Vol. 233 No. 2
I move :
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 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.
Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce not available?
He is in the Seanad. He will be here to reply.
This Supplementary Estimate is necessary to meet excess expenditure on certain subheads of the Vote the extent of which could not be foreseen when I took the original Estimates and the two Supplementary Estimates in November last.
In the original Estimates, a sum of £13,620 was provided in respect of travelling and incidental expenses. This sum did not provide for the cost of the printing of patents specifications which in the normal course would have been provided for in the Vote for the Stationery Office. However, because of an administrative decision to change from conventional printing of these specifications to direct reproduction by the off-set method, the Stationery Office Estimate for 1967-68 in respect of the printing of patents specifications provided only for contracts placed in 1966-67. For technical reasons the change-over in printing methods was more gradual than had been anticipated and consequently a considerable amount of conventional printing became necessary in 1967-68 which was not provided for in the Estimates.
My Department therefore, with the approval of the Department of Finance, took over responsibility for expenditure on conventional printing in 1967-68. The decision to do so was taken too late for the inclusion of a provision in the printed Estimates. The total expenditure for this service in 1967-68 is expected to amount to £9,500. I might add that no further expenditure is anticipated as I understand that the change-over to offset printing by the Stationery Office has been effected.
An additional £2,500 arises in the provision for travelling and subsistence and is due to the intensification of the campaign for industrial promotion both at home and abroad by officers of my Department.
An additional sum of £15,000 is needed to provide funds to cover the increased costs which Córas Tráchtála are required to meet resulting directly from the devaluation of the pound. These increased costs have arisen in connection with the Board's overseas offices and in connection with particular export promotion projects in areas in which devaluation did not take place.
The supplementary provision proposed for Córas Tráchtála will bring the total provision for the Board for the current financial year to £732,000. Failure to provide the additional funds necessary to meet these increased costs would involve some reduction in the services provided for exporters by Córas Tráchtála. I am sure the House appreciates the necessity of maintaining these services so that the momentum of our export drive shall in no way slacken in the months ahead.
The excess of £60,000 on technical assistance is due to increased expenditure on grants for private minerals exploration. The original provision for minerals exploration included under Subhead L was £11,000. Actual expenditure has to date amounted to £83,640, an excess of £72,640. The increased expenditure is due to additional assistance made available in respect of development in the coal industry. Grants for private minerals exploration are repayable by way of a royalty on commercial production. The excess of £72,640 is offset to some extent by savings on other projects covered by the technical assistance subhead.
The British Temporary Charge on Imports, or levy, which was imposed in October, 1964, ended on the 30th November, 1966. Deputies will be aware of the arrangement whereby exporters who had to pay this charge on their exports received from us a grant of 40 per cent or, in cases of exceptional difficulty, 50 per cent of the amount of levy paid. Obviously payments from State funds were bound to continue for some time after the levy was withdrawn. It was expected, however, that the bulk of the amounts due to exporters would have been paid by the end of the 1966-67 financial year and this has been so.
Nevertheless, applications for payments in respect of exports prior to 30th November, 1966, have continued to come from exporters right through 1967-68 and are still being received. These apparent delays were due in part to difficulties some exporters met in trying to get the necessary documents from clearance agents and other people in Britain and also to delays in settling final assessments of levy with the British customs, for example, in cases where there was a dispute about the value of a particular consignment, or where other problems arose. The amount of £200,000 provided in the estimates for 1967-68 for these claims was insufficient and it is now estimated that an additional sum of £120,000 will be needed in the current year.
When I approached the House on 9th March, 1967, for further moneys to subsidise the operations at Castlecomer Collieries, I mentioned that exploratory work had indicated the presence of an extensive deposit of coal and that there was then the question of gaining access to this new deposit and proving if it could be extracted economically. I then expressed the hope that viable working of the mine would be achieved by this effort. So far, I am afraid that this has not proved to be the case. A number of factors, some of them perhaps temporary but some more basic, have worked against it. Losses are continuing and the amount sought by the present Supplementary Estimate, £65,000, represents the further advances which have been or will be made to the company in the present financial year.
I regret I am not in a position to assure the House that economic working of the mine can be foreseen in the immediate future. I am giving urgent attention to the matter. The House will understand that there are serious social and other considerations involved. In the meantime, I have to ask the House to agree to the provision of this sum to cover the amount needed in the present financial year to keep the mine in operation and maintain employment.
It is considered that the national campaign to persuade Irish industry to prepare for freer trading conditions needs to be revised and intensified by a special effort aimed at securing much greater involvement at individual and local level by all whose interests are vitally affected. The reason, of course, is the dependence of the economic progress of our people on the degree to which they fit themselves to grasp the opportunities and overcome the difficulties which free trading conditions will put in their way.
A decision has, therefore, been taken by the Government approving of proposals to organise and run a National Productivity Year commencing in September, 1968. Its main objectives will be to bring home to all concerned the need for adaptation to meet the new conditions and for greater concentration on marketing strategy. The need for more widespread and more radical adaptation in many firms is unquestioned in the face of the highly competitive conditions which firms here will have to meet for the first time.
The need for greater attention to marketing matters also arises from the same conditions but more particularly from the fact that this is an area where many Irish firms have little or no expertise by modern standards. All but a few such firms have been selling on a protected home market and this was not conducive to the development of such expertise. At the same time significant new marketing techniques were being developed abroad which were giving marketing a new and critical importance for industry. Irish firms must quickly catch up in this area.
The arrangements for the National Productivity Year will be made by a small working group which has been appointed by a steering committee representative of all the interests concerned. Management and labour and the public sector are represented on the committee. The management members come from many industrial sectors— manufacturing, distributive, agricultural, fishing and building. The Irish National Productivity Committee will be the main agent in co-ordinating and promoting the arrangements for National Productivity Year.
Details of the arrangements have not yet been worked out. At this stage all I am asking the House to do is to indicate their support for the general idea of a National Productivity Year. I am confident that this support will be forthcoming from all Parties.
It is estimated that the total cost involved will be about £92,000 of which about £2,500 will be required in the current year 1967-68. The total extent of the increased expenditure amounts to £274,490 but this will be offset by a surplus of £22,000 on appropriations in aid. In addition there will be a saving of £252,480 on the provision under Subhead J for An Foras Tionscal. Accordingly the net amount required is £10.
I recommend the Supplementary Estimate to the House.
We have no objection to the passing of this Supplementary Estimate. There are certain matters, however, that must be mentioned arising on various subheads. I would like, first of all, to give the Minister an undertaking from this side of the House that he will receive every support in his project for a National Productivity Year. I note that one of the items that will be pushed forward during the National Productivity Year is making people aware of the necessity for adaptation, for making their business or industry ready for change. I am amazed that is all he said because it would have opened up for him the position of being able to discuss what he intends to do to encourage adaptation. Only a few days ago, he utilised a different venue to indicate this and as spokesman for the main Opposition Party on Industry and Commerce, I am relying on the report which appeared in one paper—apparently his speech was too late for the others and only appeared in one. I do not read the Irish Press. He took the opportunity of addressing Cumann Mhichíl Uí Annracháin, Fianna Fáil, in Dublin, last Thursday and he is reported in the Irish Independent of Friday, March 1st. He gave details of changes in relation to the application of adaptation grants.
We are asked to pass a small sum to start off this National Productivity Year in September, 1968, and presumably a much larger sum, around £90,000, the following year. He is asking us to co-operate with him and I am assuring him of that co-operation. However, it is not very helpful to us in this House if, when introducing his Supplementary Estimate and dealing with matters such as adaptation grants, the Minister says nothing about changes which he announced to Cumann Mhichíl Uí Annracháin, Fianna Fáil, in Dublin last Thursday night. I take the gravest exception to the fact, and I observe that some leading articles have been written since about it, that this House was not told in the first instance of a change in the system of giving adaptation grants and that, in the second instance, an opportunity to discuss it has now passed with the introduction of the Estimate without one word about the changes he announced last Thursday.
I do not know who this gentleman is —whether he is alive or dead—but I mean no discourtesy to Micheál Ó hAnnracháin, alive or dead, when I say that surely he is not as important as Dáil Éireann. The Minister, like many other Fianna Fáil Ministers, is blinded by the importance of his own organisation and he has done a disservice and rendered a discourtesy to the Members of Dáil Éireann in announcing to Cumann Mhichíl Uí Annracháin last Thursday what these changes are, while here he introduces a Supplementary Estimate which is to provide money to publicise this project and to make everybody aware of what he can do in relation to adaptation grants and he does not mention those changes.
I cannot emphasise too much the discourtesy of a Fianna Fáil Minister who would do that sort of thing. Relying as I do on the usually most responsible reporting of the Irish Independent, I find that what the Minister is going to do—as far as I can understand from the report, and not having had the courtesy of a handout from either the Minister or the Government Information Bureau—is to provide adaptation grants not only for something that is classified by An Foras Tionscal as major adaptation but also for the replacement of plant, buying new machines and that sort of thing. I would refer him to previous speeches made by Fine Gael spokesmen and myself in which we advocated this step. Speaking on the Estimate for Industry and Commerce, I referred the Minister to the distance he was lagging behind Northern Ireland in that regard where all one has to do is to buy the plant, send the invoice to the Ministry and get back the adaptation grant. One does not have to get oneself classified as doing a major adaptation.
It is very important that these things should be remembered, that policies of individual Parties should be recorded and that the adoption of such policies by other Parties should also be recorded, and I would refer the House to a speech which I made at the Fine Gael Árd Fheis on May 10th, 1967. I referred to the Fine Gael policy in this regard and said it was to extend adaptation grants to existing industries, whether their products were for export or not, and to end the system whereby certain industries were subject to a blanket refusal for the grants. There are other items of industrial policy with which I will deal at another time as I am not allowed to do so now under Standing Orders. It is quite clear that what the Minister is doing is what we adopted as our policy before last May and which we announced last May. He has been guilty of a great discourtesy in not announcing it here in this House and in going to the faithful few, who are getting fewer and——
On a point of order. It may be that mention of these adaptation grants may have given the impression that this matter was being provided for in this Supplementary Estimate. As I understand it, they are not. While I was interested to hear what Deputy Donegan had to say about Fine Gael policy being implemented by Fianna Fáil, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that this does not seem to be relevant to this discussion.
Sir, I would refer you to the Minister's speech. Under the heading "National Productivity Year", the Minister states:
A decision has, therefore, been taken by the Government approving of proposals to organise and run a National Productivity Year commencing in September, 1968. Its main objectives will be to bring home to all concerned the need for adaptation to meet the new conditions and for greater concentration on marketing strategy. The need for more widespread and more radical adaptation in many firms is unquestioned in the face of the highly competitive conditions which firms here will have to meet for the first time.
The Minister then goes on to deal with marketing.
Again, I suggest, on a point of order, that this is 1968 and it is in next year's Estimate this will be dealt with in detail.
In view of the fact that the Minister mentioned it in his opening statement, I cannot rule out Deputy Donegan.
I should like to point out that there is no room for detailed discussion.
I would refer the Minister not only to the paragraph of his speech which I read out, but to the grant-in-aid of £2,500 under the heading "National Productivity Year". That, I think, disposes of the matter. The Minister adverts to a saving of £250,000 roughly—I may be out £1,000 or so but the Minister spoke so quickly I did not quite get the figure.
I have not spoken more slowly for years.
The Minister is, of course, pretty indistinct.
I know the Deputy is never with me.
No, never, and never will be.
I am very glad to hear it. I should be worried if the Deputy were.
After those pleasing personalities, I should like now to advert to the fact that we did not spend as much money as we thought we would on grants for new industries. The falling-off was in the region of £250,000.
£252,418.
I was being kind then. When the Minister introduced his main Estimate, he indicated there was likely to be a falling-off in the numbers coming here to establish new industries. This is very serious. I have some figures here which indicate that, if we are to have full employment by 1980, we shall need an 8.5 per cent annual increase in output and a 7,000 average increase in employment. I am fully aware that this, of course, has to take care of people leaving agriculture as agriculture becomes more efficient. But, if there is a falling-off in the number coming here, there must be some reason for that falling-off.
I suggest that the policy of the Government has meant that Ireland is becoming less attractive from the point of view of the establishment of new industries. The Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement was something with which every sensible man agreed, but, even with that, the situation is that our costs here are becoming higher and, as restrictive action by the Government becomes more prevalent, Ireland becomes less attractive to industrialists from the point of view of establishing industries here. The Minister, when introducing his main Estimate, indicated this would happen. It has happened. Worse still, a figure of between £10 million and £15 million in grants for new industry was wasted. I do not want to go through the long list of failures, but they are far too numerous for comfort and blame attaches to the Government particularly in regard to loans of more than £250,000 under Taiscí Stáit legislation. These loans are granted direct by Cabinet decision and grave blame is due to the Government in this regard.
We must take into consideration the prospects for the coming year. We are going to spend less and we are more worried about the coming year. We are facing—it is time the country realised it—the biggest range of wage demands ever asked for in this country. That does not start with the working man at all. The Minister for Agriculture who was at one stage Minister for Local Government will be aware that right through the local government service wage demands of as much as £500 and £700 a year have been lodged in the proper place.
The Deputy is, of course, aware that this Supplementary Estimate relates to the present year and not to the coming year.
That is so, but I am adverting to the fact that we have saved £250,000 in grants for new industry because new industries did not come or their quality was such, when they did come, that we did not give them the grants. I am pointing out that there will be fewer in the coming year, if I read the indications aright. I will pass from it as quickly as I can because I do not want to get involved, but the position is that we are faced with this wage demand of round about 30 per cent when one takes into account the increase per hour, the service-pay and extra holidays. These are now standard. The position is that the country is becoming, because of Fianna Fáil activity, a place less attractive from the point of view of the establishment of industry. I do not want to go any further than that because emphasis might not do us any good, but it is right to record the fact that that is the situation.
Extra money is being provided for Córas Tráchtála. That body is doing a good job. It has brought untold benefits. It is helpful to everybody and industrialists are received by Córas Tráchtála with open arms. Some sort of Government agency was necessary particularly from the point of view of the small firms. We all welcome the expansion of Córas Tráchtála and we trust that expansion will be efficient.
With regard to Castlecomer, I am sorry the Minister is not in a position to tell us that he found a new seam and things are all right. I exhort him to continue investigations and not to give up too soon. I have personal experience of using Irish anthracite and, at present day prices, it is the most efficient fuel one can get. I suppose the reason our hospitals and State institutions were not allowed to use Irish anthracite was that they were restricted to using turf. Irish anthracite is not suitable for cooking because of the high arsenic content but it is a fuel which, price for price and thermal unit per thermal unit, is cheaper than oil, coal or turf. The miners who are employed there have just as good a right to their jobs as the men employed on the Bord na Móna bogs. This is something that should be expanded and I express my sympathy with the Minister that he has not so far been able to give us good news.
The technical assistance grants are good and we would like to see them developed. In general, apart from the Minister's despicable behaviour in relation to the change in the industrial adaptation grants, we welcome this National Productivity Year and we assure the Minister that we will give him every co-operation, as we have always done, in every effort to create a new job or to defend an old one. I may say in passing that it was in 1956 that the Industrial Grants Act and the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act were passed and this was the first step towards the expansion of our industrial base. This was the first effort, made by Deputy Sweetman and the late Deputy William Norton, to get away from the supply basis and it was the first realisation that exports must be our main gambit. I find the conversion of Fianna Fáil to that policy welcome, if belated.
I am sorry that in this Supplementary Estimate there is no sign of any acceleration of the establishment of industrial estates such as those now being built in Limerick and Galway. It is evident that Fianna Fáil are shirking the decision on where they should be located and the ignoring of Sligo, the gateway of the West, in this connection is absolutely ludicrous. The time for decisions is passing and the loss to the people of the West is considerable indeed. I do not wish to deal with any further items in this Estimate except to say that we have no objection to it and that we realise that, under certain subheads, considerable benefits will accrue to Irish industry.
I will begin by saying on behalf of the Labour Party that we welcome this Estimate and personally I welcome it because the Castlecomer Collieries are specifically mentioned in it. I want to stress again the importance of continuing financial aid to this area and to press for a long-term policy in relation to the Castlecomer mines. The assistance being given at the moment is very welcome but it is of a piecemeal kind and leaves the future of the mines in doubt. The sooner the Minister tackles this problem of making a long-term decision, possibly over a period of ten years or longer, the greater will be his help towards the success of the undertaking.
There are some difficulties at present and one of these is due to the manpower situation. This, I think, is due to the uncertainty of the future and to the piecemeal nature of the assistance being given up to the present. While saying that, I want to stress the importance of keeping up that assistance. It is providing employment in an area that needs employment; it is helping a worthwhile national undertaking, because, this is an industry that should not be allowed to die out in any circumstances. If work should cease for any period of time, we all know that the reopening of the mines would be both difficult and costly. We hope that in the not too distant future the Minister will decide on a long-term policy. If that is done, it will increase the flow of manpower to the mines and make for greater confidence in the future.
I want to refer to one or two other items in the Estimate, the first being the increase to Córas Tráchtála, which the Minister points out is due to the devaluation of the pound. This increase covers the amount that has been lost in the previous Estimate due to devaluation, but I think something extra should be provided for Córas Tráchtála in order that they can take advantage of devaluation. There are spheres in which advantage of devaluation can and should be taken and it would be a good investment to increase the aid in those particular spheres.
The fact that we are still assisting industry which was affected by the British import levy is an indication of the serious and widespread effect which that levy had on certain industries.
I want to welcome the announcement of the National Productivity Year and to wish it every success. It is most important that it should be successful. I interpret what the Minister said regarding the National Productivity Year as a very alarming warning to Irish industry. He said:
The need for more widespread and more radical adaptation in many firms is unquestioned in the face of the highly competitive conditions which firms here will have to meet for the first time.
Further on, he says:
All but a few such firms have been selling on a protected home market and this was not conducive to the development of such expertise. At the same time significant new marketing techniques were being developed abroad which were giving marketing a new and critical importance for industry. Irish firms must quickly catch up in this area.
The part of his statement I want to refer to is where he says we must catch up. That is a confession on the part of the Government that Irish industry is behind. I hope the National Productivity Year, with the co-operation of management and labour, will be a success. I notice in all such undertakings that it is those who need the exercise least who partake in them the most. Those who need the exercise do not avail themselves of it. Some more compelling method should be used to induce those firms who go their own way and take little notice of efforts such as this to participate. In the long run, it is the employees of those industries who suffer. Some firms I know are very slow to shake themselves and take part in exercises of this kind. They are afraid of change and of new ideas. When the crunch comes, they will just go into liquidation and the workers will be thrown on the scrapheap. A way should be devised to get those who choose to ignore such proposals to participate in them.
In conclusion, I welcome the assistance being given to Castlecomer and appeal for a long-term plan for the area as soon as possible.
There are only two things in regard to the Supplementary Estimate on which I want particularly to dwell. I am afraid that this is another stunt. The first Programme for Economic Expansion and the Second Programme broke up and we heard no more about them. Now we are to have a National Productivity Year. That would be a very useful exercise if it had regard to realities. I want to suggest to the House that we are far too much given to publicity exercises which have no regard to realities at all. There are two realities relative to increased productivity in this country, both of which this Government firmly turns their back upon. One was referred to by Deputy Donegan—inflation. I am not going to go into a long discourse on the subject of inflation at this time, but increased productivity at increased production costs is a complete illusion. If we allow the costs of production to rise, as they are bound to rise in sustained inflation, we have as much chance of maintaining increased productivity as a snowball has of growing in volume in the Sahara Desert. Fianna Fáil do not want to face realities. They have become obsessed with this detestable system of gimmickry in Government. Gimmickry is the exact opposite of realism.
The second thing Fianna Fáil turn their back on is the new world into which we are moving. There was recently published an article in a monthly review called Encounter dealing with what I think they called the “autonomic age”. They were inventing a new word. In more familiar language, it is the cybernetic age. I think the use of the word “cybernetic” causes the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries some dismay in that he thinks that is an extravagantly novel expression. If this National Productivity Year induced industry, the trade union movement and the Government to go out and familiarise themselves with what is happening in the world and what that means for industrial development here, then this National Productivity Year would be of some value to the country.
I see us engaging in what are for us extremely expensive investments in the establishment of industries that are operating, are planned to operate and are being equipped to operate by methods which were obsolete 20 years ago, methods which were obsolescent before the last World War. If representatives of industry and trades unions and Córas Tráchtála and An Foras Tionscal would go and see the extent to which automation has taken over whole areas of industry and completely revolutionised the whole concept of its organisation, then we in this country would be equipped to concentrate on promotional activities in areas where there was a real prospect of survival and expansion, but for us to be establishing small units of automated industry and thinking in world terms is to bring on ourselves a double catastrophe.
The first is that we waste what is for us, a relatively poor country, a very large capital investment because we are investing in something foredoomed to uneconomic operation and therefore foredoomed to exclusion from the export market. What is even worse is that we draw into such industrial units a whole lot of young men whom we then proceed to train in utterly obsolete procedure for which there is no demand. When the pressure of the highly developed industries of the world destroys the obsolescent unit we have instituted here, it is not merely a question of a loss of capital. There is the appalling social problem of the redundant men who have invested ten, 15 or 20 years of their lives learning skills which were obsolete before they started to learn them.
We have seen certain cases happen in this country in the recent past. That is nothing to what is likely to happen in the next 20 years if we do not face facts now. What I am trying to bring home to the Minister for Industry and Commerce is that the first essential thing to do in a fresh effort for productivity is to take the long view and make up our minds that there are certain branches in industrial activities which require such vast units in order to permit of their being equipped to function efficiently that they are too big for us to attempt to establish here.
I refer particularly to heavy industry. Deputy Corish will remember this incident well and I make no apology for reminding the House of it. He and I were guests of the Federal German Republic which is by no means the most sophisticated industrial country in the world to-day and we visited a large iron foundry outside Cologne. It was in Dusseldorf. It consisted of four blocks. In the first block, 300 men were working making steel pipes. In the second block 300 men were working making steel pipes and there were 300 men working in the third block making steel pipes. Those pipes were intended to be furnished to the line running from Marseilles to the Rhine to carry Algerian oil. Then we went into a fourth block which was also producing the same pipes and, in the fourth block, there were 14 men working on a thing like a huge organ console.
The Deputy has a great memory.
It stopped me in my tracks. Iron was going in at one end, being melted down and converted into steel. It went straight through this long block with 14 men operating the controls on separate consoles and came out at the other end as 40 foot lengths of piping. Water was pumped through them looking for flaws. They were put on one side if there was a flaw and passed to the production line if there was no flaw.
I remember saying to the general manager of that great iron foundry: "If you can do this operation of making these pipes with 14 men, why are you keeping the three other units which have 300 men doing the same job?" He said: "This is the secret, Mr. Dillon. So long as I have a customer waiting for each length of pipe that comes out, this unit in which you are standing is economic. I have no storage place for 40 foot lengths of pipe of this gauge. They must go straight to the point of consumption from the factory outlet. If we had to stop this unit here, which has recently been built by an American firm, I would lose in a week more than the profit I make on a month's operation." I said: "What about the other three where you have 300 men in each?" He said: "That is quite different. Supposing I were notified in the morning that there was no market for my pipes, all the men in the other places are experienced old warriors who have been in the metal industry all their lives. I could get a contract from the German railways to repair their rolling stock, or I could do 40 jobs. All those men in the other workshops are highly versatile and could switch over to alternative employment, but the block in which you are standing makes pipes and nothing else but pipes."
What I am trying to bring home to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is not here, to the Government, the trade union movement, and the employers, is that there are vast spheres in industry now in the United States of America where cybernetics have advanced a generation beyond Europe, which are operating now entirely on the basis of cybernetics and automated control where there is no employment for what we used to call semi-skilled craftsmen. I am not talking about unskilled labour; I am talking about semi-skilled craftsmen. Machines will wipe them out but, if you segregate these areas of industry which are subject to that kind of development, there remain areas of specialised skilled industry where human skills still count. It is in those areas that we should seek to expand. It is in those areas that we should seek to build up the skills which machines cannot as yet supplant. It is in those areas we should get increased productivity in the certainty that our markets will not be swept away by the economies of automation abroad and that even if for some other reason, a particular enterprise here ceases to function, we can rest assured that the men we have induced into it will have skills which are valuable and saleable anywhere in the world.
I shall not expand further on this Supplementary Estimate, save to emphasise that this special aspect of the problem of increased productivity is possible, and desirable, socially and economically, if it is done in the right way, in an atmosphere of realism and ecletic procedure, choosing those areas of industry where we can reasonably contemplate a reasonable degree of continuity but it can be attended by nothing but disaster if we pour vast sums of money—vast in our context, considering our resources—into the development of industries which were obsolete before we began to build them. That would be economically and socially wrong because it would invite good men to invest something infinitely more precious than capital, that is, their lives, the formative period of their lives from 18 to 35, in the acquisition of skills and expertise which intelligent foresight should warn us are going to be worthless in the middle age of the men who have acquired them.
That is the cruellest thing that could possibly be done. We are in a peculiar position in that regard. Here industry is very largely directed, controlled and oriented by Government policy and therefore fellows entering it enter with a sort of belief that there is a guarantee from the Government that it will pro vide permanence and security. Therefore, we have a very special responsibility not to mislead those who are investing that which is more precious than money, to persuade them to invest their lives in this type of industry which automation and cybernetics and the new industrial society is not certain to extinguish in the early future and do all we can to develop that. But let us not throw our resources away in promoting industry foredoomed to failure in the long run. That and inflation are the two observations I want to make in regard to this Supplementary Estimate and, without much hope, I cherish the dream that some day some Minister for Industry and Commerce may have the intelligence and the courage to take cognisance of what I have said.
I thought at the beginning that Deputy Dillon was going to prove that the National Productivity Year would be a failure, but I was interested in the point he made about the increase in automation in major industries abroad, with particular reference to development here. If I understood him correctly, the word "cybernetics" was indeed the Siberia for our industries in Ireland but he should and must have regard to the many industries here which are dependent—they are small, I admit— more or less on the great skills of our workers and in respect of which automation, if it comes, will not mean a lot. In many countries where automation has taken over, smaller industries have survived and become viable in the face of increasing markets for articles produced, as we used say, on a mass production line. We should not regard Deputy Dillon's warnings of doom around the corner as a great threat to many of our existing industries. Many of those that have grown up in recent years such as Waterford cut glass——
How could automation make Waterford glass? Is that not an ideal industry?
I did not interrupt the Deputy, but if I heard him aright, he was citing developments in industries which he had seen in Essen and Dusseldorf when he and Deputy Corish were conducted on a tour of continental industries——
And it was not steak knives they were producing.
These were the types of industry where an animal goes in at one end and comes out as a sausage at the other. We have industries here that have been set up in the past 30 years and we cannot throw them to the winds now. We must gear them to meet the competition that will come out of our joining or going into Europe and our duty is to look after these industries and, in particular, the men who work in them.
Many of these industries will not feel the cold wind of automation but they will have to gear themselves to the realities of what entry into Europe means, increased competition, more productivity and the future welfare of workers if they are to be retained in employment. For that reason the Minister, in his introductory speech, rightly referred to the National Productivity Year. I welcome this year because I think it should bring home to workers and everybody concerned the absolute necessity for them to gear themselves to meet this challenge which will come. If our country is to make economic progress, we must be ready to face reality.
Hear, hear.
Automation will not come as quickly as Deputy Dillon has said in regard to many of our industries. Automation, as I have read about it, has taken place in Detroit where motorcars, heavy machinery and all the rest are mass-produced. I admit that there are some factories that will be affected by automation but there are many more that will not; there are many more industries that will either survive or die, having regard to the productivity of the workers concerned in them. We must put these people on the alert. There is no better way of putting them on the alert than by the introduction of a National Productivity Year.
The Minister has said that we must persuade Irish industry to prepare for freer trading conditions and must secure much greater involvement at individual and local level by all whose interests are vitally affected. If automation comes, it can have a profound effect on a small country like this and, if it has to come, we all hope it will not come to the degree that we expect. Surely, Deputy Dillon should have some regard to the size of the country we are living in? It is not the United States of America; it is not the industrial Rhineland of Germany. We must have regard to the country concerned— our own country.
I do not think Deputy Carty was listening to what I was saying.
I listened most attentively. I did not believe a word.
The Deputy did not apply his intelligence to the argument.
I got the feel of Deputy Dillon's argument but, in my view, it did not apply to this country to the degree that he would have us believe. I welcome the Minister's statement to the effect that more grants will be provided for mining exploration. I think that refers particularly to coal. He did mention the Castlecomer Collieries.
Only.
Few people have any idea of the vast amount of money involved in mining. I come from the Tynagh area where mining has been a great boon. As far as I can understand from the Minister's statement, grants will be made available to persons engaged in private mining exploration and these grants will be repayable at a later stage, if the mine succeeds, by way of royalties. I should like to know whether this will apply to private individuals exploring for lead, zinc and all the other minerals that, luckily enough, have been found in Galway, Tipperary and other parts in the West and Midlands because many of us thought that when persons engaged in drilling and mining they had to take the loss themselves. They succeeded in finding minerals more often than not.
An average of one in 17.
There is a big tolerance.
That is becoming a popular word lately with Fianna Fáil.
Of course, Deputy Carty thinks that they should find minerals every time.
I do not know if Deputy Coughlan could tell me whether he hits the jackpot more often than once in 17. I am delighted to know that some consideration is given to those who spend their own money in exploratory work of that kind, whose only chance of success is to find something which they are able to sell commercially.
I notice that Córas Tráchtála are being helped and that the extra money required is due to the fact that many of their employees are working abroad and costs have increased because of the devaluation of the £. I feel sure that none of us will deprive the Department of Industry and Commerce of the money required. Unlike some Deputies who have spoken, I welcome the National Productivity Year and hope it will secure, as the Minister says, greater involvement at individual and local level by all those whose interests are vitally affected.
We are asked here for £92,000 for expenses in connection with the National Productivity Year. May I ask the Minister if it is the intention to engage in this sort of activity for a year only? This seems to me a very puny effort and one which, while it could be regarded as being late, may not be too late. The Minister and other Members of the House must recall that when considering not alone the Second Programme but the First Programme for Economic Expansion we asked from these benches that there would be greater consultation between management and labour so that both sides would know exactly what they were at.
In my view, the reason for the failure of the First and particularly of the Second Programme was that there was not sufficient consultation. While Ministers, civil servants and economists could read and understand the Second Programme, the person vitally concerned, the man on the shop floor, was not consulted in any way whatsoever. That is the reason for the failure of the Second Programme to a very large extent.
If there is going to be only a year's effort, the £92,000 will be completely wasted. It is a bit late in the day to be introducing this sort of proposal, while, on the other hand, it is welcome. Whether or not we are going into an area of free trade, this sort of activity is necessary. This was stressed by members of the Labour Party five, six and seven years ago. There is no use in management knowing what the plan is or their being conversant with the Second Programme; as long as workers and trade unions did not and do not know what is expected of them, a programme cannot succeed in respect of the entire country or in respect of an individual industry.
It is a sad admission by the Government that their efforts to get Irish industries to gear themselves for free trade have not been a success. We never believed that the Government's aids to industry and their exhortations to industrialists to re-adapt and fit themselves for free trade would be a success. There is no use in saying, "There is money available for you. If you like, you can take it up." There is no use in ministerial speeches, as has been proved.
I have here a most revealing document, which can be said to be objective, produced in the last week by the Federation of Irish Industries under the title of "Challenge". The Minister must recognise that there is in it a great deal of sound commonsense that, again, let me say, was spoken from these benches when we were discussing free trade and the Second Programme. Of course, there must be consultation. I do not say that this has been deliberately avoided, but no real effort has been made to ensure that this consultation will take place in the cities and the towns and in the factories right down to the ground floor. The objectives and the plans for the Third Programme, whenever we get it, must be made well known and understood by both management and labour.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce should utilise to a greater extent and to greater effect the National Industrial and Economic Council. In my view, this has been an excellent body. It has produced excellent reports and recommendations some of which have been acted upon by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and others of which have been completely ignored. If we are to get greater productivity, if we are to adapt ourselves to free trade, whether it is in Europe or elsewhere, the National Industrial and Economic Council must come more and more into the picture. I do not think industry should, as it does now, work in isolation. There should be a national plan in the matter of production, whether it is this commodity, that commodity or the other commodity, and we should not have this mad scramble. Each section of industry, in consultation with the Government, should decide what it can do and find out what is expected of it in so far as the national economy is concerned. This national plan would ensure that there would be the utmost production, in accordance with our requirements, from each and every individual in the country.
There should be much greater consultation than there is, therefore, between the Government and the National Industrial and Economic Council and industry itself. Each industry should know what is expected of it and should know what assistance it would receive in carrying out the plans. It should also be known to them what new measures would be taken in the event of these expansion targets not being reached.
I have listened for a number of years to talk about aids to industry which, I may say, have in the majority of cases been pretty generous. Unfortunately they have not been taken up by certain industries. The greatest assistance seems to be afforded to new industries about to be set up with the assistance of foreign capital, and far too little attention has been given to the old-established industries that did not and could not qualify for State assistance. There has to be a reappraisal of the condition of these industries and there should be proposals from the Government to ensure that they will be assisted, if not to the same extent, as newly-established industries, at least to a greater extent than they are being assisted.
The Government plan seems to be that certain selected areas will be marked out for industrial development. That is all right as far as these areas are concerned, but I do not think you can afford to ignore small towns with populations ranging from 1,500 up to about 16,000. We must have regard not alone to the actual industries in these towns but to the public amenities that are there: houses, schools, hospitals, churches, streets, lighting, water and sewerage. These are things we cannot afford to waste. These are things to which we must have regard when we think about the establishment and development of industry. We are only creating trouble for ourselves if we establish industry in isolated places, knowing that the community will have to provide houses, schools, hospitals and the different other amenities that are available in the towns at the present time.
I welcome the idea of a National Productivity campaign, but I am sure the Minister does not mean that it will obtain for a year only. By that time the idea of consultation will only have seeped through to management and possibly to workers as well. All too seldom have we any sort of consultation between management and labour. In the main, the only time we have consultation is when there is a dispute between management and labour, when there is a demand for a wage increase, for a shortening of hours or when somebody is sacked.
If our industries are to progress as the Minister would have them progress and as the Government envisage that they should, consultation is essential. This consultation should have been encouraged by the Government long ago. Management have always been reluctant to let workers know what their plans are as far as industry is concerned. In many cases the only intimation workers have that the industry is not going well is, perhaps, when they get 24 hours notice that they are going to be sacked. If this National Productivity campaign will do the job of getting workers and management together for their mutual interest, then it will be a very good thing, but I am doubtful if it can get off the ground within the year which, according to his opening address, is now proposed by the Minister.
First of all, I should like to apologise to the House for being unable to be present for all of the debate as I was engaged in the other House. I got some notes of the points that were made and I will endeavour to deal with them as well as I can in the circumstances.
Perhaps I might begin at the end in regard to the point made by Deputy Corish on the National Productivity Year. The position is, of course, that for a very long time efforts have been made in various directions and, in particular, through the Irish National Productivity Committee, to raise our standards of productivity. These efforts will continue during the National Productivity Year and thereafter. There is no question of our losing interest in productivity at the end of the National Productivity Year. Rather is it intended to lay particular emphasis on the aspects of national productivity with which the economy may be concerned, to highlight the problems and some of the solutions, we hope, and thereby, through spreading a little knowledge and awareness of the problems and the possible solutions, ensure that we as a nation will do better in this field.
Deputies will have noticed from the introduction of this Supplementary Estimate that it is intended that the National Productivity Year should lay particular stress on two things: adaptation to meet free trading conditions and marketing strategy. These are very important matters to us at the present time. It will be realised that, in the nature of things and having regard to the manner in which our industries have been built up, largely in a protected home market, our industry has tended to be production-orientated rather than market-orientated.
Talking of the National Productivity Year does not mean that we are concerned merely with production; in fact, for many of our industries marketing is a much greater problem than production. This is in the context of their selling on the export market and it is intended to highlight the problems and, as I say, the solutions with which we should be concerned during the course of the National Productivity Year.
Some Deputies may be mistaken, in particular Deputy Corish judging by something he said, in regard to the progress of adaptation. When I talk about adaptation. I do not mean physical adaptation only, because there is a great deal more to it than that, but physical adaptation is the first stage which must be tackeld. In that connection, while nobody is satisfied with what has been achieved, nevertheless we should not underestimate what has been achieved because, on foot of grants approved by An Foras Tionscal for adaptation, there is a commitment to pay almost £70 million between grants and contributions from industry itself towards physical adaptation. This is a very substantial sum and represents a very great effort at physical adaptation in many sectors of industry. Let me repeat that this does not mean that I am satisfied with the level we have achieved, and nobody should be satisfied with it, but because we are not satisfied we should not run away with the idea that nothing has been achieved.
Furthermore, this scheme of adaptation grants applied to existing industry and of course was almost exclusively used by, and available to, native industry. It is important that it should be realised that, while we have been offering attractions and inducements to foreign industry, the same attractions and inducements were available to home industry. In addition, we had these adaptation grants and we have, further, the new scheme for re-equipment grants which I announced recently, at 25 per cent in most of the country and 35 per cent in the undeveloped areas. This will apply again to existing industries which are reequipping themselves. It should be clear therefore that there is no question of ignoring native industries.
Perhaps I might also comment, when I am talking about the re-equipment grants, on the point raised about the manner in which I announced those grants. I announced them at a public meeting organised by a Fianna Fáil cumann in my constituency. That meeting had been arranged a long time ago for the last day of February and the schemes which I announced were coming into operation on the following day, March 1st. I understand that exception was taken to the fact that I made the announcement at a function organised by a Fianna Fáil cumann and I have seen some press comment on this.
I want to make it clear, first of all, that anyone who says that Ministers should make announcements of these schemes in the Dáil, and who implies that Ministers should not make these announcements anywhere else, is either unaware of the procedure of the House or is deliberately suppressing his knowledge of that procedure in order to create a certain impression.
As you know, Sir, it is not feasible for Ministers to make announcements of this nature in the Dáil unless there happens to be a coinciding of the time when the announcement can be made with a suitable opportunity under the procedure of the House. Therefore the suggestion that Ministers are in some way remiss in not availing of Dáil Éireann to make these announcements is based either on ignorance or on an attempt to mislead. Secondly, criticism was made that on the same day on which I made this announcement, I attended a function organised by the Federation of Irish Industries and that this would have been a suitable occasion for me to make the announcement. It is true I did attend such a function. That function was organised by the Federation to publicise through the communications media the booklet which they have just issued and which was referred to by Deputy Corish, arising out of their study of free trade conditions—a very valuable document, I may say—but anybody who knows anything about these things will appreciate that the Federation of Irish Industries would not have thanked me if on that occasion I made the announcement which I made later that day because it would have served only to distract attention from the message they were trying to put across. My attendance was designed to assist them and not to confuse the issue.
Thirdly, I want to say that I get the impression that people who object to an announcement such as I made being made at a function organised by a Fianna Fáil unit would not object if the announcement were made to a chamber of commerce or some similar body. I have no objection to chambers of commerce and, in fact, I attend many of their meetings, annual dinners and so on, but I want to say that, as far as I am concerned, Fianna Fáil supporters and Fianna Fáil members are not lepers in this country and have as much right as any other body to be treated with courtesy and to be treated in the same way as other bodies.
If such announcements as I have referred to can be made at these bodies without objection, it seems to me there should not be any objection to an announcement being made in the manner in which I made it. I do not say that all such announcements should be made at functions organised by Fianna Fáil groups. Indeed, we all know there are not so many and, in fact, they are fairly rare, but when they occur, it strikes me that there is something in the nature or the mentality of those who object which suggests that Fianna Fáil people are people apart and not to be treated in the same way as other citizens. The fact that they are roughly half the voting population should of itself give the lie to that, apart from their inherent rights as citizens.
A question was raised about the saving in the subhead for the capital provided for An Foras Tionscal. The fact is that An Foras Tionscal find it difficult to estimate accurately their requirements in respect of grants because so many factors arise which are outside their control. It depends on the speed at which the firms involved proceed with their schemes and this in turn depends on such factors as the acquisition of sites, the building of factories, the rate at which they are built, weather conditions and other matters which can arise and which are outside the control of An Foras Tionscal who pay the money when the work is done. Therefore, for them to estimate beyond two or three months with any great degree of accuracy is impossible. The reduction here is not so much a reduction as an error in estimation.
Deputy Pattison referred to Castlecomer Collieries and wanted a long term decision on them. He criticised what he thought was a piecemeal approach to the help being given there. I would agree with him in principle but the matter is not as simple as it may appear. I would hope that it will be possible shortly to make some long-term decision on this. I should say, I think, that the difficulty lies in establishing that the mine will be economically viable in the long term. This question is being examined. The fact cannot be ignored that the hopes held out when previous subventions were made by this House have not been realised. I do not think I should disguise that. The long-term viability of this mine is certainly open to question and the position is being studied closely.
Deputy Pattison felt more money should be provided for Córas Tráchtála to enable our exporters to reap the benefits of devaluation. With this Supplementary Estimate, Córas Tráchtála will, in fact, have £132,000 more in 1967-68 than in the previous year.
I understand Deputy Dillon complained that the Government are promoting industries which are using obsolete methods and ignoring automation. I should say that some of the acknowledged leaders in industry——
That is a slight over-simplification of what I, in fact, said.
I have no doubt it would be impossible to paraphrase a speech by Deputy Dillon, but, without wishing to misrepresent him in any way, I understand this was the gist of one of his criticisms. If that is correct, I want to point out that some of the acknowledged leaders in industry in the field of automation have, in fact, set up in Ireland and all Irish industries are being encouraged by technical assistance grants to employ consultants in all the latest techniques suitable for their particular industry. The Government, as the House knows, pays half the cost of engaging these consultants. When they recommend schemes grants are made available towards the cost of implementing the schemes for the improvement of the performances of the industry concerned which, in many cases, means the use of the most up-to-date methods, techniques and machinery. In addition, the Government is itself employing American consultants of acknowledged eminence to advise on the types of industry that can be successfully established here and that can compete in an automated world.
We should remember that one of the great advantages we have as a location for industry is our manpower and automation might not, therefore, be quite so important as yet here as it would be in a country short of labour. I want to stress that the objective we have in encouraging industry of any kind, whether it be the establishment of new industry or the adaptation of existing industry, is to ensure that those industries are established which are designed to give the maximum employment consistent with their viability in free trade conditions. That means that, apart from the special cases of industries which can exist in free trade conditions with very little competition, the others have to be competitive and have, therefore, to be as well equipped and as well managed as their competitors.
I am sorry if I have omitted replying to any important points made in the debate but, to the best of my ability, I have dealt with the points of which I am aware.
With your permission, Sir, may I ask the Minister a question?
If the Minister will answer it.
I wonder does the Minister intend to introduce a supplementary Budget in view of the promises that have been made and the anticipation that exists in Limerick city with regard to the inclusion of Limerick in the Shannon Industrial Estate as a result of the statements made by the Minister for Education. Will that necessarily mean that another Supplementary Estimate will be introduced for that purpose?
I do not know to what Deputy Coughlan is referring. I do not understand his question.
Oh!
It has been reported in the daily papers and the Minister received a deputation last week in connection with the matter and that deputation went home under the impression that everything would be all right and that Limerick had more than a 75 per cent chance of inclusion in the industrial area.
That is not what I did not understand. What I did not understand was the Deputy's reference to a supplementary Budget. I do not see how that arises.
If money is needed, as I am sure it will be, for this development, will the Minister come along with a supplementary Budget? We would welcome it.
I do not think the Deputy need worry unduly on that score.
May I ask the Minister why, since he had an opportunity of discussing the changes in the adaptation grants in relation to the National Productivity Year, he mentioned them instead at a meeting of a Fianna Fáil cumann last Thursday night and why it is the Opposition spokesman on Industry and Commerce has to read that in one newspaper and fail to find it repeated in any other newspaper? This is a grave discourtesy to the House.
I am not responsible for anything that appears in newspapers. I have already dealt with this and, if the Deputy cares to look up the report, and wishes to check on it again, I will be glad.
No matter what the Minister says, it was a grave discourtesy.
He felt he was justified in announcing a new departure in Government policy at a Fianna Fáil cumann and he seemed quite at a loss to understand why anybody queried that procedure. Might I ask him has he adverted to the fact that, in an ordinary democratic society, the purpose of Parliament is to enable Ministers of the Government to make statements of policy in that Parliament so that they can be commented upon by other public representatives at the time of the announcement thereby informing fully the public at large of the significance of the change? That is why people object to obiter dicta on new matters of policy at meetings of a political organisation where comment of an inquiring character is not ordinarily to be expected.
Deputy Dillon heard what I had to say and I do not think he would dispute the accuracy of what I said about the procedure of the House. I am sure that, as a Minister, he himself often found this was so and that he did on occasions announce policy in places other than Dáil Éireann, for very good reasons. I am sure he recalls the fact that the Taoiseach of the Government of which he was a member made a very important announcement in Ottawa.
I wonder would it not have been more ethical for the Minister to have called a press conference and made his announcement there, instead of running out to Baldayle, or Clontarf, or whatever it was.
I can say it to a chamber of commerce, or to anybody you care to think of, but not to Fianna Fáil people. They are lepers.
The Minister is putting the Fianna Fáil people in a privileged position.
This is the right place in which to say it.
Surely courtesy demands that the Minister should give the main Opposition Party and the second Opposition Party an opportunity of hearing what changes are being made? The Minister's action was disgraceful.
How would the Deputy suggest it should be done?
At least the Minister could give us the details if he was going to give them to the cumann.
Did the Minister not have a Supplementary Estimate here later?
It does not cover that.
