the estate has been managed. From time to time there may be words of criticism that some industries there have failed and others have not thrived to the extent we would have liked. There is nothing easier to do than to criticise. Those of us in public life would feel there was something wrong if in our own line of activity as public men, we were not subject to criticism of one kind or another very frequently.

It is true to say that from time to time the industries in the Shannon Industrial Estate have been the subject of criticism, very often unwarranted criticism, I think. Constructive criticism may be good for industries which are in their infancy, and instead of criticism, words of encouragement and praise may in the long run have far better and more beneficial effects. The industrial estate at Shannon is young and, indeed, I may say still in its infancy. I have faith and belief that in the years to come, there will be expansion and development to a far greater extent at Shannon. There are possibilities there. The possibilities are very great.

I trust that the development authority at Shannon Airport may be reinforced by the knowledge that the work they have undertaken there has met with a measure of appreciation. I hope every effort will be made to solicit the goodwill and co-operation of industries that can be obtained from any part of the world. We have the facilities here to offer to industrialists because we have the workers. I may say that the workers engaged at Shannon—no matter in what branch of industry they are engaged—are efficient and capable and worthy of every support and encouragement. I am sure the board charged with responsibility for further development at Shannon are wide awake to the need for even more and greater investment in the industrial estate.

I trust that every avenue will be explored by that body which, in my opinion, is a most efficient authority, composed of men of intelligence, men of ability, men of foresight and courage who have belief and faith that the workers can produce excellent articles. All the articles I have seen which are manufactured in the various industries at Shannon reflect great credit on the skill, the craftsmanship and work of the workers engaged in the various branches there. I want to avail of this opportunity again to express for the record my appreciation of what I saw at that estate. I trust that work will continue energetically, and that the Minister and the Government will continue to be helpful and generous in regard to any capital that may be needed because it is a sound investment, and a good investment. Any investment that produces articles for export and at the same time, keeps our men and women at work at home in our own country is a sound and a good investment.

It has been noted from announcements made that other industrial estates, perhaps similar to that at Shannon, are planned for the future. One is planned for Galway and one for the Waterford district. I am wholeheartedly in agreement with the establishment of these industrial estates. I know that in the city of Waterford, which has a good industrial tradition, they are helped considerably by the fact that Waterford port is probably one of the greatest attractions for industry. Waterford port is one of the finest ports in this country. I remember not very many years ago —I was a member of this House at the time—I heard the late Deputy Mrs. Redmond asking the Government to give a measure of assistance so that some use could be made of the great harbour facilities available in Waterford. Afterwards I heard the late Deputy T. Lynch speaking in the same vein.

I remember 1955 when a serious effort was made to bring business to Waterford by utilising all the facilities available at Waterford port. I am glad to see that the foundation laid during those years has brought both employment and business to the city of Waterford. I am speaking as if I represented that city—far from it—but I know the background and the tradition of Waterford and Waterford port. I have seen that harbour without a single boat in it. I have seen the quays without the least sign of any activity. It is a pleasure now to see the amount of work and activity at the quays in Waterford. There are greater and greater and greater possibilities for further development there.

It should be very easy to direct the special attention of foreign investors to the great possibilities at Waterford, just as they can be encouraged as to the great possibilities at Shannon where the airport is so convenient and duty-free facilities and water facilities immediately available. In the city of Waterford, investors can be offered what we can claim to be one of the finest harbours in our country. I trust that within the next five years a very serious and genuine effort will be made to provide much-needed employment in the city of Waterford and in the south Kilkenny and south Tipperary districts, including that portion of Waterford west of the city.

I have little doubt but that the Minister has gone very fully into this matter. After all, it is his job. The responsibility has been given to him by this House. It is hardly necessary for Deputies to direct his attention to the importance of the areas I have mentioned. The Minister has very capable and very efficient officers in his Department to advise him, to prepare for him and submit to him all the information he may require to help and guide him in making decisions. I fully approve of the Government's intention to establish an industrial estate in Galway because, again, the employment is needed there and the facilities are there. I am sure if investment is required it will be, as it is in the case of Waterford, readily forthcoming and readily available. With thriving industrial estates in the Shannon area, in Waterford and in Galway we must ask ourselves what will the position be in the Midlands from the point of view of providing industrial employment for the manufacture of certain commodities for export. That brings me to the question then of the provision of worthwhile industrial employment in Laois-Offaly, in part of County Kildare, and in County Westmeath. There are in the midlands vast numbers of unemployed. There are a number of small progressive towns. There are a number of very worthwhile industries.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and after the expiration of more than three minutes, no quorum being present, the Dáil was resumed.

After the expiration of a further three minutes, a quorum still not being present, the Chairman adjourned the House until 3 p.m. tomorrow.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.20 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 8th November, 1967.