Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 11 Jul 1975

Vol. 283 No. 8

Vote 41: Industry and Commerce.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Keating)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £6,332,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1975, 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 certain subsidies and sundry grants-in-aid.

This Supplementary Estimate is necessary mainly to enable payment to be made of the subsidies on bread and also on flour and wheatenmeal which the Minister for Finance announced in his financial statement on 26th June, 1975. I am also availing of this opportunity to include the provision of additional funds for some services under my Department's Vote—for the "Buy Irish" campaign, for science and technology, for the shipbuilding subsidy payable to Verolme Cork Dockyard Limited and for post office services, the excess expenditure on which it would not have been possible to have foreseen when the original estimates were in the course of preparation.

The amount needed under the heading of Post Office services is small—£12,000. The need for this increase arises because of increased telephone postal charges since the Estimate was prepared but apart from the price increases per se there was also an extension of service in relation to the priceline mechanism whereby offices were set up in a number of parts of the country as well as in Dublin where people could obtain immediate information in regard to the whole area of prices and in regard to the courses of action open to them.

Regarding the shipbuilding subsidy, the original Estimate was for £50,000 but there is an increase sought of £20,000. This is a subsidy which is payable to the Verolme Cork Dockyard. The reason for this increase is that there had been a contract at fixed charge but because of rapidly escalating costs there was a loss on this contract. The object of the subsidy is to reduce that loss. In this instance the loss on the vessel in question was greater than the subsidy but the excess of loss is being carried by the company.

Under subhead P, the original Estimate was £40,000, whereas the revised estimate is £100,000 so that an additional sum of £60,000 is required. This relates to the funding of the National Development Association in connection with the cost of the "Buy Irish" campaign. The continuing decline in the share of the Irish market which is being accounted for by Irishmade goods during the past few years has been of considerable concern to the Government. If we recall the CIO Report of 1961, we will note that it was anticipated that as we moved out of an era of protection and into an era of free trade there would be a severe threat to the share of the home market which was enjoyed by certain industries in circumstances of protection. In 1972 the COIP Report indicated that in the ensuing time there were already the beginnings of the effects of the EFTA agreement and, consequently, that there was this threat to our home market. I do not think that the "Buy Irish" campaign is more than a small contribution to the solution of the whole problem but it is, nonetheless, a useful one. We are buying too large a percentage of goods emanating from outside this economy in substitution for goods which could be produced at home. I am not suggesting that the reasons for this are simple, and I do not propose to analyse them now, but it is a trend which has increased in recent years. It is a trend which is important for some of our more traditional and labour intensive industries.

The present difficult economic circumstances indicate that the largest possible share of total consumption should be met from indigenous production. Where Irish goods are available in many sectors and where jobs are at risk from competing imports it is important that we, as the slogan says: "Put our money where our jobs are." It is important that we purchase the largest possible percentage of Irish goods. We have had a number of campaigns in the past, some of them more successful than others—I am not criticising past efforts—but none of them have had a sustained success. It is important that we get a new campaign going which would genuinely look in depth not just at consumer outlets but at other purchasing sectors and at fundamental social attitudes. It was to get that message across to our society that I decided to set up the working group for the promotion and sale of Irish goods.

I recently accepted the recommendations of that working group. Of the number of recommendations the specific symbol to identify Irish quality goods is perhaps one of the more immediate and obvious ones. The promotion of information seminars and information communication of all kinds by lectures, the use of the media and the monitoring of market trends are also recommended. This trade and consumer service is useful. It is at present being operated at a scale by the National Development Association and it is proposed to extend that. There are other lines of activity about which I will not take up the time of the House by dealing with them now. The amount provided for the National Development Association for 1975 is £40,000. It is proposed to increase this amount by a further £60,000 to cover the new and intensified activities now being promoted by the working group.

In the matter of science and technology—subhead U—the increase is from £300,000 to £400,000. This has recently become the responsibility of my Department. In addition there is an extra £100,000 which has the function of maintaining the momentum of the university research grants and also the University Industry Co-operation Schemes. I attach particular importance to the latter. It is also to initiate co-ordinated programmes in the areas of marine science, energy, environment, scientific and technological information and biology health protection. If the House wishes I can give more information on this matter. In a time of difficulty it is a limited extra expenditure in the area of science and technology; I wish it was more.

I should now like to deal with the matter of subsidies. A subsidy will be payable on bread which is controlled in price at the equivalent of 5½p per 800 gm loaf. It will absorb an increase of 1½p per 800 gm loaf which had been applied for by the bakers some time ago and was recently approved by me. The overall result will be a reduction of 4p in the current retail cost of the standard 800 gm loaf, with pro rata adjustments on the other loaf sizes. The subsidy on flour will permit a reduction of 4½p per kilo at retail level in the price of flour and wheaten meal intended for domestic use.

The decision to limit the subsidy to bread which is subject to control under Maximum Prices Order, and to flour and wheaten meal for domestic use, was made in the interests of getting the maximum possible benefit to the consumer and to help to ensure that none of the funds being provided under this are diverted away from the prime intention for the subsidisation of either non-essential or luxury products. It is hoped to have both of these subsidies in operation and to have the price of bread and flour for domestic use reduced in about two weeks' time. Those subsidies, bread and wheaten meal, are under separate subheads, subheads W1 and W2.

The total amount of the increased expenditure is £6,442,000 but there is an offset of savings of £110,000 made up as follows: £80,000 in subhead I2 —Industrial Development Authority —Capital Expenditure; £20,000 in subhead J2—Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited grants to industrialists and £10,000 on subhead I1—administrative and general expenses for the Industrial Development Authority. When that £110,000 is deducted the net Supplementary Estimate runs out at £6,332,000. I commend this Supplementary Estimate to the House.

Mr. O'Malley

We have no objection to most if not all of the proposed increased expenditure in this Supplementary Estimate. However, the Chair will notice that there are two Supplementary Estimates for the Department of Industry and Commerce on the Order Paper and there is no differentiation between them. I understand that one of them is a £10 token estimate and the other is that which is under discussion. I take it that it is not open to us to discuss the £10 token estimate at present and that is unfortunate because the projects on which this additional money is being spent are limited in scope. At this time there are matters of tremendous importance taking place in relation to the whole sphere of industry and commerce. The development of natural resources is an obvious one, but there is also the important development yesterday in Brussels about which no official announcement was made. A decision was made at 5 p.m. yesterday, under the written procedure, by the Commission to give Ireland certain rights under Article 135 of the Accession Treaty.

Mr. Keating

I can inform the Deputy that I put out a statement at mid-day today.

Mr. O'Malley

I am glad to hear that although I have not seen the statement. These are matters of tremendous importance, much more so than the somewhat subsidiary matters which are dealt with in this limited supplementary estimate. The bulk of the estimate is devoted to bread and flour subsidies. It is worth recalling, as I did during the debate on the budget, the views of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and of his Parliamentary Secretary in relation to subsidies when these were suggested by members of my party some six months ago on a number of motions as a possible method of dealing with the appalling price increase situation which we have now and have had for some time past.

The suggestions in relation to subsidies were pooh-poohed by the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary. I quoted what they said in the course of my speech on the budget debate and I do not think it is necessary to quote them again, but they are there in the December debate on these matters.

We were told that in general the principle of subsidies was wrong because the taxpayer would have to pay for them in the long run. We have here—and these are only two items —subsidies that amount to something in excess of £6 million on bread and flour alone. One might well ask the Minister now: is the taxpayer paying for this? Apparently the answer is that he is not; this subsidy is being paid for by simply adding approximately £6 million to the deficit on the current budget. I would have thought arguments which the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary themselves put up in relation to subsidies some months ago would, if they were valid then, be equally valid now. Perhaps the Minister feels that the arguments against subsidies were valid six months ago when they were suggested from this side of the House, but for some reason there has been a change in the intervening time and subsidies are valid today.

I am not to be taken from this as criticising the fact of the subsidy because, as everyone is aware, they were suggested by this party in 1974, but it is a bit disturbing to find the actual position in relation to the prices of the various commodities which are now being subsidised. To take the one we are principally concerned with here, bread, the subsidy, we are told, would allow a reduction of 5½p in the price of a standard loaf of bread. On the very day, or possibly the day after that subsidy was announced, an increase of 1½p in the price of bread was approved by the Minister and that increase, I think, was one of those in the May report of the National Prices Commission, which was just published a day or two ago and which contained 19 pages of price increases, which, of course, are no longer published and the great majority of the public do not know what they are. The last 19 pages consisting of price increases authorised by the Minister included, for example, one in hospital charges which in some instances amount to 329 per cent. Therefore, before a subsidy has come into operation at all perhaps 30 per cent of it is eaten up in a price increase.

There is in this Prices Commission report a survey of the bakery industry which I read last night with some interest. It is not very hopeful about the future of that industry. It does not regard the industry as being a very well organised one. The figures it gives in relation to losses incurred by bakeries are disturbing, almost staggering. I wonder, in fact, that bakeries have been able to continue in existence over the past six months or so in the light of the figures disclosed here in the National Prices Commission report. I think it is fair to draw the conclusion from the report that the bakery industry is in very serious financial difficulty and the likelihood is that there will be further increases in the price of bread in order to try to keep these firms in existence. The subsidy of 5½p, of which we have already lost 1½p, will be completely eaten up, perhaps as soon as the end of this year, and the public will very quickly begin to forget that the subsidy was ever introduced.

We have had an example also in relation to the price of milk. There was a subsidy of 2p per pint announced with a fanfare of trumpets in the budget debate at the end of June, and we were told the price of milk would immediately be reduced from 8p to 6p per pint, and on 1st July a ministerial order was made listing the price of milk for the month of July at 8p per pint. I do not know whether the price would have been 10p if the subsidy had not been introduced, but certainly anybody who believed that there would be a reduction of 2p in the price of the pint of milk as a result of the budget announcement was very seriously misled. We fear that the same may be true not just in relation to bread and flour but in relation to various other commodities mentioned in the budget as being due for price reductions. One example of that was the proposal to take VAT off fuel, that is 6.75 per cent. Of course, on the very day it was taken off, 1st July, there was an increase of about 18 per cent in the price of turf briquettes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is straying from the subject matter of the Estimate before the House.

Mr. O'Malley

It is very hard when you are talking about subsidies to stick simply to bread and flour because I think the same principles apply to all of them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Unfortunately we are confined to it.

Mr. O'Malley

We are confined, Sir, in more than one way, unfortunately, these days. We are confined in time, scope and everything else. It is almost a privilege, I suppose, for an elected Member of this House to be able to stand up and speak on any topic that is given to him nowadays, that he is not guillotined out of existence. We have £6,500,000 additional public money being spent here. We are graciously given an hour-anda-half in which to discuss it apart from whatever time the Minister would use up in regard to it.

On the supplementary amount of £60,000 that is being given to the National Development Association for a "Buy Irish" campaign, I want to congratulate the Minister on the complete change of view and attitude he has now achieved in relation to this, because I recall, in particular, last year on an Estimate for this Department, Deputy Lalor making a very strong plea for a "Buy Irish" campaign that would have meaning and teeth. He was fobbed off at the time and told by the Minister that at the end of November they were bringing in a "Buy Irish" campaign which was well thought-out, well documented, well plotted and planned. What happened in the month of December so far as the "Buy Irish" campaign was concerned was only a bit of a joke. It lasted in a very half-hearted fashion for about ten days and came to an abrupt end. It never really existed as a campaign. Apparently it was given no money to carry out its functions and it had no option but to fold up. I think it is fair to say it did more harm than good in the way it was forced to collapse at such an early stage. I think the Minister at the time indicated his view that it was doubtful if the EEC would be keen on one country promoting its own goods at the expense of others. I do not know whether that is the view of the EEC but, if it is, it is not a view they are entitled to hold, because this country most certainly should be entitled to promote its own goods.

Mr. Keating

Could the Deputy give me a reference to my believing that? I do not accept that I said that. I said they were certainly things that you would have to look out for in a country trying to promote its own goods, but not all in the blanket way in which the Deputy has said it.

Mr. O'Malley

We on this side of the House find it impossible to understand why at a time when Irish industry was probably going through the most difficult period ever known since this country achieved its independence no effort should have been made by the Government until today to promote a "Buy Irish" campaign of any real value or worth at all. An enormous contribution could have been made to maintaining employment in this country if over the past few years when we needed it as never before there had been a genuine "Buy Irish" campaign. One of the reasons for the problems of the Irish footwear industry at the present time is that the proportion of the domestic market which is being supplied by imports is growing very rapidly each year. The footwear industry would not at all be in the terrible predicament it is in at the present moment if a campaign had been mounted over the past year or so, a genuine, serious campaign, to try to encourage people to buy Irish rather than imported products.

The figures are there to show the proportion of the home market being met by domestic production falling each year and falling most seriously in the last two years in particular. Unfortunately, nothing was done in regard to that or in regard to many forms of textile and clothing which are produced here but where the import figures continue to rise at a very serious and, indeed, alarming rate.

We get no details, unfortunately, in the speech of the Minister today about the form that this new "Buy Irish" campaign will take, but I hope that on this occasion, unlike the last occasion, it will be well planned, that it will be adequately financed and that it will be seen through over a reasonable period and not forced to collapse as it was after about 10 days or so on the last occasion.

It is worth while recalling and I quote, in fact, his reference in the House during the debate of last December, that the Minister for Industry and Commerce told the House that the December, 1974 campaign was well planned and well thought out and was going to be effective. In fact, it turned out to be a complete flop and a joke, as everyone knows.

I would suggest to the Minister and to the Working Group of the NDA who are involved in this that they might well consider endeavouring to promote this campaign this time on a regional rather than a national basis. To direct a campaign such as this simply from Dublin by one committee does not give it the local community impact which it should have and which it will need to have if it is to be successful. At least one full-time officer should be employed in each of the IDA regions, of which there are eight in the country, to promote at local level in co-operation with local businessmen and people who have a stake in the local community in each region a serious effort to persuade the public to buy Irish and to persuade the retail and wholesale outlets to push Irish products as a matter of national loyalty as much as anything else. Because, so serious has our economic situation become, with mounting imports of goods that can be and are being produced here but are not being purchased here, that it is becoming important for our very national survival that we make a serious conscious effort—all of us—to purchase Irish goods on every possible occasion that it is open to us to do it.

The Government should regard the purchase of domestically produced goods in lieu of imported goods as being on a par with exports, in fact, because in practice that is what the avoidance of imports by the purchase of Irish-made goods amounts to. Some scheme or system might well be worked out whereby some form of encouragement on the lines of the encouragement given to exporters will be given to those who would or could produce goods here that would otherwise have had to be imported.

I know that our home market is very small. Nonetheless, for a long time it was able to support a lot of industries in various sectors and to keep tens of thousands of people in employment many of whom in the last year or two either have lost their employment or are on short time or are in danger of losing their employment or are feeling insecure in their employment at the present time.

There is an additional figure of £100,000 made available for science and technology, and the Minister has stated that it would be used to initiate co-ordinated programmes in the areas of marine science, energy, environment, scientific and technological information and Biology Health Protection. This opens up a very important field of activity, in one of which I am afraid we have lagged behind to some extent over the past couple of years when it became evident that we have considerable national resources in our off-shore areas which hopefully we will be able to develop and exploit in the years to come.

The Minister in his announcement of the grant of exclusive prospecting and exploitation licences to a number of consortia in relation to off-shore oil and gas made it, and very properly so, a condition of the issue of some of these licences that funds would be made available for the training of Irish people in the various new sciences and technologies that are associated with the development of off-shore resources. It was not clear from the Minister's statement whether the training of Irish residents in these new sciences and technologies would take place in Irish universities or similar institutions or would take place abroad. I suppose in the very short term it will be necessary to send people abroad, but the Minister should use the sort of money mentioned here and the money that will become available from the various consortia to whom licences have been granted to endow various chairs in Irish universities and in institutes of higher technology in this country to make available the necessary training to the large number of Irish people who hopefully will be in a position to benefit from the developments of our off-shore resources.

It is hardly necessary to emphasise that this will have to be done very quickly, because we see now in various parts of the country, particularly in the Cork area, the beginnings of developments associated with off-shore development, the provision of services in and around Cork harbour for the developments that are taking place there and, hopefully, shortly there will be developments in other parts of the country in relation to this.

I would recommend very strongly to the Minister that he and the Government would ensure that the various supporting developments in relation to our off-shore resources which will have to be set up over the next few years will not be allowed to congregate, as it were, in one area. At the moment the indications are that Cork may well be the principal if not almost the sole place where all these developments seem to be taking place. That would be wrong for a variety of reasons, not the least of which would be the interests of Cork and the citizens of Cork city and county. In other countries there has been too much development in one place to the detriment of others. The Norwegians have endeavoured to spread this sort of development along their coasts and have tried to force companies to provide various on-shore facilities in parts of their country that are well north of where the great bulk of the population lives. Britain realised this rather later in the day than the Norwegians did, but efforts are now being made by them to prevent the congregation in one or two areas of all the development which is associated with off-shore exploration and exploitation of oil and gas.

I have in mind, in particular, several of the blocks which are being designated by the Minister in the licences given to some of the consortia recently, particularly blocks around the area of what is known as the Porcupine Bank, which is due west of Slyne Head. It is important that counties like Galway and Mayo should be in a position to provide the necessary on-shore facilities that will be needed when exploration and exploitation takes place in the area of those designated blocks.

So far as the ship building subsidy is concerned the amount is small and I am not aware of what contract it applies to. I certainly have no objection to it, because the Verolme dockyard in Cork has proved to be a very valuable industry in the Cork area. As I said, at the outset of my remarks, I regard it as unfortunate that the House is not allowed to discuss the matters of great importance which should be taking place at the moment in relation to the whole sphere of industry and commerce, in particular the efforts of the EEC to protect in some small way Irish industry and the most important thing of all, from the point of view of this country, the general development of our off-shore natural resources.

I hoped we would have had the opportunity to have a general debate on Industry and Commerce but unhappily that does not seem to be possible. The imposition of a guillotine at any time, as has so often been said, is a very serious matter, but to impose it in such a way that the discussion of such matters of tremendous national importance for us is either very much curtailed or else totally ruled out is highly unsatisfactory. At this time the sort of things we should be talking about, so far as Industry and Commerce are concerned, is what we will do in relation to oil and gas off-shore resources. We should be talking about the provision of infrastructure and training in relation to those matters, the social effects they will have on certain parts of the country, and what the long-term strategy should be in relation to the exploitation of these resources.

These are matters I would like to hear the Minister speaking on at some length. I would like to consider his remarks and make my own remarks. Unfortunately, we find that none of that is allowed. The time, available is a derisory period of one-and-a-half hours for this Supplementary Estimate, and because several more Deputies want to speak I will conclude my remarks.

Mr. F. O'Brien

I will be very brief. I welcome the additional money allocated for a "Buy Irish" campaign. It is necessary and desirable, as Deputy O'Malley pointed out, to get people to buy Irish goods. It is the same as controlling our imports. It is sad to think that we have to promote such a campaign. People should have enough pride in what is produced in the country without the Government having to spend large sums of money in promoting the purchase of Irish goods. This is probably a throw-back to the time when we had highly protected industries and some of them produced shoddy goods. People lost respect for the type of articles produced and this had a detrimental effect on Irish manufactured goods.

The sooner we get this campaign off the ground the better because of the position of unemployment. There are many ways in which to do this, but I believe in the long term we will have to highlight to our people that what is produced in the country is the best, that shoddy goods are not produced, and that Irish goods will stand up in competition with any we import. Irish people will then accept that what is produced in the country is first class. The more Irish goods we buy the more we can produce goods for export abroad. If there is a decline in the home market it is difficult to get into the export market.

It is important to examine the type of goods we are good at producing. We should then highlight the goods we have for sale and put a stamp on them so that they can stand up in comparison with imported goods. A highly organised and advertised "Buy Irish" campaign could have an effect on export markets because it is not a one-way situation. The Minister will have to look very carefully at this. If we organise a "Buy Irish" campaign, our competitors and our export markets might decide to operate a similar campaign, so that our campaign might prove in the long run to be unproductive. The soft approach in relation to the "Buy Irish" campaign might produce better results. If people buy more Irish goods and we lose our export markets the position for Irish industries will not have improved. The Minister should ensure that the campaign engaged in will not lead to our being regarded as a protectionist market. It might be more effective, as Deputy O'Malley pointed out, if it was done regionally rather than nationally.

We will have to ensure that the Irish are not a race of people who are not proud of the goods produced in the country. We will have to see what is the motivating factor of people who go in to buy goods and are annoyed when they find only Irish goods instead of ones with a Parisian, an English or some other tag on them. We should find out what is the motivating factor which makes them reject quality Irish produce against imported goods because they have continental or English tags on them. In the long term we have got to look at why Irish people select imported goods against quality Irish goods. In the short term we should get people to realise that if they do not buy Irish goods the jobs of everybody will be in jeopardy and their standard of living will also be in jeopardy. It is highly desirable, when we go shopping, that we look for Irish goods.

We often find that big cartels and supermarkets buy in at special prices and advertise foreign produced goods. In the confectionery line they push products from outside. There is not a lot we can do about this. If we take a walk around supermarkets we will find that these type of sales promotion schemes operate to the detriment of jobs in Ireland. I welcome a move towards the purchase of Irish goods but we should be careful that this has not the effect of losing export markets for us.

There is an additional sum of £100,000 provided for science and technology. This has been neglected over the years. We always have to look for outside help and outside agencies to promote geology and exploration. Is the sum provided enough? I feel it is only scratching the surface. We want to train people, equip them and give them expertise. If it means sending them out of the country we should do that quickly, because I believe we can do a better job if we have well-trained Irish engineers, Irish geologists and expertise in all spheres. It would be a more wholly Irish situation and we would be less in the hands of international cartels. We would emerge with our own expertise and companies competent to deal with any new finds of oil or gas.

I compliment the Minister on the amount of work he has put into ensuring we get the best deal possible in the exploitation of our natural resources in the short period in which he has been in office. We are an emerging industrial nation but we have not got either the capital or the expertise to develop industry. We must accept this and, if we do not, we are indulging in very woolly thinking indeed.

The environment will, of course, have to be monitored at all times to ensure that, as an emerging industrial nation, we plan well ahead and develop the right type of environment.

By and large, I am not in favour of subsidies because everybody benefits to the same extent. However, in the light of wage agreements certain incentives have to be given and subsidies are one of the ways of reducing the consumer price index. The are a positive way of bringing down prices. The subsidy on bread, the staple diet of many people, will prove a meaningful saving for them. Negotiating a new wages agreement will be another day's work.

With regard to the shipbuilding industry, the subsidy is a small one. It is desirable that we should encourage and develop this industry. An excellent job has been and is being done in Cork. Any help required should be forthcoming from the Government because of the employment content. If we can build our own ships, that will mean keeping money in the country instead of sending it out of the country.

This money is being well spent. I hope, in the next 12 months, we will see a slowing down in the inflationary rate. The money spent on the "Buy Irish" campaign will have the effect of creating more jobs and more job opportunities and I do not think anybody can quibble with the amount being asked for in this Supplementary Estimate. I compliment the Minister. I would like to have had an opportunity of speaking on the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce but, no doubt, we will have another opportunity. In the field of exploration and mineral development the Minister has done an excellent job. In years to come it will be seen he was the best Minister for Industry and Commerce we have had because he is a man of vision and of great national feeling. I am proud to serve behind him.

Mr. Moore

I am disappointed at the small reference the Minister made to the "Buy Irish" campaign. The Minister said that the working group will sponsor a specific identification symbol for good quality Irish goods. That is not new. About 60 years ago we had the symbol "Déanta in Éireann".

Mr. Keating

It was not persevered with.

Mr. Moore

I wonder will this be? I am sure the intentions are good and the working group will do their best but I suggest the Minister is going the wrong way about it. What is selling foreign goods here is very trendy television advertising. The people who supply British-made goods have the advantage of at least two television cameras beaming in very attractive advertisements. They are not always in the best of taste, but they sell the goods. There is nothing we can do about that. If other television channels are beamed into the one-channel area Irish goods will have to face much greater competition because of television advertising of foreign made goods, particularly British-made goods and, if television becomes so powerful in the future that continental stations can be beamed in here, then Irish-made goods will face even greater competition.

The working group would do well to try to interest the housewife in buying Irish goods. We men are a dead loss at this type of thing. When we have sufficient courage to insist on being sold Irish made goods the odds are against us. The shop assistant says the goods were made in Ireland and, when you ask where is the mark, the answer is: "It is not there but there is no foreign mark either." Women are much more persevering in their search for Irish-made goods. We should try to get the women, the trade unions and the people who work in factories to realise they have a duty to buy Irish.

I am told that the suppliers of foreign-made goods allow a greater profit margin than the profit margin on the Irish article. The profit margin allowed on one imported beverage is greater and traders are inclined to push it to the detriment of the homeproduced beverage. I do not know whether it was a feeling of nationalism which in the past prevailed on us to buy home-made goods but it is now a matter of economic survival that our people should buy goods manufactured here.

As Deputy O'Malley pointed out, the home market is very small but buying Irish would mean thousands of jobs saved for people who are now losing their jobs or in danger of losing them. I wish the Minister well in this drive though, from what he said in his statement, I do not think it has much hope of success.

When the Minister is deciding on price increase applications does he examine the profit margins? The method of fixing price controls at the moment may be very unfair to some firms. A good firm which is struggling may be allowed only a certain amount of an increase, whereas another firm, because more expert or long established, may be able to make do with a smaller increase. I am not against profit. I believe in private enterprise but some firms may be treated unfairly because they are not as sophisticated as other firms. If an increase is refused the particular firm may have to close while some of the multi-nationals can carry on with a lower price index.

Could we have a certain period of time in which there would be no increase in the price of basics like food and clothing? The Minister should say: "For X months there will be no increase." This would stop the perpetual increases day after day. I want to be fair. I know price control is very difficult. The other day I heard on a British radio programme that in one day the price of an article increased twice. I do not know whether that happens here, but at times it appears as if it does.

It is important that the Minister's price control system be a success, but I am afraid it is not being tackled in the best possible way and I am doubtful about its equity. Some home firms who might not be able to survive without a price increase are being penalised side by side with multinational firms who can afford to carry on.

I wish to support Deputy O'Malley's plea in regard to our gas and oil finds. I urge on the Minister to disperse around our coasts the spin-off services for these finds. I also suggest that we take Norway for our model instead of our nearer neighbours. They should be our project lesson. They have handled their finds in the best possible way and I suggest we follow their example.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is straying somewhat from the limited matter before the House.

Mr. Moore

I conclude by again supporting Deputy O'Malley in his plea in regard to the locations of our development in regard to our natural gas and oil finds which will be so very important to us in the coming years.

Mr. Timmons

I support our spokesman's approval for the suggestions in the Minister's opening remarks in regard to IDA efforts for the promotion of Irish goods. We have got to a stage in our society when we have seen the gradual elimination of certain Irish industries not alone in the country but in Dublin. A contributing factor is lack of leadership and positive promotional action by the Government. We have seen unemployment increasing week by week up to 103,000 and the projection is that it will increase to 130,000 in a couple of months. It seems to me the Government's efforts are belated when they suggest we should concentrate our efforts on buying Irish goods among the queues of thousands at our labour exchanges.

In the constituency I represent a number of industries were set up, many of them designed to attract female labour. With the living conditions that obtain today—domestic commitments and all that—many women had to go out to work parttime. They now find themselves out of work and in Dublin North-East there are many who find themselves with completely inadequate incomes. They were employed in Irish industries which served the home markets.

Is the Minister serious in suggesting that he will give only £60,000 more this year than he gave last year for promotional activities? In this document of his he said the National Development Association subvention of £75,000 is to be increased by £60,000. That is a completely inadequate sum in the present serious situation, which affects so many people.

Mr. Keating

It is for the remainder of the financial year.

Mr. Timmons

There is a frightening decline in old established industries in this city and throughout the country and the Government have stood by to see it happen. More positive and determined measures are needed to try to contain unemployment in our cities and towns. Increased efforts are needed in our endeavours to curtail the imports of shoddy materials in the form of clothes, shoes and other articles which are being sold in our shops. If a man seeks a box of matches, unless he specifies that he requires an Irish box of matches usually he finds himself lighting his cigarette with matches imported from Czechoslovakia. It is incumbent on the Government to generate conscience in regard to these matters. I hope the Minister will comment on that when he is replying.

Mr. Calleary

I am glad to see that after two-and-a-half years of price spiralling the Government have finally sought to honour in some way their famous 14-point programme before the last election. The subsidies announced by the Minister for Finance on various items are very welcome, especially by those on social welfare benefits. Today the Minister referred to the "Buy Irish" campaign. Possibly this is the best thing the Minister said in his speech because in this city at the moment there are a number of large sales in progress. I, with a number of my colleagues, went around a very big store not too far away from this House and we concluded that approximately 80 per cent of the goods on offer in that store were foreign-made, particularly in the clothing and shoe end. I tried in vain to get a suit which was made in Ireland, to get a shoe made in Ireland, except some that were not up to standard, to get socks which were made in Ireland. I came along to a rack and on that rack there were something like 200 suits all marked, maybe not with the identification symbol which the Minister mentioned but with a label "Quality Irish", and inside there was an English firm's name.

Frankly, I was disgusted. I do not mind having an English article offered but I hate that type of deception and taking advantage of people who want to help the Minister's "Buy Irish" campaign. Some of the Minister's inspectors should pay a visit to some of these stores in the city which are holding sales and ask the owners to have the decency not to try to deceive the public. The Minister has asked us all to buy Irish and he refers to the fact that a lot of foreign goods are being imported but I think he should switch the emphasis of his campaign slightly to the owners and store buyers and the people who have the real power and ask them to be a little more patriotic in the circumstances in which we find ourselves and to desist from buying such large quantities of foreign-made goods.

I notice that the Minister has included admittedly a very small sum as an additional subsidy to the Verolme Dockyard which arises as a result of a loss on a contract. I hope that the Irish shipbuilding industry, small as it is, does not follow the pattern of its big English brother industry which finds itself for very many reasons in a very bad state, and that the payment of the subsidy is not encouraged, that the shipyard will learn, except in exceptional circumstances, if not to make a profit, at least to break even on its contracts.

The Minister has a very hard and onerous task. He has the good wishes of everyone on this side, despite the banter that comes and goes, because we know that if he is not successful in keeping down prices, the continuing upsurge in unemployment will eventually lead to the breakdown of this State as we know it. He has the good wishes of everybody on this side in his efforts.

I am glad to see the provision of an extra sum of £100,000 for science and technology and I notice that one of the areas for which that has been provided is the environment, something which is affecting and causing worry to many people. While it may not be the Minister's immediate concern, he should impress on the Taoiseach the very urgent necessity of putting the environment and the care of it under one specific head and let that person, whoever he or she may be, delegate responsibility for certain things to other Departments, because it is very important that the environment be considered and placed under the control of one Minister, with responsibility resting on him and on him solely.

I mentioned earlier the clothing industry. I suppose that those of us in areas not really affected by closures do not really understand the heartbreak which these closures cause, but some two months ago it was brought home to me very clearly when what appeared to be a thriving industry suddenly ground to a halt. I suggest that the Minister push the idea of finding another industry somewhat similar so that the 70 girls now unemployed as a result of the closure of Leisure Wear in Ballina may be re-employed. I understand the individuals have made representations to the IDA and have had some contacts with them and I hope these contacts will be quickly followed up so that some work can go ahead.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have to advise the Deputy of the time allocated to this debate. Less than three minutes are now available.

Mr. Calleary

I did not realise that the time passed so quickly. There is one other problem which I may cite which directly affects a firm in my town. This is the question of allowing this firm exemption whereby they can continue to bake a loaf of 600 grammes as they have been doing for some considerable time and in respect of which they have expended a considerable amount of money. If the Department insist on a change either to the 400 or the 800-gramme loaf, it is likely that some redundancies will follow. The firm have produced a loaf in the 800-gramme size but for some strange reason people were not prepared to buy it. The loaf represents approximately 20 per cent of the firm's production but if the Department insist on a change the company will be at a considerable loss in terms of equipment in respect of both tins and packaging.

An Ceann Comhairle

The time allocated in pursuance of the order of July 9th having expired, I am putting the question.

Question put and agreed to.