Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 May 1983

Vol. 342 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Employment Protection: Motion.

Mr. Reynolds

I move:

That Dáil Éireann condemns the total failure of the Government to protect employment by not taking the necessary measures in time to prevent the collapse of an increasing number of major industrial firms.

We are moving this motion in the wake of last Thursday's long list of announcements. It has been described as Black Thursday in the area of industry. We are faced with an accelerated collapse of our industrial structure, an avalanche of closures becoming a daily feature of our lives, against a background of 210,000 people unemployed. I believe that is the real figure. The figures for the end of April came out yesterday and they show a figure of approximately 180,000 but, when one adds to that the over 20,000 young people not qualified to be on the register or in receipt of social welfare, plus the thousands in the system applying for unemployment benefit, plus the small farmers who are not on the list but who are available for work, then a conservative figure at this stage is 210,000. If one were to go into it in extreme detail one could add another 5,000 to 10,000 to that.

In Ireland today we are seeing a national crisis of unemployment. There is a national emergency here. It is against that background that we in Fianna Fáil move this motion to try to alert the Government — although the last few days seem to have shocked them out of their slumber somewhat — that we are trying to draw the attention of the Government to the fact that there is a dire need for a fire brigade action plan to combat the crisis now facing the Irish economy.

I know that certain Government speakers say "Let us have the total shakeout. Let it all happen." Apparently there is in certain Government circles a philosophy, and it is borne out by their budgetary policy, that the way to solve our problems is to create more and more unemployment. I do not subscribe to that view. I think there is a slow-burning fuse here. If the Government do not wake up to their responsibilities and to the crisis that is upon us, other measures will be sought in other houses to try to come to grips with what I believe is a very serious and emergency situation.

Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. J. Bruton)

What is the Deputy referring to?

Mr. Reynolds

I am referring to all the closures taking place.

Mr. J. Bruton

What does he mean by "other houses"?

Mr. Reynolds

Where other people, outside the democratic system, come together, when they look at this House and see the lack of concern being shown, the lack of action, no solutions forthcoming, I think the Minister would agree that there is a great danger of that kind of situation arising. There are over 70,000 young people today with no opportunities and no hope of opportunities and a climate of no hope is being created by the present Government. I condemn the Government for this in the strongest possible terms. The country at this stage needs leadership and it is not getting it. The only answer appears to be that there is no hope. That is the answer that was handed out to the 500 Telectron workers last week. There is an apparent lack of concern for the tragedy of unemployment. There is apparently a lack of concern about the effect of unemployment on people's families, the social stresses that will be imposed on people who are losing their work at a very early age with no hope of getting another job. We are the people those workers look to for leadership to create a climate of hope. I do not believe in creating a climate of no hope. It is very easy to lose one's confidence and, having lost it, it is extremely difficult to get it back. I would warn the Government that this is the climate they have been creating and I do not think that is the way to entice people to invest in this country.

We tabled this motion to try to find out from the Government whether they have a policy in relation to factory closures, whether they have a policy to come to grips with even part of the problem, whether they will come out of hibernation and stop burying their heads in the sand and hoping that the problems will go away. Day by day the problems get greater. If they want to remain with the label of the Government of no hope, so be it. The Irish public will have an answer to that whenever the time comes.

I have been looking for the last couple of months to see if there was any action plan forthcoming from the Minister or the Government. Any action we have seen in the last couple of days has been a post crisis action. When the Telectron announcement came to everybody's attention two weeks yesterday nothing seemed to be done by the Government. When my colleague, Deputy Gene Fitzgerald, put down questions there was a look of amazement on the far benches. No meeting had taken place between the respective Ministers.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Would take place in the afternoon.

Mr. Reynolds

Last Tuesday when we had a special debate on it, eight days after the announcement was made, the Minister had not even at that stage contacted the principals of this firm. That is not the way to deal with a crisis situation. I would have expected at the very least that the Minister, after a shock announcement like that, would take up the phone and ring the people concerned. This was a firm that had taken over Telectron Limited in Ireland and was in receipt recently of a £16½ million Government contract. Surely the Minister and the Government and the people of Ireland were entitled to know how secure was that contract, how secure were supplies. Eight days later neither Minister concerned had done anything about it. Everything was left to the IDA.

Mr. J. Bruton

That is not true.

Mr. Reynolds

That is the position as it was last week. We know that in retrospect the Minister will try to make it out differently. I stated that here last week and I was not contradicted. It is easy to contradict in retrospect. I asked the Minister did he not consider it his responsibility to be there with the IDA, giving full Government backing, instead of showing a lack of concern on the part of an Irish Government and, had he done that, that multinational would have had respect for him and his Government. Two days later the junior Minister, who was in America on other business, was directed towards a meeting with AT & T. Had that junior Minister been going abroad on a specific mission we would have read about it in the public press because, if there is one thing this Government is good at, it is telling us where they are going abroad.

We have a saying in our part of the country that you should never send a boy on a man's errand. Unfortunately that is what happened here. Here we have a firm with 500 well trained employees in a growth industry of the future, a growth industry which is allowed to close its doors and put a lock on them. Surely this was an ideal situation for the Government to demonstrate clearly their effectiveness and show also they had a plan in their heads, an action programme to deal with the situation. Surely this was an ideal situation for the National Enterprise Agency to become involved.

Does the Minister believe this is a growth industry? Perhaps he does not. I believe he has more contempt for that agency than another one to which I shall come later. If ever there was an opportunity for a national agency to become involved in a growth area of the future which was designed to ensure supplies for telecommunications this was that opportunity. Even if it were taken up seriously now I believe a good job could be done. Remember these 500 employees will now join the dole queue drawing unemployment benefit and pay-related benefit. They will receive something in the region of £3 million to £3.5 million for the year. Is it good business to pay that kind of money to a trained work force now on the unemployment scrapheap? Surely this will destroy morale. Is this good philosophy? Does the Minister regard this growth industry as defunct? I see from recent returns the Minister is encouraging the setting up of small industries to absorb some of the work force. This is to be welcomed and something good should come out of it. We, on these benches, are not here merely to be destructive. Our criticism is always designed to be constructive.

AT & T had a contract with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for £16 million to £16.5 million for digital radios. Will this contract be honoured or is it true that already agreement has been reached with AT & T that 24 of them will be made in the United States of America? Was that agreement reached before the closure? If it was not, then the Minister has one more ground on which to argue for the future of the company. I am also at a loss to know the meaning of some remarks attributed to Mr. White, Chief Executive of the IDA, that AT & T would be around Dublin for a long time. Is this another asset stripping operation? One place closes down and, when the heat is off, it opens up somewhere else.

Mr. J. Bruton

They are retaining 60 employees at Tallaght.

Mr. Reynolds

Have they anything in production?

Mr. J. Bruton

They have some plans.

Mr. Reynolds

I hope the Minister will take this opportunity of telling us where the 24 transmissions will be made. Will they be made outside the country at a considerable cost to the country? This whole situation was very badly handled by AT & T and equally badly handled by the Government. There was no hard bargaining in an effort to get the better of the situation. Is there any plan of action or any policy in relation to factory closures? One looks at the alleged programme of the Government. I went through it minutely and the first observation is that the Youth Employment Agency would continue its activities. We have 70,000 unemployed youth and the only attention they get is the trite observation that the agency will continue its activities. That agency has been in operation for quite some time. It is in receipt of very considerable amounts of money and perhaps the Minister would take this opportunity to tell us what the agency is doing with that money. Are they as bankrupt of ideas as the present Government? Are they just conning our youth? Do they not know what to do with the money? Are we reverting to the Fine Gael policy of the 1950's, the emigrant ship which will rid us of our unemployed?

If that is the policy now, then tell the people where they should go because the same problems exist in other countries. The young people today have no intention of emigrating. They demand the right to work in their own country. It was the late Deputy Paddy McGilligan who said the Government have no responsibility to provide employment. Apparently that philosophy still exists. The Taoiseach and other members of the Government have said there is no solution and no hope. It does not matter which Government are in power. We have moved far away from social philosophy and social justice. The Government are in reverse, still with the philosophy that they have no responsibility to provide employment. It is difficult to find out the real thinking of the Government, if there is any thinking, real or imaginary. Take the situation that has arisen in Cork. There is considerable confusion down there not alone among the work force but among the politicians. Last evening the Tánaiste, according to the Cork Examiner, pledged Labour Party support for State aid if required. There seems to be a direct conflict here because the Taoiseach on Friday ruled out State intervention to save the 600 jobs. This is incredible. We have the Tánaiste saying that something is white and the Taoiseach saying it is black.

The same sort of confusion exists between these two men in regard to the future of semi-State companies. If we are to believe what the Labour Party say in public their opinion is that semi-State companies should be expanded in order to create more employment but the Taoiseach says that the whole semi-State area is under severe scrutiny and that State aid in the future will be on the basis only of these companies paying their way. I do not know what is the real view of the Minister opposite. I have read of different announcements he has made from time to time on this question but his most recent statement would seem to suggest that if semi-State companies do not pay their way they will be closed. That was the Minister's view as outlined at a press conference in Brussels but perhaps what he says there is different from what he says at home.

Mr. J. Bruton

I pointed to something that the Deputy is well aware of, that is, that a company cannot survive if they do not sell.

Mr. Reynolds

I hope this is the sort of talk that is heard at the Cabinet table. For our part we should like to hear what the Tánaiste and the Labour members in Government are saying in relation to semi-State employment.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

The Labour Party supporters would like to know the views of the party on this issue.

Mr. Reynolds

There is a cloud of uncertainty and confusion surrounding the future of Irish Steel, of NET and of Verolme Cork Dockyard. It is well known that if something is not done about an order for that dockyard it will close. Has the Minister any explanation to offer regarding the order that was to have been placed for the fisheries research and protection vessels? If the orders for these two vessels are not placed very shortly the Cork dockyard will have to close with the loss of 1,000 jobs. The total economic withdrawal of the Government from the entire Cork region is obvious but my colleague, Deputy Fitzgerald, will be going into more detail on that. The Government should spell out clearly in the House tonight what is the future for Irish Steel, for NET and for Verolme. Is it the intention of the Government to sit back and create an environment in which these companies will lose more money and in that way to put of the evil day that somebody else will have to face?

The Government have at their disposal all the consultants' reports necessary. If we are well equipped in any respect, it is in terms of consultancy and inter-departmental reports. There must be many such reports stacked away in every Government Department. Is it not time they were taken down and something done about them?

The philosophy of the Taoiseach and of some of his Ministers has changed drastically since their return to office. On the day on which I was appointed Minister for Industry and Energy a receiver was appointed to the Fieldcrest operation in Kilkenny. I recall the cries then from the Opposition benches and I recall the notices of motions that were put down by the people opposite asking, in effect, for the nationalisation of Fieldcrest. However, the Taoiseach has made so many U-turns in recent times that he must have a reel in his head by now. The people opposite on that evening I speak of walked into the lobbies to vote against the Government of the day but we were clear in our thinking in relation to the Fieldcrest operation. We can only assume that it would be very difficult for anyone to convince the Irish people now that the Taoiseach is a man who always adheres to what he believes in. We are still clear in our thinking that where there is a company who have orders on their books and who are viable, they should be sustained but they cannot be sustained if it is too late when one finds out what the real problems are.

When I was in the Department there was a monitoring unit that was operating very effectively with the result that the problems of companies were well known in advance. I had monitored any company that I thought was in danger and I ensured that in any such cases action was taken in time. There is no lack of knowledge in the system in relation to company problems but there is a lack of conviction and of commitment on the part of the Government so far as such companies are concerned. We are aware that action in this regard is a high risk business for a politician but that is a challenge that must be faced if we are to save firms. Last week we heard of the big names in terms of businesses going to the wall but how many small firms go to the wall about which we do not hear? Has anybody taken the trouble of analysing what is happening? According to the Government's programme the answer to the problem was to be mainly the setting up of a national development corporation. If the Government believe genuinely that a national development corporation will provide the answer to the problem I urge the Minister, for the second time in this House, to set them up straight away under the companies structure and to let them get on with the job. There are plenty of precedents for that. The Minister is aware that he can bring the corporation into action any day he wishes merely by registering them in the Companies Office. However, I do not believe that the Government are committed to the setting up of such a body.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

The Minister opposite is not committed to it anyway.

Mr. Reynolds

It may happen that the corporation will be forced on him by some members of the Government or it may be that a majority of the Government would prefer to leave the situation as it is, an optical illusion, as has been the case since the mid-seventies so far as some of the Labour members are concerned. Until such time as the corporation are put into operation, the National Development Agency are there to be used in terms of the innovative work the Governmnent talk about so glibly. I can only conclude that the national development corporation is to remain stillborn.

In addition to the national development corporation, the Government's programme contains a list of task forces. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how many times these task forces have met and whether any ideas have been forthcoming from them. When, for instance, are the National Planning Board to report? These various committees and task forces are no more than layers of bureaucracy, each on top of the other, so as to ensure that nothing happens. There are too many agencies without talking of creating more. There is too much money being wasted on those agencies and there are many good people involved in them whose talents could be co-ordinated and used in the area of job creation. What we need is a programme of action from all the expertise that is available.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

There are enough advisers, too.

Mr. Reynolds

There is no shortage in terms of the creation of employment so far as advisers are concerned and there is no shortage of money to pay for these advisers. If these people were producing results I would not mind paying them; I object to a whole list of advisers being engaged when there are no results to show for the investment. At least, I question the reasons for engaging these advisers. In the short terms during which I was in Government I did not have a personal adviser. I did not need any because the best brains were available in the Departments concerned. It was only a matter of motivating these people into action in order to get all the advice one needed.

The Minister, for whatever reason, is devoting most of his energy to the area of Dáil reform. On reading the newspapers one gathers that the Minister is concerned about having the proceedings of this House, and the Seanad, broadcast. That is all right in its own time but the critical situation in the industrial scene today calls for a commitment by the Government. The Minister should not be spending so much time on Dáil reform because that will not create one job but will involve a lot of time, expertise and energy. We all welcome Dáil reform but it should not be given priority over the creation and maintenance of jobs.

The Minister will have difficulty keeping up with the job situation and I do not begrudge him the task particularly when one considers the avalanche of closures that took place last week. Every daily newspaper lists further threats of closure. It is time the Government got their priorities right, forgot about Dáil reform and all that goes with it and devoted their energies to the problem of the day. The serious problem facing us is the accelerated number of factory closures and the huge number on the unemployment list. The people are looking to the House, and the Government, for a solution to that problem. they want action and they do not want the House to be wasting time on the matters I mentioned.

I have referred to the areas dealt with in the Government's programme and pointed out those that have not been implemented. The real philosophy and thinking in relation to industrial development and job preservation is contained in the budget which is a demonstration of Government thinking. When one looks at the budget one can only come to the conclusion that its thrust is to produce more unemployment, no matter from what angle one looks at it. For instance, with regard to the construction industry, the Coalition, in their programme for Government, promised £100 million for that industry. The Tánaiste met representatives of that industry and said the Government would fulfil that promise but the £100 million was taken out of capital investment in the budget. The result is that the Government are depressing the construction industry to the extent that one in every two people employed in that sector will be out of a job by the end of 1983. One must bear in mind that every job in the construction industry sustains three more indirectly outside in ancillary services. Therefore, every job lost in the construction industry means a loss of four jobs. That is why many small businesses are closing. The Government's policy in the budget is resulting in many job losses throughout the country. It is foolish thinking to produce total depression in that sector when it is possible to create jobs.

The heavy imposition of VAT has not helped. We were told last week of a great reduction by the Government in VAT payments by the hotel industry but it should be remembered that the Government in the budget increased VAT on hotels. Where is the reduction there? That is another area where jobs could be maintained if we had the right environment. The heavy imposition of VAT in that and other areas has depressed demand so much that every day people are losing their jobs in the consumer side of industry. For the first time in about 20 years shop employees in my town are being let go because of the depressed demand and that is a direct result of the budget policy. I am sure I do not need to refer to the loss of business, jobs and revenue to the Exchequer that is taking place in Border counties, but that problem has spread to the midlands. At the end of the year it will be interesting to see if the decision to put on the additional VAT was worth while. Figures shown to the Fianna Fáil Front Bench indicate that up to £100 million may be lost in revenue. For instance, at this stage up to 30 per cent of electrical business has gone across the Border. I do not have to tell the House the percentage of petrol sales that has gone across the Border. I have heard of a man in Clones who a couple of months ago was selling 8,500 gallons of petrol but is now selling 500 gallons. People are buying from him just enough to get them across the Border. The people in Donegal will also tell the Minister the reality of the situation. Dundalk has become a ghost town and Monaghan is in a similar situation. That crazy situation has come about as a result of the Government's budgetary strategy.

It is my belief that the Government take decisions without thinking them through to the ultimate or assessing the damage they may cause, just as was done in the case of the 5 per cent VAT increase on the hotel industry. That was a bookkeeping exercise that was changed when it was discovered the amount of harm it would do. It is time the Government looked at their policies and saw the damage they are causing throughout the economy. We may be told that it will be necessary to borrow money to do certain things but it must be remembered also that we have to borrow money to pay social welfare. Very shortly we will have more people on the dole than there will be in manufacturing industry. I wonder how long we will have to wait before there will not be enough people paying to sustain the situation that is developing.

The Minister should think seriously about the points I have made. He should deal with the situation with regard to employment within the semi-State sector and tell the House whether part of the contract with AT & T International will be carried out in America. Will the Minister consider the National Enterprise Agency with a view to investigating the Telectron situation? Are we going to permit the tyre industry here to collapse and give it over to the importers? Dunlop and Semperit are under threat but what are we doing about that? If we continue along the road we are travelling Ireland will have a large warehouse with a computer for the distribution of imported products.

In the Minister's Department, and the Department of the Environment, I established import substitution sections and I should like to know if they are active. The Minister is aware that thousands of jobs can be saved by proper monitoring, by looking closely and severely at State purchases. I introduced a monthly report system whereby every item purchased in the State and semi-State purchasing area would be reported to the Minister. As a result of that it would be possible to see on a monthly basis how much was being purchased outside Ireland and the material that could be purchased at home. Many jobs could be created in that area but that problem was never tackled seriously. The mechanism to deal with the problem exists and the Minister should make use of it. He should not be chicken-hearted when dealing with our partners in the EEC in regard to certain imports by those countries. The Minister is aware that the French are past masters in this matter. They accept every Directive passed by the EEC with open arms but they always find the ways and means of getting the maximum benefit for their economy while complying with those Directives. We need that type of action. The Minister has the ability to deal with that problem and he should do so now. Stop wasting time on Dáil reform. Let us come to grips with the real problems. Stop the avalanche of factory closures and protect employment. We will be thanked for that at the end of the day and not for providing a better system for ourselves in which to operate.

Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. J. Bruton)

I move amendment No. a. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute:—

"notes that the Government is taking a number of important initiatives to assist in industrial development including the modification of arrangements for VAT on imports at point of entry, the establishment of an Employment Task Force of Ministers and a National Planning Board, and is preparing plans for a White Paper on Industrial Policy to include provision for a National Development Corporation."

I was disappointed with Deputy Reynolds's speech. While Minister he made good efforts to do his job well but in this debate he asked a lot of questions about State companies which, if he was sincere, he would have answered when he was Minister.

Mr. Reynolds

To put the record straight, I never received the consultants' report in relation to——

Mr. J. Bruton

The Deputy had the report on NET.

Mr. Reynolds

I did not have a report on NET. I had no report on Irish Steel.

Mr. J. Bruton

The consultants' report was available. I read it within two weeks of taking office.

Mr. Reynolds

It never came to me.

Mr. J. Bruton

It was in the Deputy's Department. He must never have asked for it.

Mr. Reynolds

That is what the Minister thinks.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is an important debate. Let us continue with it.

Mr. Reynolds

I know the Minister is short of material.

Mr. J. Bruton

Deputy Reynolds did not know what was going on in his Department while he was there.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Do not push us too far on that. The Minister would be surprised at what we could tell him. We could embarrass him.

Mr. J. Bruton

I am amazed that the Opposition spokesmen should complain about the budget when, in their document, The Way Forward, they would have had a current budget deficit of £750 million against the £900 million on which we have finally settled.

Mr. Reynolds

The old story.

Mr. J. Bruton

They would have taken more money out of the economy.

Mr. Reynolds

The Minister is now producing our budget for us.

Mr. J. Bruton

They cannot complain about the severity of the budget while having proposed even more severe measures in the programme they put before the people.

Mr. Reynolds

The old long playing record.

Mr. J. Bruton

Deputies Reynolds and Fitzgerald complained about the time being given to Dáil reform. Two items have been with the Opposition for some time. One of the matters the Government have in mind is the setting up of an allparty committee on small businesses. We all know that small businesses are often smothered in red tape. They do not get the help they need. Deputy Reynolds correctly pointed out that there are too many agencies dealing with them. We have a proposal to do something about that and it has been with the Opposition for the last two months. Unfortunately we have not received a definite response from them.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Let the Minister be honest.

Mr. J. Bruton

We have proposals to set up a committee to look at public expenditure. We all realise that the burden of taxation is one of the main problems faced by industry. The only way to reduce that is to cut public expenditure. We want a committee to examine that not as a means of preventing the Government from taking action but because it is important to have a consensus as far as possible and that all sides should make a contribution.

There is need for contribution from all parties in relation to the question of preventing redundancies. We have specific measures to put forward which will be of direct help in this regard. We recognise that many people who have been made redundant are highly skilled and worked for years with high technology. We have allocated staff from the IDA to talk to people recently made redundant to assist them in establishing industries of their own. I know of four separate projects actively being considered between employees of Telectron and the IDA which could lead to a substantial number of jobs being created. That is the correct way to turn our difficulties to good effect. There is a great need to use the talented people we have. There is too much pessimism about the way we are dealing with our problems.

Mr. Reynolds

That is what the Taoiseach says, not us.

Mr. J. Bruton

This is not a political point. There was a rapid growth in exports in 1982. Industrial exports grew in volume terms by 13 per cent as against a fall on the world market by a ½ per cent. Much of that came from foreign enterprises which have established here. While we may be criticising some foreign firms which found themselves, not in the best way, closing down, we should also recognise that there are a substantial number of foreign firms which have done a good job. Let us recognise what we can do and stop beating our breasts and complaining that we are not good at doing this or that. We are the best critics of one another.

Mr. Reynolds

We applaud you for all that.

Mr. J. Bruton

We need to accentuate what we have been able to achieve. Most of these exports have been coming from new foreign enterprises. We do not have a good export performance from domestic industries. There have been good signs in that direction so far this year. CTT received an unprecedented number of inquiries from Irish industry anxious to break into the export market.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

The Minister is doing well as a candidate.

Mr. J. Bruton

To some degree this is due to the fact that the domestic market is depressed. We cannot ignore that. Since 1980 there has been a fall in disposable income. People have less money to spend. That is the price we have to pay for putting the public finances in order. We got the balance of payments down from 14 per cent GNP to 4 per cent this year. We did that at a high price in terms of falling living standards. It is no wonder people are complaining about the burden of taxation. There has been a dramatic increase in taxation. This has had an effect on the domestic market for Irish industry. The good result is that many Irish industries are beginning to look outside. That is why there has been an upsurge this year in the number of inquiries to CTT from Irish industries seeking to export.

We need to do something about State purchasing and ensure that the State seeks out Irish people who are producing the goods and give them a proper chance. Deputy Reynolds took a good initiative in that area. I do not want to take anything from him. I am glad to say we are going a step further. SFADCo intend to publish a detailed guide for business people on how they can tender for State contracts. They are extremely complex and complicated. Many Irish businesses are not big enough to get into the system. I am glad to see that through the initiative of SFADCo, a guide is being produced to help Irish businesses to make sure that they will avail of all opportunities. There are considerable opportunities for them to tender for State purchases.

I do not agree with Deputy Reynolds if he is suggesting that we should introduce some system of discrimination like that being done, lamentably, in France and Britain and other countries. We cannot afford to do that. We depend on exports for survival whereas they have large home markets and if they can get away with it they can afford to discriminate and allow discriminatory régimes to grow up. If that is allowed to grow up in Europe, if the Common Market were to break down, we would be done for. We have got to have exports and export markets if our industries are to survive. Therefore, we should not be seen in any way to give support to protectionist State purchasing. However, we must rigorously resist the adoption of such measures by other countries.

I am glad to say that the Taoiseach has decided to raise this matter in the strongest possible way at the forthcoming European Summit at Stuttgart to point out that we are opposed to any discriminatory measures to prevent fair tendering by Irish firms for business in the State sector in other countries. All we want is fair competition and if we can get it I am confident that Irish workers, who are better qualified than most of their continental competitors, can easily meet and beat foreign entrepreneurs.

I was glad to have the opportunity to be on an industrial development promotion in the US early this year. One thing came home very forcefully to me, and I am sure there are those on the other side who will share this experience: that whatever lack of confidence we may have in ourselves there is no doubt among US industrialists who have invested in this country and who have substantial interests here, some of them, such as Westinghouse, having started off with one plant, went on to have a second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth. They have shown confidence in us, a confidence that we deserve. One of the things that struck me when I was speaking to those people in the US is that what attracts them here is not just the tax régime, which is undoubtedly quite favourable, and the industrial grants which are also favourable, but the fact that we have a young adaptable work force.

We have more engineering graduates than most of our competitor countries in Europe. We have more engineering graduates per head of population than the US have. They are the sort of factors that are attracting people to this country. I am glad to say that the investment by successive Governments — I do not make any partisan points in expressing this — in improving regional technical colleges and providing the National Institutes of Higher Education is paying large dividends in attracting foreign industry here. We have tremendous assets here: let us not downgrade them. Self-criticism is fine but if Irish people who criticise what goes on here could only hear what US investors who have put money here have to say about it they would take a different view.

Mr. Reynolds

I hope the Taoiseach will take an interest in it.

Mr. J. Bruton

There are many things we can do. This is the first debate in a broad sense we have had on industrial development, so let us use the debate to talk about new ideas we could adopt. One of the things I believe we are not exploiting to an adequate degree is our food industry. Somebody pointed out recently that there are only two primary products in the world, fuel and food. We do not have fuel in abundance but we have food in abundance. In most cases fuel is a non-renewable resource whereas our food production capacity is constantly, annually, renewable.

Let us be honest about it. I do not believe we are exploiting our full food industry. As a certain New Zealand agriculturalist said about 30 years ago, the Irish farmer is producing as little as is conceivable for him to produce under an Irish sky. As a member of that profession, it comes rather hard on me to admit that to a great extent that is the case for a variety of reasons.

What is lacking most in my view, is proper synchronisation between what is produced on the farm, on the one hand, and what is required in the market place. The Tennyson Report pointed out that we are producing our milk in a seasonal way only, as a result of which our creameries are not properly in use for much of the year. Our beef equally is being produced in a highly seasonal way and therefore our meat factories are crowded out at times of the year and have no meat to keep them going at other times.

If we are to make any deep penetration in world food markets we must get added value products, downstream products, to where markets are available. You cannot come out with a new product and hope you will be able to sell it in the market on the following day. You have got to establish your contacts. First of all you must discover if there is a market for a product. Then you must do your research into development, as to how you will develop the product and present it. Then you start developing your contacts. All this can take between two and four years.

If food processors do not have steady supplies, guaranteed at prices that they can be sure of over a reasonably long period, they will not be able to develop the food market to the extent that they should. We have got to develop two things: one is long-term production contracts between farmers and processors and a futurist market in various food products so that people can buy an amount of a certain commodity, whether it be grain, cattle or milk products, six months or a year in advance, at a fixed price. The money would then be paid over to the farmers and all they would have to do would be to abide by the contract to produce the goods they had sold in advance. This would get over many of the capital difficulties of the farmers and would serve to provide an assurance of supply for the processing industry. That is vitally necessary if we are to develop that industry in foreign markets. Otherwise we will not succeed in the food processing area.

We also need to do much more than we have been doing to develop a marketing arm for indigenous industry. Foreign industries very often have their executives located not in Ireland but in Geneva or Brussels or somewhere else and all they have is a production facility in Ireland. If our native firms are to compete with them they must have a marketing arm just as sophisticated as that which the non-national firms have here. We simply have not had the time or the expertise to develop that.

When I was Minister for Finance I introduced a scheme to provide money for more Irish firms to recruit marketing executives. It was a very successful scheme and many people were recruited and tremendous numbers of exports resulted from it. I have heard it said by people in industry that they have difficulty in recruiting suitable Irish people with adequate marketing skills to avail of that scheme.

Clearly there is some deficiency in our educational system if we are not producing people with those marketing skills to fill the vacancies that are there. We need to look at our entire educational system, from secondary schools on, to see if we are producing the type of skills that are necessary. This afternoon I attended the annual dinner of the Confederation of Irish Industry. One of the points I made to them, and I am sure Deputy Reynolds will agree with me, is that industrialists must get into the classrooms, that they must start talking to pupils and teachers. Otherwise we will have the continuance of this sense of hopelessness amongst school-children, doing courses that will not lead anywhere because they have not been given the advice or the opportunity or the experience to think of other courses that could lead to good jobs in industry. We need a much closer link between the educational and the industrial systems and I intend that steps will be taken in that direction. I am doing a paper on it.

We need to provide means to get more venture funds into Irish manufacturing industry. At the moment there is quite an amount of private funds for investment. Much of this money is invested in Government borrowings, in gilts. More of it is invested in property modules and development of one sort or another for which quite generous tax incentives are given. We need to have a look at our whole tax code to see if this is the right emphasis because I believe the emphasis should be on giving the main incentives to people who have money to invest to put it into manufacturing industry, and not even into the construction industry. I agree there are problems in the construction industry but ultimately the construction industry is a service to the wealth-creating sector of the economy. We would not have a construction industry if we did not have wealth-creating agencies to finance exports. As a first priority we should endeavour to channel any available funds into the manufacturing sector of the economy.

I hope that in this debate we can reach a consensus on doing that. There is a need to bring the fruits of modern technology much closer to industry. One of the best decisions the present Government have taken was to transfer the National Board for Science and Technology, which had been in the Department of the Taoiseach, to the Department of Industry and Energy. That is where it belonged because the link should be between technology and industry. There is no point in having technologists going away producing brilliant ideas, brilliant papers, in isolation from the reality of industrial development. I intend to ensure that the National Board for Science and Technology under my aegis will get very clear policy directions to produce research and activity in the technological area that is directly related to the needs of industry.

We need to have improvements in the present early warning system, which is very good in many respects although there have been a number of problems in the recent past. The IDA, Fóir Teoranta and the Industrial Credit Corporation are actively involved in rescues. In the four months to 30 April 1983, through the rescue activities of the State agencies, 2,481 jobs have been saved that would otherwise have disappeared. That compares with 1,619 jobs in the same period in 1982. There has been enhanced rescue activity despite a very difficult industrial environment. That situation may have arisen because there is a greater need for industrial rescue at present: I am not getting involved in making this a partisan point, but it shows the extent of activity by State agencies in this area.

I intend to ensure that I will be involved to the maximum extent in all the difficulties arising in industry. In any case where an industry has been in difficulties, I have immediately called in the senior executives. I met the senior international vice-president for operations of the AT & T Company in regard to Telectron. I have met both national and international management of Irish Dunlop in regard to the problems they are encountering.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

When? Last night?

Mr. J. Bruton

I will be meeting the managing director and international director of Semperit tomorrow to discuss the problems facing that company. I believe there must be top level political involvement. It is essential that one should have balance. The Minister must be here to deal with various industrial problems. I have a Minister of State, a man in whom I have the utmost confidence. He has wide experience of industry——

Mr. Reynolds

I did not have one.

Mr. J. Bruton

——worked very effectively in his own business and in my Department. Deputy Collins is in the United States. He has been talking to senior executives of Telectron, AT & T and a number of other firms. I do not believe that I as Minister can do everything nor should I attempt to do everything. There are enough problems on the home front for me to deal with, and my Minister of State is dealing with problems in the United States. If necessary I would fly to the United States to discuss problems with industrialists there, but I believe once a Minister has confidence in his Minister of State, and notwithstanding the rather dismissive remarks made by Deputy Reynolds in this regard, I believe Deputy Reynolds has equal confidence in my Minister of State——

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

You could have fooled me.

Mr. J. Bruton

He is a man who will have an increasing role to play in future industrial development.

Mr. Reynolds

I did not have a Minister of State.

Mr. J. Bruton

The Deputy had a Minister of State from County Meath.

Mr. Reynolds

For three weeks, not eight months.

Mr. J. Bruton

Fianna Fáil could not make up their minds whether to appoint him. There was a certain amount of confusion in the ranks, and The Meath Chronicle was getting excited. Eventually he was forced on Deputy Reynolds.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

It does not compare with the confusion that exists over there.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has five minutes left.

Mr. J. Bruton

I am sorry. I am being distracted.

Mr. Reynolds

The Minister enjoys being distracted.

Mr. J. Bruton

We must develop a better atmosphere in industry. It has been fairly said that there are restrictive practices adopted by labour unions in certain industries — I do not want to get involved in particular cases. Trade unions are their own worst enemies when they do not see that the reality in the market place has changed and their firm is not selling the goods they produce, not because of any fault of theirs but because of changes in the market place. People must be prepared to adapt to the new reality. If a firm cannot afford them they must be prepared to change industrial practices which may have been perfectly justified when the firms could afford them. That could be achieved if more Irish workers invested in their own industry, or if not in other firms.

One of the initiatives I would urge firms to use is the provision in the 1982 Finance Act which gives a tax incentive to firms which introduce a worker-shareholding scheme. I am convinced that the traditional antagonistic relationship between management or owners on the one hand and the workers on the other is leading us nowhere. We must have a situation where workers can have a financial stake in terms of a share in the profits, which they will get only if the firm makes a profit. I intend to urge firms to use the provisions of the 1982 Finance Act to introduce profit-sharing schemes in their own industries. I am confident that would create a better environment so that the type of restrictive practice which ultimately leads to the destruction of jobs can be eliminated.

We also have to tackle the problem of absenteeism and unofficial strikes which have been a major difficulty in industry. This idea of worker-participation in ownership and sharing profits of industry would help solve the problem of absenteeism and the work force would be dedicated to the success of their own firms.

We must put maximum emphasis on quality control. This area has not been given the attention it deserves. We must produce consistently high quality products. There is no point producing high quality produce for 11 months and producing an inadequate product in the twelfth month. We must have consistently high quality.

I was surprised to hear Deputy Reynolds making a point about the National Enterprise Agency becoming involved in the takeover of Telectron. He will recall that the agency made the decision that they would not become involved in rescue operations, and I think that decision was taken when Fianna Fáil were in office.

Mr. Reynolds

It is not a rescue operation; it is a new industry.

Mr. J. Bruton

They decided they would not become involved in the rescue operations although they can become involved in new projects. As far as the 220 digital radios are concerned, I understand they were part of the contract negotiated in 1982, when the Deputy's party were in office.

Mr. Reynolds

I am only asking for details.

Mr. J. Bruton

It was agreed in the contract by the then Minister that 24 of them would be produced overseas in order to have them produced quickly. There is no great scandal there.

Mr. Reynolds

I was only asking a question.

Mr. J. Bruton

The main message I would like to leave with the House is something about which we can reach some degree of consensus — that there is no hope of being successful in Irish industry unless we are able to sell our products. It is sales on foreign markets which are the means of succeeding in Irish industry. Whether the State owns the industry, or a private firm, a foreign enterprise or an Irish enterprise does not make any difference one way or another if it is not able to sell what it is producing. Unfortunately, the problem with all the recent closures has simply been they have not been able to sell their products due to a number of reasons — underinvestment in some cases and failure to bring in new products when they should have. The key is that we must develop new products which we can sell abroad.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Listening to the Minister for the last half hour one can only express absolute disappointment at his approach to the motion and amendment before the House tonight. Dreams do not govern. At no stage did he try even to support the terms of his amendment before the House and the alleged action undertaken by this Government in certain areas. There was not one reference to that, which indicates quite clearly that no progress has been made by anyone. I ask Members on the Government side, particularly Labour Party Members, to take note, since they are expected to support that type of Government in the matter of industrial development.

The Minister welcomed the opportunity of this first, what he called economic debate.

Mr. J. Bruton

Industrial debate.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

Industrial debate. I accept that from the Minister. In the amendment to the motion he philosophises on how he might see the future development in our food industry and our educational system. His memory is very short. It was we in Government who, throughout the years, despite opposition from the Fine Gael Party on so many occasions, endeavoured to change the whole emphasis in education with the introduction, firstly, of the community and comprehensive schools and the regional technical colleges, to all of which the Minister refers. I agree with the necessity for improved technology and the imparting of improved technical and technological knowledge.

The Minister's contribution here tonight was far short of what we would have expected from him. He obviously shied away from answering any question posed by Deputy Reynolds, for obvious reasons. He told us how he had to be here at home when certain decisions were being taken and certain difficulties faced. The records will show that he probably, as Minister, has spent more weeks out of the country during his short term of office than any of his predecessors over a similar period. In other words, he argued both ways: that he has to process and further the IDA case in the United States and elsewhere and, on the other hand, that he could not be away when it came to positively and aggressively taking on a company like AT & T. These are some of the difficulties being faced by the country because of this Government's mismanagement. It is a difficult time for whatever Government are in power. As someone has said, it was far easier to be a good Minister in the seventies than it is in the eighties. It is imperative that this Government, once and for all, make up their minds on the direction in which the country is going.

At the end of his contribution the Minister mentioned the National Enterprise Agency. We did not hear one word on the Programme of Government of these two parties, which included the National Development Corporation — the song that I have heard sung since the mid-seventies. I have been involved in some of these debates going back over quite a number of years when the Minister was Junior Minister, or Parliamentary Secretary as it was called then, in this Department. The same approach was adopted then as now. No Coalition Government have ever been able to handle unemployment when it rears its head. It is now rearing its head in an unprecedented way. Deputy Reynolds has trotted out the figures. We have a very fast growing population and the age of our work force is a problem.

Let me remind the House, however, of some of the commitments of this Government. The Fine Gael Programme for Government of December 1982 states:

As an immediate measure a sum of £100m from the Contingency Fund in the recently published Public Capital Programme will be set aside to finance works of this kind during 1983.

What has happended? Where has this money gone?

There are a number of cases involving, we believe, up to a further £100m of projects in which infrastructural work can be usefully undertaken on a joint public-private basis, drawing in additional private capital for employment creation. Arrangements will be made to mount such joint ventures with relevant financial institutions or other private interests.

What has happened to that money? Let us be honest about it. That was the price paid in Limerick for Labour Party support. They were pure window-dressing operations.

At the same time the Cabinet Task Force will consult with the Youth Employment Agency with a view to removing any obstacles that may exist to its effective operation and will ensure that the resources allocated to the Agency are used fully and effectively with particular emphasis on actual job creation.

What happened? They have appointed advisers in all those Departments and no new jobs have emanated. There may be no unemployment among our advisers, but there is certainly unemployment in every other category.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

The only thing referred to by the Minister is the transfer of the National Board for Science and Technology. He never once referred to the National Development Corporation. If Deputy Carey is feeling the pinch in his constituency, he has been given an opportunity in the House without interrupting the speaker.

Mr. Carey

A legacy from the Fianna Fáil Party is what we have in our constituency.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

As Deputy Reynolds has said, there is no hope. The no hope syndrome being presented by the present Taoiseach is part of the way in which confidence is being eroded, optimism is departing and young people are becoming more and more frustrated and concerned about the present mismanagement.

Mr. Carey

The Minister himself would like to contribute to that.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

There are many aspects of the Minister's pronouncement which I could accept. I shall ignore the Deputy's interruption. I am long enough here to understand that one will always have that problem to contend with, particularly when no positive contribution can be made. I have no time to waste. If I were satisfied that his Taoiseach agreed, I would accept the Minister's philosophy.

Mr. J. Bruton

Terrible man.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

I want to go into some depth on some of the differences which are being seen at present. The Minister did try to say that more efforts than ever before were being made to rescue jobs. Remember that there was never a day before this when 890 jobs in various companies were lost in one day. I referred to the £100 million promised with rapid action. Six months later, where is that rapid action? You can ask the building construction industry in Cork, Clare and throughout the country. What have they got? They have got promises from the Tánaiste, from the Government, but they did not get any money.

A figure was mentioned down the country of 50 per cent unemployment in the construction industry. In my own city and county — and the Minister of State knows this well — even with the promised starts indicated to take effect from now until the year's end, the unemployment figure by the year's end will be 50 per cent in the building construction industry, or one in every two. That is the actual position, even taking into account the actual scheduled starts. It is time we asked what this Government intend to do with the £100 million about which they spoke, particularly when they cut our capital programme back by £260 million.

The motion was avoided completely by the Minister and the amendment was avoided by the Minister. We have seen a frightening succession of factory closures and there is no doubt about the necessity for this motion, rendered more urgent by, as Deputy Reynolds stated, Black Thursday of last week. We have the closures of Telectron and Black and Decker and the threatened closure of Dunlop's. We have the cutting back of employment in Jury's Hotel, Paul and Vincents, Arnotts, Semperit — I could go on and on with the litany. This is what made it so urgent. The hastening of those closures, of those setbacks, can be laid fairly and squarely on the most difficult budget ever introduced from an industrial development viewpoint. Instead of assisting, it hindered industry in every possible way. One can say our industrial base is being seriously eroded while the rundown and threatened closures of State industries have now established here the same pattern that monetarist policies created elsewhere, and I refer particularly to the Thatcher policies in Great Britain.

The motion related specifically to closures, company closures and feared and threatened closures. Despite the pleas of Deputy Reynolds, the Minister ignored them completely. I want to refer now to a page in last Friday's Cork Examiner——

Mr. Carey

It is doing well.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

——which referred to the serious job problem on the Cork scene particularly. They were talking about Dunlop's. Let me take Dunlop's as an example of Government going in two clearly different directions. Dunlop's is an old traditional Cork Industry. Time was when probably they had 1,500 people: time was when it was looked on as a gilt-edged, secure job in Cork city. For various reasons there were different rationalisation programmes — people made redundant with a consequent reduction in its present workforce to slightly under 700. During that period of retrenchment, if you like, it also became a most efficient unit. New equipment was installed, they had a good work force, a tightly-knit unit, undoubtedly the best and most efficient Dunlop plant in these islands. But political pressures from across the water could mean that Dunlop's here might have to suffer. This Government have a clear-cut obligation in this regard. Despite the Taoiseach's remarks on Saturday — and nobody is quite sure what he said — I want to quote from The Cork Examiner of yesterday morning, an article on the front page bearing the caption “Dunlop: Spring backs State aid” which said:

Tánaiste Mr. Dick Spring last evening pledged Labour Party support in Government for State aid, if required, for the troubled Dunlop plant in Cork.

The assurance, transmitted through Cork TD Mr. Toddy O'Sullivan, is in direct conflict with the Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, who on Friday ruled out any idea of State intervention to save the 680-job tyre manufacturing plant.

That is an example of what I have been talking about: two people going in entirely different directions. I sincerely hope it is the Tánaiste who is correct here. I put down a question today to the Minister we have just had in the House asking if the Government would provide funds, if necessary, to keep that plant going. This is the type of thing we are talking about on this motion. Of course the problem arises of where the money is to be raised if the 680 jobs are lost, plus the other service jobs that would suffer as a result. There is a good efficient unit in Cork and there is an obligation on the Government to have it saved.

Let me move downwards on that same page of The Cork Examiner of May 6 1983 to the heading “Target Survival” dealing with the very hard-hit Cork scene at present. There is a further heading to the left of the former one “Can dockyard be ship-shape again?” We all know the history of Cork Dockyard. We all know that Fianna Fáil over the years were committed to it. We all know also that on those benches opposite it was regarded as one of the trivial industries of Cork harbour. Small wonder that the present Government's commitment is not as great as that of the Fianna Fáil Government. From whoever speaks after the Minister on this motion the first thing I want is an undertaking with regard to repair work that there will not be a repeat of the recent B & I performance when a job could have been placed in that yard and when the reason advanced that it could not be placed was that they could not meet the deadline. Of course, that was an excuse. That was not the correct position, because the yard could have beaten the deadline by which the repair job was actually completed by the British yard, that did the job eventually. My first request to the Government is to ensure that there will not be a repeat of what happened in the case of the B & I with regard to the repair job.

There were some exchanges across the House a few weeks ago about the placing of the ESB's order, about which Deputy Reynolds and I know so much——

Mr. Reynolds

For the second time.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

——in Japan, for the second time. In the mid-1970s we had a similar experience with bulk carriers. Now an order for a coal carrier was placed in Japan and we were told it could not be done here. Of course there were problems about having it done here. I refer to the Belfast yard because obviously Verolme would not have had the capacity to do the job. But the spin-off by way of work to the Haulbowline yard, to the Rushbrooke yard, would have been tremendous. Again it was lack of commitment on the part of Ministers of this Government, lack of commitment by State agencies.

Mr. Carey

The Deputy could say the same about Moneypoint——

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

In fact it would have been drawing coal to Moneypoint whereas now we will have a Japanese ship drawing that coal into Deputy Carey's constituency with Deputy Carey delighted that this ship is being built in Japan. Shame on Deputy Carey if that is his attitude to what I am saying here. Deputy Reynolds referred already to the necessity for buying Irish as far as possible. Surely at times of deep recession like this, with a growing young population, with huge numbers of young unemployed and of school-leavers coming onto the books in a couple of weeks time, we must be a little less careful, a little more ruthless in respect of our own, and be committed to ensure that our people are employed as far as possible.

Where Verolme is concerned probably we have the most highly professional, skilled work force in this country. Their expertise is well known. We have had already a number of redundancies. May I quote a few other instances because, God knows, these poor old Government Deputies in Cork are obviously having a tough time getting messages across to their Ministers. That article entitled "Can dockyard be ship-shape again?" starts by saying:

The Government has yet to be convinced that Verolme Cork Dockyard will be viable, even if the work force is reduced in line with the current rationalisation proposals. This was the opinion of some sources in Leinster House last night——

That would have been last Thursday night——

after the future of the Cork shipbuilding plant was discussed at yesterday's Cabinet meeting. The Government will focus its attention on the problems of the yard again next Tuesday. Fine Gael and Labour TDs from Cork are urging the Cabinet to advise the company to substantially increase the financial terms on offer for the 400 workers willing to accept voluntary redundancy.

There are 1,100 there at present, 400 are threatened and, unless the Government give them orders fast, the other 700 will be threatened just as quickly. Deputy Reynolds has asked that the orders for the fisheries research and patrol vessels be placed with them. If they are not I fear for the future of that yard. This Government have one urgent obligation: to outline their policy with regard to the future of the yard, to rid the yard of the danger of aimlessness because of lack of Government commitment or of conviction about the future of that yard. There was the tragedy of placing that order in Japan, that big order that could have been placed in Belfast. I have not even time to go into all the goodwill that could have been created by this order being placed there, all the cross-Border relations that could have been built up because of it, not to mention the spin-off effect which would have been a great bonus for the workers of the Verolme Cork Dockyard. But there was not one reply from the Minister who answered across the House. Surely there was an obligation to give the House some indication as to what has been discussed in Cabinet because, according to our best information, we are told that on two occasions on last Tuesday and Thursday the Cabinet have been discussing the future of Verolme.

Debate adjourned.