Vol. 337 No. 8
I move:
That a sum not exceeding £239,552,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1982, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Energy, including certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain loans, subsidies, grants and grants-in-aid.
Are this Department to achieve savings and if so in what areas?
Yes, this Department are also being asked to put forward proposals for expenditure savings. Why did the Deputy not ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs about savings in his Department?
I did.
Sorry, I must have been too busy with my papers.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs was asked and he was more forthcoming than the Minister for Education. He was prepared to tell the House that he was still trying to identify areas in his Department where he might achieve savings. I asked him if they had Government agreement and he said no, that he had not sent them to the Government. When I pointed out to him that the Minister for Finance had already told the House that he had got all those the Minister for Foreign Affairs explained that he may have misled the House in saying that he had agreement, that in fact he had sent them to the Government but there was not yet agreement.
I told the Deputy we had not decided yet.
That was the most interesting interlude of the morning. That is what applies to the whole bottle of smoke.
Does this Estimate include capital for IDA grants?
It includes the IDA grants.
Would the Minister ask the Minister for Industry and Energy to ensure that grants are not given to new firms who will enter into competition with firms that are already in trouble and cannot sell their produce? I am not asking the Minister to comment on this.
It is the normal policy of the IDA not to give grants to firms that will cut across firms already established.
I have communicated with the Minister on this issue.
Members of the Government are aware that there are a number of incidents in which difficulties of this nature have arisen and the IDA have been made aware of the Government's concern in this matter.
It would be a gross waste of money if new firms were subsidised while established firms were unable to sell their produce. I have communicated with the Minister about a particular incident.
Surely the Minister can tell the House if he expects to have savings under this heading in view of the fact that from 1 January to the end of June 502 firms have called in the receiver or the liquidator and another 600 have applied to the IDA or An Fóir Teoranta for rescue aid. According to the figures I have, 3,279 people have lost their jobs or have been made redundant in industry from 1 January to the end of June.
I would like to point out to Deputy L'Estrange, as I pointed out to Deputy Fitzpatrick in relation to another sum of money, that although supplementary spending might arise in a number of categories it does not invalidate the nature of the spending cuts sought under other subheads. It is perfectly possible for the IDA or any other agency to spend more money and for the Department to achieve savings under other subheads.
The Minister did not confirm that this Department are being invited to effect savings.
I can confirm that they have been invited to effect savings and have made proposals.
Can the Minister identify the areas in which the proposals are?
I do not have the details with me.
If the Minister has not the details would he communicate them to the Members of the House who are interested?
I have indicated that the Government have received a number of proposals but they are not yet in a position to finalise the nature of the spending economies proposed to be implemented. When they have done that, details will be made available and there will be an opportunity to debate the economies here.
As we are nearing the end of the present session can the Minister say when it is anticipated that the Government will be able to examine the proposals made by individual Ministers?
In response to this type of query some weeks ago, the Minister for Finance indicated that he hoped to have it completed within several weeks. For various reasons there have been many pressures on the Government including, in the case of the Minister for Finance, the large amount of time necessary for the processing of the Finance Bill. Therefore, it was not possible for the Government as a whole to allocate as much time as they would have wished to completing the exercise as rapidly as they would have wished. I can only say it will be completed sooner rather than later. It will definitely have been done before the resumption of the House.
Bearing in mind that the Government and the public service will be on leave and that it is hoped to make a saving of £45 million, if these economies were to be begun in August there would be a saving of £100 million in a full year. However, if this has not been completed before the end of this month it could not be put into operation earlier than the end of September which would mean only four months, meaning that in a full year the figure would be £135 million. Is it not therefore important that the process would be finalised before the end of this month? Anybody speaking realistically would agree that this process should be ready to go into operation by the end of this month. Can we therefore expect an announcement before the end of July?
I should not like to appear to be precise because though we would like to have it done quickly I am not able to anticipate what will happen in the next few weeks and therefore I should not like to appear to have given a commitment. The Government are anxious to complete this process at the earliest possible date.
If we are to have savings made sooner rather than later, would the Minister agree that the Minister concerned should show more industry and energy than he has shown so far?
I cannot accept on behalf of my colleague the Deputy's suggestion that the position in relation to a large number of firms is a reflection on the calibre or performance of the Minister. Many factors could have been responsible for that, and because firms usually get into financial problems over a long period I would have thought that the Minister's predecessor in office would have to share some of Deputy L'Estrange's rebukes.
Surely the Minister does not believe that in seven months we could undo what Fianna Fáil had done in 15 out of the last 21 years. They promised that borrowing as a percentage of GNP would be reduced to eight and that unemployment would be down to 80,000. It is now double that figure. Could the position be due to the national development programme for destruction instead of development?
Surely, Sir, you do not regard this as relevant.
