The Labour Party welcome this Bill in so far as it will give some temporary relief to these four major industries. However, it is long overdue that Dáil Éireann should review the extent to which the Government can and should provide long term direct assistance.
The main reason why the Government brought such pressure on the employers in the sectoral areas to respond to the difficulties of the textile, clothing and footwear industries was the unprecedented appearance at the recent Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis of highly entrepreneurial individuals who stood outside the Ard-Fheis and, to the amazement of delegates, handed out leaflets from the textile sector of the Confederation of Irish Industry. The Fianna Fáil delegates are a notoriously hardbitten lot, as are delegates of most parties, but that hand-out took them aback and they began to wonder what was happening to the industrial policy of their party. Arising from that, the flurry within the Cabinet in recent weeks and the pressures on the Government to do something about the difficulties in these key industries, the Government have belatedly come in here with this temporary relief measure.
When other relief measures were going through the House during the past three or four years the Minister for Finance assured us that there was absolutely no problem with the Community and with Brussels, in terms of giving this type of relief. From 1973 to 1977, when we made valiant efforts to bring in direct assistance to these areas, we were berated by Fianna Fáil because we pointed out that the Commission had considerable reservations about the extent of State aid generally and regulations against distortion of competition. At long last a small effort has been made after a great deal of redundancy has occurred in the textile, clothing and footwear industries. It is remarkable on the last day of the Dáil, before what one might call the nondescript experience of the past four years goes into happy oblivion as far as the parliamentary record is concerned, that in terms of legislation these sectors should have received such little support from this Government despite the many and manifest difficulties which they have been facing. The Taoiseach at one stage was inclined to give direct assurances of personal and public commitment and support for these industries, but what is the record of the Government? Today we have a belated effort after the termination of the employment maintenance subsidy, after the termination of the re-equipment grants scheme and the technical assistance consultancy grants scheme. It points very clearly to the tremendous lack of cohesion and co-ordination within the front bench of the Fianna Fáil Party. Perhaps that is excusable in the sense that they had so many Ministers for Labour and Finance over the past two or three years that even the IPA Diary had gone out of print before it was properly circulated in 1981.
Most Ministers on that Front Bench, as I have observed over the past four years, take about five or six months to get any idea of what the problems are in those sectors, to get any conception of the problems, and then by the time they are settled into their Departments another upheaval occurs and off we go to another area. That is the reason why we have this morning this ad hoc response by way of a Bill dragged through the Dáil at the very last moment to enable the Government to face the workers in the textile and allied industries with the prospect of giving them some indirect temporary assistance.
This Bill is but another example of the primacy in the Government's approach, the primacy of public relations over policy, over industrial relations, and over industrial development initiatives in the Government's economic management of the country. I know many of these industries in my capacity as a trade union official over the years. I have visited and met individual sectors of the textile, clothing and apparel industry. I had an opportunity on many occasions of visiting these plants and I strongly hold the view that these industries must be actively supported and lifted out of the relegation zone to which they have apparently been consigned by the Government. They employ some 20 per cent of our total manufacturing work force. That is substantial by any yardstick. They contribute more than £400 million per annum to our industrial exports. They are very strong in the provision of employment for women. That is of considerable importance. Up to the early fifties Irish women were exploited in these industries. They still have not got equal pay in many areas but despite that the industries provide suitable employment. They provide opportunities for women and that is of considerable importance in a time of recession.
Since 1977 when this Government took office many jobs have unfortunately been lost in various sections of this industry. It is remarkable that despite the relative success of the IDA's job creation programme unemployment in these specific areas has suffered because of lack of attention by the Government. It was this frustration which led these labour-intensive industries to the unprecedented action by the CII apparel industries group of handing out leaflets at the recent Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis condemning the sellout of their interest by the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, and his Government. In that leaflet he was named as a man who had clearly given certain definite assurances to the industry. I would be the first to concede that these industries have experienced unique problems in the transition to free trade during the seventies. We have now had two recessions in that period. We have had severe domestic inflation, particularly wage and cost rise inflation, and these have compounded the problems facing these industries. Some commentators are critical of these sectors for their alleged inefficiency. I do not share that view today though I would have shared it in the sixties. Today most of these industries are quite efficient. They have a real sense of entrepreneurial endeavour. They board an Aer Lingus plane and head off to Frankfurt, Paris, London and New York to sell on the open international competitive market Irish textiles, Irish apparel, Irish styles and designs, all the products of an indigenous Irish industry.
Again, I have seen this kind of work done in the Irish footwear sector. Certainly I do not accept the view that those sectors are getting this kind of assistance this morning simply because of inefficiency. I would not accept that view though some other sectors might be inclined to that view. I believe they can compete at home and in the export market provided they get a fair deal not just from the Government but also from the domestic consumer. If one goes into a textile retail outlet or footwear or apparel outlet one can readily see that Irish industry does not always get a break because of competition with cheap subsidised imports. To that extent there is a double-barrelled problem the solution of which requires help from the State and obliges the distributive sector to give priority to these goods.
So far as this Bill goes I am pleased to support the measure to help these people through this temporary period of difficulty. However I also hold the view strongly that the State should have endeavoured to double what is being offered here this morning. In this atmosphere of electoral Dutch auctioneering which is about to start, this might be regarded as another election carrot. It is not because I wrote my script for this morning about five weeks ago when I was considering the problems facing these industries and after I had met a number of their representatives I held the view then that about £10 per week per employee for the restoration of the employee maintenance scheme for a further period should be introduced for eligible firms. The total amount involved here, which is of course paid by the employers, is £6.5 million.
If one adds up all the other sums over the past few months — £15 million yesterday for building society mortgages, £50 million for the ESB on the basis that they will not implement until after the election, probably in October or November, the 12 per cent increase the Government refused to sanction, £7 million or £8 million for CIE and the refusal of the concessionary fares, £30 million for food subsidies. £30 million for first time house grants — then out of a total package of some £150 million so far £6.5 million is directly employment-related. This is a significant indication of the attitude of the Government towards what one might call industrial job maintenance and protection. The building societies subsidy will keep many people in employment and give temporary relief to mortgage holders.
Then there is the £50 million for the ESB which will be funded by foreign borrowing, probably in petrol dollars to make it even more costly, and the £30 million for house purchase. Already, as chairman of Dublin County Council, I have seen the way this has been interpreted by builders. Houses in Clondalkin advertised for £23,500 are now being re-advertised for £27,500. The builder is putting the £3,000 into his back pocket and saying: thank you very much. He will probably give £1,000 to the Fianna Fáil Party as an election contribution, if he has not already done so, because, of course, with a scheme of 40 or 50 houses, he can afford to off-load that kind of political contribution. I contend that the analogy of the £6,500,000 in terms of assistance to these areas of severe difficulty in employment is reasonably apt.
If one is really serious about wanting to help these industries one must do a number of things. On balance I would suggest that one should consider four or five major areas of change. There is, first of all, the restoration of the employment maintenance subsidy for a further period at a level of £10 per week per employee to eligible firms. Secondly, there is the restoration of the re-equipment grants scheme for selected sectors of industry experiencing special difficulty, the textiles and apparel sectors in particular. Thirdly, I would suggest that active and urgent negotiations be pursued with the European Commission, through the Council of Ministers of the EEC, to ensure that the multifibres agreement which is to be renegotiated later this year will take fully into account the special problems with which the Irish textiles and apparel industries are confronted. In particular the new multifibres arrangement should incorporate a recession clause so that imports into the EEC are not given a guarantee of a growing market in Europe when aggregate demand falls within the EEC. Similarly I would suggest that the new multifibre arrangement must deal effectively with the problems raised by outward processing so that the abuses emanating from this under the last arrangement are not perpetuated in the years ahead.
While the Labour Party advocate an enlightened and progressive policy in the development of world trading links, the interests of all labour-intensive industries must be protected by a balanced approach to this question. A one-sided or narrow approach will be inimical to the long-term development of trade between member countries of the Community, such as Ireland and the developing countries.
I would suggest again to the Minister that our Commissioner should also be fully briefed on this issue. I do not know what the former Minister for Finance is now doing in Brussels. I gather he is looking after the library there, trying to keep a register of personnel, but it might be useful if he were to——
