Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Dec 1975

Vol. 286 No. 12

Vote 41: Industry and Commerce.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Keating)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of the 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 sundry grants-in-aid.

This Supplementary Estimate is needed in order to provide additional funds for some of the services operated by my Department and arising from commitments and circumstances which could not have been foreseen when the Estimates were prepared originally. I shall refer briefly to these services in my statement following.

The sum of £180,000 provided for under the subhead for Salaries, Wages and Allowances is required mainly to meet the additional cost of the 16th round under the national wage agreement. The extent of that commitment was not known when the Estimates were originally framed and, consequently, must now be provided for.

The additional £75,000 sought under Travelling and Subsistence arises principally from the increased travelling that was necessary, during the year, in connection with EEC business, including the period of Ireland's presidency of the council; it also reflects extra travel costs by staff engaged on price control duties.

The extra provision of £100,000 is necessary to meet increased costs of administration arising from the commitments of the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards under national wage rounds. These extra administration costs are being partly met by the lower than anticipated expenditure this year on the institute's building programme, leaving the net additional sum to be provided at £100,000.

This year's Estimates provided £2,950,000 towards the grant-in-aid for Córas Tráchtála, who now require an additional £150,000. Despite enormous difficulties and notwithstanding the recessionary trend in world markets total exports for 1975 are expected to reach a level of £1,400 million, representing an increase of approximately 25 per cent over 1974 in value terms and a positive growth rate in volume terms.

However, we should not lose sight of the fact that our record of export expansion this year has been due in no small measure to the buoyancy of agricultural exports. Not surprisingly industrial exports have suffered most in the current difficult economic climate and these, though up in value terms, are expected to show an overall drop in volume terms over the whole of 1975. Certain categories of industrial exports, for example, chemicals, are performing well even in volume terms and it is certainly possible that overall Irish industrial exports will show a smaller drop in volume than elsewhere in OECD.

This not too discouraging position is a reflection of the determination and initiative of Irish industrial exporters but it has not been effected without pressure on the financial resources of Córas Tráchtála who are providing a valuable service to exporters. Conscious of the limitation on the availability of public funds, particularly in present circumstances, Córas Tráchtála have achieved savings in many areas as against their forecast requirements but nevertheless the £150,000 now sought represents the minimum they require to enable them to provide an effective service to exporters in 1975.

The additional funds are required partly to meet the further salary costs arising from the national wage agreement and also to supplement the cost of implementing an intensified programme of market diversification, and further initiatives to assist exporters including an improvement of CTT's current grant schemes. By these means it is hoped that exporters will be encouraged to make even greater efforts in the future and thus minimise to Ireland's advantage the worst effects of the present world recession.

I am confident that Deputies will agree that there should be no slackening of our efforts to provide this necessary assistance and encouragement to our exporters particularly at this time of extreme economic difficulty.

The Estimates for the current financial period provided £300,000 towards the grant-in-aid for Kilkenny Design Workshops Limited, who now require an additional £30,000. This additional sum is needed to cover increased wage costs the impact of which could not have been fully assessed when the original Estimate was framed and if not provided would entail a reduction in the workshops staff with a consequential detrimental effect on the services provided to Irish industry. I am confident that Deputies will agree that Kilkenny Design Workshop's important contribution to industry should not be so jeopardised.

As Deputies are aware, the Government purchased Admore Studios in 1973 with the object of using them as the base on which an Irish film industry could be built. If the facilities there had disappeared it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, ever to establish a substantial film industry in this country.

The studios were managed for the Government by RTE on a caretaker basis until July of this year when the new State sponsored company, National Film Studios of Ireland Limited, was established to run the studios. I appointed a board of directors who have, I believe, the knowledge of the film business and the expertise to run the studios successfully. The new company will provide the most modern facilities for film production and provide training opportunities for Irish film workers.

To ensure the success of the Government's investment in Ardmore, the board of the company have been actively seeking opportunities for making feature films here. They are in an advanced stage of negotiations to make two feature films in Ardmore in 1976 and are negotiating for a number of other feature films and television films which would also be made at the studio during the next year. In addition the company have made proposals for the introduction of measures which would ensure a continuity of film making activity at the studios.

The £50,000 voted in subhead S for the administration of Ardmore Studios in 1975 has been exhausted. £50,000 was also voted in subhead T for the Film Board to cover administration expenses, grants and other financial assistance for film making in 1975. As the Film Board have not yet been established and will not therefore be functioning this year the saving on subhead T will assist in the provision of extra funds to the amount of £50,000 for the new State-sponsored company. The moneys will be used towards the cost of providing improved facilities to film makers and the cost of having essential repairs to the studios carried out.

The new company, National Film Studios of Ireland Limited, were not set up under statute. However, I propose to introduce, early in 1976, a comprehensive Bill which will give statutory backing to this company and will also provide the basis for the general development of the Irish film industry.

The bread and flour subsidy schemes which were announced by the Minister for Finance in his financial statement on 26th June, 1975, were implemented on 28th July and have been operating satisfactorily. A subsidy is being paid on bread which is controlled in price at the rate of 5½p per 800 gram loaf and the subsidy on flour and wheatenmeal for domestic use is at a rate equivalent to 4½p per kilo at retail level.

The Supplementary Estimate of £6,332,000 passed by the House on 11th July, 1975, included provisions of £5,570,000 and £680,000 in respect of the bread and flour subsidies, respectively. These figures were based on the rates of consumption then prevailing. On the basis of actual expenditure so far, it is now estimated that the flour subsidy will cost £900,000, that is, an additional £220,000, in the current financial year. On the other hand there is an anticipated saving on the bread subsidy scheme which appears as an offset in this estimate.

The sum of £755,000 is required to meet a shortfall in receipts from fees under the Minerals Development Act, 1940, and the Petroleum and other Minerals Development Act, 1960. These comprise royalties from the base-metal sector and from petroleum rentals and fees. Royalties from the base metal mines are payable on a 4 per cent to 10 per cent sliding scale of profit. Profits for royalty purposes for 1974 showed a sharp decrease against the amount estimated for. This is explained by higher operating costs and the collapse in copper prices in 1974. A further significant feature was that companies took advantage of the provision in the new mining taxation legislation which allowed immediate writing off against profits of development expenditure previously spread over the life of mines or 20 years. The impact of this provision will, of course, be considerably less in future years. Part of the shortfall is due to anticipated receipts from exclusive off-shore petroleum licences not being realised, to the expected degree, in the current year.

The total amount of the increased expenditure is £1,560,000 but there is an offset of £1,559,990 in savings made up of £1,500,000 on subhead 12 —Industrial Development Authority capital expenditure on grants to industry; £50,000 on subhead T—Film Board—and £9,990 on subhead W.I.— Bread Subsidy. I should mention, however, that the £1.5 million saving on the IDA capital expenditure does not mean any falling-off in the authority's level of activity in providing grants for industry. That amount is not being called upon, from their allocation this year so that an equivalent amount may be made available to the National Building Agency Limited, for the purpose of providing industrial housing which is a vital service and a necessary incentive in the authority's drive to secure further industry. Accordingly, the net amount required is £10.

I recommend this Supplementary Estimate to the House.

Mr. O'Malley

It strikes me, having listened to the Minister's speech on this Supplementary Estimate—which, incidentally, is the third Supplementary, I think, this year for Industry and Commerce—that the two most important aspects of it are first, the huge decline in the appropriations-in-aid that were estimated at the beginning of the year as a result of the lack of profit in mining operations and the non-granting of petrol licences during the year which apparently had been anticipated at the end of last year, and secondly, the non-expenditure by the IDA of £1.5 million of industrial grants money provided for them by the Oireachtas and which they did not spend. One can fairly readily conclude that the IDA did not spend the money because they did not have the opportunity of spending it and that in itself is a commentary on our industrial position at present.

I am fascinated by the Minister's reference to the fact that although the IDA did not spend the money on grants to industry nonetheless the money is not lost to industry but is being given instead to the NBA to build industrial housing. Is the Minister aware, I wonder, of the position in regard to industrial housing? Some years ago the NBA were asked to provide industrial housing at a time when industry was setting up all over the country at a tremendous rate and when there was serious difficulty in bringing in key workers in certain industries because they found it impossible to get suitable accommodation for themselves and their families.

One of the areas in which industrial housing was first provided by the NBA, about 1971, was in the mid-western region and the NBA built industrial houses in several parts of that region, particularly in Glasgow Park, Limerick. Today there are 83 houses vacant in Glasgow Park in Limerick, houses built by the NBA as industrial houses. How can the Minister now come along and say that the NBA were given this £1.5 million which the IDA did not spend in order to provide industrial housing when in Limerick and elsewhere the industrial housing already provided is unoccupied? The NBA cannot dispose of these houses because there are no incoming industrial workers to take them up, and SFADCo, who are acting on their behalf, cannot dispose of them either. Those 83 houses have been vacant for well over 12 months. There are 900 people on the housing waiting list in Limerick but these industrial houses cannot be touched and must be left there because they were built for the purpose of providing houses for industrial workers.

SFADCo, who build houses under grants they get under this Vote and under the Transport and Power Vote have many vacant houses at Shannon as is well known. SFADCo will not tell you that because it does not suit them to say that there are many vacant houses in Shannon town, but they are there. It seems incredible that the Minister should state that £1.5 million which the IDA could not spend is being devoted to industrial housing when there is a considerable surplus of industrial housing because of the industrial recession. I suspect that the money is not made available to the NBA for industrial housing but is made available to them for ordinary general housing and was probably voted as such under some supplementary vote for the Department of Local Government. I have had no opportunity to check this because the first I heard of it was the Minister's statement here a few minutes ago and it would be impossible to check it but it seems an extraordinary thing when you have lots of vacant houses for industrial workers that the NBA should spend another £1.5 million building more houses that will remain empty when we have no industrial workers to occupy them.

To return to the first matter I mentioned, the huge shortfall of over £.75 million in appropriation-in-aid from royalties on mining and petroleum rentals and fees, this is more than 50 per cent of what was estimated and discloses a very serious situation. I suggest that the principal reason for this very serious situation is that the royalties to which the Minister refers here are tied to what he has described as sliding scale of profits. I and my Party have been advocating in this House and elsewhere that nowadays the preferable method of collecting royalties on the part of the State is a production royalty rather than a royalty tied to profit. Our views on this matter have been amply borne out by the enormous shortfall in receipts from these royalties on the part of the State this year. Production in mining has not dropped significantly, maybe by 5 per cent, nonetheless the income from royalties has dropped by 50 per cent or more. From what the Minister said, the reason for that seems to be that these companies have not shown a profit this year but there may be a variety of reasons, some bound up with legislation or the general recession. There is no guarantee that these companies will want in future to show any more profit than they need to, or more than they can avoid showing, if their payments to the State are bound up with the amount of profits they show in their accounts.

The Minister announced the terms for the lease granted to Tara Mines in February this year. It was facilely suggested that the State's take was a total of 67 per cent. My immediate reaction to that was: "Yes, it is 67 per cent of the profit eventually shown by that company, but if there are no profits the State will get 67 per cent of nothing." In my opinion, 67 per cent of nothing is no good to the State, the Exchequer or the taxpayer. On the other hand, if the approach to Tara, Bula and other mines and natural resources were tied not to the profits which they will or will not eventually show in their accounts but were a take based on the actual production from the mines, irrespective of what happened afterward, the State would not be in the position it finds itself in today where the Minister says that there is a shortfall of more than £750,000 because the companies did not make the profits expected or did not make any profit at all.

This is the best possible vindication of the views I have consistently expressed since last February when I heard the Minister's announcement in relation to Tara. There might well be no profits in the sense the Minister is talking about because it is not beyond the wit of large international companies so to manage their affairs that the profits they show in any particular country can be negligible. The Minister must know this from the many examples we had in recent years of the activities of the multi-national oil companies in this country, which Deputy Barrett has frequently gone into in great detail.

The turnover of these multi-national oil companies here is approaching £400 million a year. The profits they show, if any, can be measured in terms of a few hundred thousand pounds a year. If on that turnover they were making only a few hundred thousand pounds profit, they would have closed down long ago, but the profit disclosed to the Exchequer and on which they would be assessable for income tax and corporation profit tax here is so small that they pay virtually nothing. In fact, in some years some of these companies show a loss but the profits that accrue in other parts of the world in respect of petroleum and other oil products sold here are huge. We are codding ourselves if we think that these multinationals are here for the purpose of providing petrol and oil products to the Irish people at virtually no profit to themselves. They are making substantial profits but they make sure that these profits do not appear in their books because they would be liable for tax here while frequently they are not liable for tax in other countries. We may well have the same situation in relation to mining profits. If our royalty "takes" to the State are bound up with those profits, they will be very small.

Although the Minister referred to the off-shore petroleum licence fees not being realised this year, I do not want to go into this in great detail now. I only hope that, after a long delay in the issue of these exclusive licences, they will be issued on the 1st January and hopefully considerable fees will accrue to the State and considerable expenditure will be undertaken in this State during 1976 by various companies which will engage in this form of work over the next few years.

It is only right and reasonable at this juncture that one should sound a note of caution in relation to off-shore gas and oil development. We have been in a fairly euphoric mood about this for the last few years but we should remind ourselves that 22 major off-shore wells have been drilled since 1970 and only one has produced a commercial find, and that not of great size by world standards, even though it is of great significance to us in our limited demand for natural gas. No oil in commercial quantities has been found. While one is very hopeful that the poor exploration experience of the last few years will not be repeated in 1976, 1977 and 1978, nonetheless one cannot guarantee that there will be the kind of success we all wish for. The geological indications, as conveyed to me, would seem to indicate that the best prospects for hydro-carbon finds of commercial viability over the next few years when this new exploration development comes into effect are not in relation to areas close to our south coast. The one find which has so far been made was where all the conditions are favourable because the gas field lies very close to the shore— it is only 25 miles off—and lies in very shallow water—about 250 feet. However, the geological indications are that if further finds are to be made the most likely place where they would be made is on the Porcupine Bank, about 100 miles due west of Slyne Head in water the average depth of which is 2,600 feet. A lot of our people do not realise that at present while it may be possible to explore at that depth it is not possible to recover any gas or oil for commercial purposes. Until oil and gas exploration technology makes major forward steps it is not going to be possible, in the foreseeable future, to recover any such gas or oil.

It has been one of the justifications for the extraordinarily heavy borrowing of this Government, particularly foreign borrowing, that there were huge quantities of oil and gas all around our coasts waiting to be picked up. They may be right; I hope to goodness they are right for all our sakes, particularly in the light of the extremely heavy borrowing which they have inflicted upon the country. Even if that is so, and even if it is found to be so within the next year or so, the prospects of commercial recovery of any such finds that will benefit us before the late eighties are not good, and the late eighties is a long way off when we are saddled with the millstone that was put around our neck in terms of foreign borrowing over the last two years.

We are foolish to rely as heavily, as this Government apparently rely, on what might or might not be found in our off-shore areas but which even if it is found probably will not be recoverable commercially for ten years or more.

Most of the other sums voted in this Supplementary Estimate are mainly in regard to increases in wages and salaries which are less matters of principle than the two I have been talking about. However, it opens up, if one had the opportunity of doing so, the whole question of prices which come under the Minister, the question of industries and the extraordinary increase in unemployment over the past two years. Because other Members wish to speak on this Supplementary Estimate and only an hour is allowed for this debate I will not avail of the opportunity to talk about these matters. However, in relation to our exports it is no harm to draw attention to what the Minister said today which in many ways is different in tone from what he was saying in the House last week, that over all there is a drop in volume terms in our industrial exports this year compared with last year. I endeavoured to demonstrate this fact last week and I was told that my statistics were selective. I do not accept that they were and I am glad to see the Minister agreeing with me today.

The Minister told us that our exports are likely to reach a figure of £1,400 million in 1975. I imagine they will or will go close to that but a huge proportion of those exports relates to live animals, meat and milk products, a great quantity of which is being sold into intervention. The Minister is also aware that in the latter part of this year there has been a considerable increase in the price of cattle we are exporting, dead or alive, and that all the increase in the value of our exports this year is attributable to cattle, dead or alive, and to milk products to a certain extent. Manufactured exports have shown a decrease in volume. All our industrial exports have shown a decrease in volume and certain important categories of our manufactured exports have shown a startling decrease in volume.

From the point of view of the Minister for Industry and Commerce this is an extremely serious development, whether he accepts it as such or not. We cannot say that our export figures this year are satisfactory, that they have increased and so on and that we have no reason to worry about the future. This year has been a once-off year. Our ostensibly good figures in terms of money for export this year have been solely attributable to cattle and with more than 500,000 cows and heifers slaughtered already this year, and the figure for the entire year likely to exceed 600,000, we are guaranteeing that that kind of figure cannot be repeated in the future no matter how much the price of cattle or beef might increase in future years.

The only guaranteed future prosperity for this country in relation to exports lies in a steady increase in the volume of our industrial exports every year. We have had that for years up to 1973, and, to some extent, in the earlier part of 1974, but now we are moving in the opposite direction. Unfortunately, many members of the public when they read figures produced by the Central Statistics Office for foreign trade believe that when they see the figure in money terms increasing all is well. What they fail to take account of is that as between this year and last year unless the increase in money terms is in excess of 20 per cent then there is a reduction in volume and the quantity of manufactured industrial exports is decreasing unless the value increases from year to year by more than 20 per cent each year.

I would have liked to have had an opportunity to speak about various other aspects of this Supplementary Estimate which covers most aspects of the Department but there are other speakers anxious to contribute. The industrial scene at present is serious; more serious than it has been within the last 30 or 40 years. It is made more serious by virtue of the fact that things were very good and kept improving until 1973. They are now on the way back and the loss of what we had is greater and more serious than not achieving what we never had.

The most eloquent commentary I can make is that as of last week there were more than 109,000 unemployed and that the Government through their spokesman cannot give any guarantee that the number will not be 125,000 or 130,000 next spring. The failure to provide work for those people and to keep going our industrial drive at the rate at which it was maintained in the 15 years up to 1973 is the one factor above all which will do enormous damage to the country and to which this Government should devote all their energies from the point of view of counteracting these tendencies in the interests of the future properity of the country.

Mr. Brennan

The undisputed importance of the Department of Industry and Commerce in the present economic crisis is one of the reasons why we are anxious to avail of every opportunity to speak on matters concerning that Department directly related to the problems we face. At the risk of being accused of repeating what I said here earlier in the week, I am asking the Minister if he has any plans to improve the prospects for industrial development. I agree with the CII that manufacturing industry is the base from which we must in the main find new jobs. All economies must have a base and exports, as far as we are concerned, are of paramount importance to economic expansion.

The Minister must agree that not everything, or perhaps anything, is being done to co-ordinate the forces necessary to create a better industrial climate in order that we may resume expansion at a later stage. It is frightening at a time when many of the clouds have been clearing from the international horizon that we are not in a position to take advantage of a developing situation. Import costs are falling, yet the Irish £ is losing its value on the foreign market. There are changing situations which should be a tremendous help to the competitiveness of our exports, yet in this developing improved international climate we find ourselves receding rather than improving our capacity or in any way concerning ourselves to take advantage of the period of expansion.

I do not see any hope. I am amazed that the reduction in imports which in the ordinary course would be a tremendous sign of improved conditions is accepted by all as the opposite, as a sign of stagnation, of our living from the shelf—out of stocks. It is a sign that we are afraid to venture into development, even continuing at the rate we have been going at, not alone to talk of creating expansion. I suggest that lack of imports of essential equipment is one of the things that has added to our trouble. It has been necessary to import capital equipment and this has been known to be of tremendous importance in plans for further development.

The CII point out in a recent statement—I am not in a position to contradict the figure—that it takes £400 million to create 20,000 new jobs. The Taoiseach pointed out that the work force should rise annually by 30,000. He has said that 18,000 have left manufacturing industry in the past. In that context one thinks of the £400 million necessary to create 20,000 new jobs at a time when industry has not sufficient liquidity to maintain past production capacity, and this necessarily disturbs the minds of everybody interested in development.

As I have said, manufacturing industry is of vital importance if we are to get out of the malaise into which we have sunk. Can there be any better hope given? Can we release productive development from the shackles with which we have been binding it in the past two-and-a-half years? Manufacturing industry has been accepted as the creator of employment and I think it is roughly correct to say that for every person employed in that industry there is one person employed in spin-off industries. Therefore, the whole structure of development must be put in jeopardy if the manufacturing industry is not maintained and developed. In other words, we are in jeopardy when we should be on the mark, ready to sprint forward.

Most countries have handled their inflationary problems by recognising from the beginning the difficulties which could be controlled domestically and tackling them. We refused to accept that there were any problems at a domestic level which we should tackle, and the result is that now when the situation has reached crisis proportions we begin to talk about doing something but all we have been able to do is to appeal to people who would be justified in seeking further increases in incomes to refrain from asking for them. If this nation is to survive it behoves everybody, particularly those in this House, and all those who have a stake in the country to co-operate, because no matter who will be in Government in the future any permanent damage done now will create problems for them. Therefore, it is imperative that everybody does what he can.

I should like to know what else the Government intend doing to create a climate more conductive to expansion of industrial development here. It is not good enough merely to say the Industrial Development Authority are there with monetary incentives. There are 101 other things that are important. One of those is the necessity for a plan or programme, which cannot be stressed sufficiently. It is not good enough to say that Fianna Fáil had programmes and that the targets set were not attained; in some cases the targets were surpassed. The important thing is to have a plan and programme and know where one is going. At least that would map out the course we hope to travel and, in that way, would constitute a guide to everybody—those in charge of credit, those in control of trade unions and, particularly, potential investors. There should be no hit and miss element in our economy at this stage.

We are now entering the last quarter of the 20th century. Surely, with all the technological advancement since the beginning of the century, we should have reached a stage where we would have more orderly development of our economic affairs. When one sees the many things reacting against the creation of a better climate, one wonders and one must be seriously perturbed. I am not saying this for the purpose of agitation or of scoring political points; the facts are there for everyone to see and the position is as bad as it can be. There is little hope at present no matter how one scrutinises anything in relation to the base from which our economy must develop. Something really radical and serious has to be undertaken and implemented. A laissez-faire outlook, attitude or policy will not accomplish anything. Somebody has to tackle the problem seriously and brush aside any of the disincentives to development because, if we cannot have a source from which wealth is produced, if we are to pursue a private enterprise economy, then we must encourage investment and the profit motive.

There must be reasonable returns guaranteed to those people who are sufficiently enterprising to continue. We have had sufficient experience of nationalisation in this country in fields where private enterprise would not be in a position to operate. Goodness knows, many of them tend to be nothing more than a social service. Were we to depend on nationalisation to create wealth, we might find ourselves in a peculiar position. Whether we do or do not, we must spell out what we are in favour of. Are we to continue to support private enterprise? What is the outlook for the future? To what extent will we give encouragement to those still prepared to invest? Investment in the economy is the most important thing at this time. The Government and the Minister are seeking merely to guide destiny but the people who invest are those who create the wealth. Anybody can redistribute it; that is the easiest part of it. Let us not start boasting about the redistribution of something we are tending not to produce.

Perhaps the House will bear with me while I make reference to a matter to which the Minister referred in the House recently and which I would like him to repair to some extent. I refer to the reference to the contract by NET in Cork and in respect of which there was published in the papers the report that a very serious slander has been perpetrated in relation to the firm involved. The Minister stated in the House that the firm had employed no qualified engineers. The Minister went on to say:

The firm have a good record in an area where the present economic position is very difficult. They tendered for a piece of steelwork...

I believe it was over £500,000 worth. Therefore the use of the words "a piece of steelwork" rather simplifies it.

...which is the core of the Nitrigin Éireann plant in Cork. It is built into the central part of the plant. The tender was for a kind of work the firm had never previously done.

I say that is wrong. The firm have constructed some of the most important steel structures in this country and they employ four qualified engineers of high standing. The Minister's statement is a slander on those people and on the firm. I know the Minister is going on the advice he got. But certainly it smacks of some ulterior motive when he gets the wrong advice. He will appreciate that for a firm who have wide commercial contacts to be reported in the newspapers as not having qualified engineers—an important firm who have, by international standards, fully qualified engineers and a quantities control surveyor——

Mr. Keating

Would the Deputy let me be clear about what he is saying? What I believe I said in the House and what I understand to be true was that there was no engineer on the staff. Any firm can, of course, employ engineers. I do not for a moment suggest they do not employ engineers. I said they had no engineers on their staff.

Mr. Brennan

I am serious when I say I want the Minister to repair serious damage that has been done here.

Mr. Keating

Is the Deputy saying they have engineers on their staff?

Mr. Brennan

Yes, they employ four qualified engineers.

Mr. Keating

On their staff? Have they engineers on their staff?

Mr. Brennan

I am not in a position to say whether or not they are on the staff but I am assured by the manager of the firm that they have four qualified engineers. I could actually give the names. I do not think the Minister would push me that far but I have them here.

Mr. Keating

I do not doubt that the Deputy has names but are they on the staff of the firm? I said the firm had no engineers on their staff which I understood to be the position.

Mr. Brennan

Would the Minister check on that?

Mr. Keating

I will certainly check on it and, if I am wrong, I will correct it.

Mr. Brennan

What the Minister actually said in the House, and I quote from column 1474 of the Official Report for 11th December, 1975, was:

The tender was for a kind of work the firm had never previously done.

I submit that that is wrong. The Minister continued:

The firm do not employ any qualified engineer...

That is wrong. There is a large number of people employed here. At some stage the Minister would need to make a declaration of confidence in Irish workers instead of, in this way, showing his complete disregard for the ability of Irish people to do a job better. I maintain this firm could do it better than any foreign firm. The Minister should take a more serious interest in this matter. It is creating a bad picture of himself. He has done immense damage to the firm concerned. He should avail of an opportunity to undo the slander perpetrated on the firm and the engineers in question.

In preparing for this contract, before tendering, this firm actually sent men abroad—as far as Spain—on more than one occasion to examine other structures and ensure that, in every way, they would do a job which would be a credit to them and would naturally be the cause of enhancing their prestige and reputation, so that they might get further engineering heavy works in this country. It is the type of industry that needs to be encouraged. It is one we should give every opportunity to and it is a matter of having confidence in our own people to do things as well as anybody else and, in some cases, better. It is damnable to realise the little faith we seem to have in our own workers. When they go abroad they are entrusted with all sorts of work, even at the highest technological level, but at home we are inclined at times to regard them as being in some way inferior. If Seán Lemass will be remembered for one thing more than another, it will be for the act of faith he made in the people and their ability to work, to create and to contribute to the expansion of the economy. That is lacking today and we have had a glaring example of it right here in this.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must now put the question.

Mr. Brennan

I think I have said sufficient to get the Minister to deal with it at some opportune time and give equal publicity to it.

Question put and agreed to.