I should like to continue on the basis of the discussion last night and say that, if we are to conquer this terrible cancer of unemployment, while job creation must contribute in a vital way to its defeat, I cannot lay enough emphasis on the necessity for job retention. I am delighted that my thinking on job retention is relevant to the attitude and ideas of the Minister for Labour when he was in Opposition. I should like to indicate why my ideas are so relevant to his thinking in Opposition. In a debate on economic and social policies on 3 November 1976, as reported at columns 1031 and 1032 of the Official Report he said:
There is another item to which I want to refer in regard to job losses. We have seen a huge number of receiverships, liquidations, companies getting into difficulties and jobs being lost as a result. I believe the day is long past when, as a nation, we could afford to see such companies wind up. I know the number given in reply to a parliamentary question not too long ago was frightening. There are other companies still in danger. I believe that the simple process that has operated up to now of a receiver being appointed merely to sell off the assets at whatever price he can make to satisfy his clients is gone. That is not sufficient any more with regard to such companies. The emphasis must shift from the repayment of the debt to increasingly seeking the revival of that company, or part of it. The social conscience—and we hear an awful lot about social conscience from those benches over there—with regard to workers and the economy at large demands this shift of emphasis. Many jobs could have been saved in the past, many jobs in so many different industries.
Those words were uttered by a very outspoken Deputy in 1976. One can see his concern when in opposition but how can one now evaluate his attitude when in government since June 1977? How can one relate his concern for job losses when in the space of about five months in his own constituency 400 jobs went to the wall? How can I or anybody else accept that he or his associates in the Cabinet were concerned in the months gone by with regard to a large industry in my area, Ferenka, when it was suggested to them that the Government should subsidise this industry until such time as it was viable?
This can also be said about a serious situation that exists at present in relation to another semi-State body. I am referring to the association of Van-Hool with CIE. If there is concern for job retention the money needed to ensure the viability of that industry and the protection of the jobs of 300 workers should be given by the Government. I will let the people draw their own conclusions. Apparently, what one says in Opposition and what one does when in Government are contradictory.
I should like to refer to the Fianna Fáil manifesto and to an item which was high on the priority list of that party, their emphasis on the need to develop industries based on natural resources. That was worthy of support. However, when one considers that food processing must rate high on this list, how can one relate the emphasis in the manifesto to the Government's indifference to the closure of the Erin Foods potato processing plant in Tuam involving 200 jobs. That town can ill-afford to lose that number of jobs. It is unfortunate that this should occur in the first year since the establishment of Erin Foods that they showed a profit. If the Government were sincere and concerned to ensure that jobs are retained they would see that there was a need to help Erin Foods. Erin Foods should have been directed not to close this plant. We now have a situation where the potato processing plant which was nurtured by employees and small farmers in the area over the last five years and had reached a stage where there was a guaranteed market for potatoes has gone to the wall. That has happened due to the indifference of the Government. Where is the concern for the retention of jobs there? How can one say that the manifesto promises are genuine and how can Fianna Fáil say that they are committed to creating jobs in such a vital sector of our agricultural industry when such a plant is being allowed to close down?
On the basis of the Government's policies no impartial person can entertain any hope that the unemployment register will be reduced in 1978 or 1979 to the degree set out in the manifesto. The Minister for Labour announced some time ago that he had extended the Employment Incentive Scheme to the building and construction industry but can any Minister tell me if any job has been created as a result of the extension of this scheme? The Irish Congress of Trade Unions suggested the establishment of a national development corporation to assist in the creation of the new jobs that are necessary, but this suggestion has been turned down by the Government. We are all anxious to know why the Government adopted this attitude because there is merit in that proposal and many people believe there is a need for such a development.
I appreciate what has been done in the public sector with the creation of new posts for teachers, gardaí and nurses, but I cannot see the logic in what the Government are doing in that direction when at the same time there has been a cut-back of approximately 25 per cent in the subvention to CIE this year. That cut-back is bound to affect the employment situation in that semi-State body. It is hard for anybody to appreciate or believe the genuineness of the concern of the Government for job creation when in their own area of responsibility, in the semi-State bodies, there is such indifference to job retention. I support the motion.
