I rise to support the amendment of the Minister for Industry and Energy and I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this debate. Of all the debates going through the House now this is the most significant and important when we have 187,887 unemployed of whom 56,219 are under 25. This is a tremendous economic and social problem which deserves a degree of seriousness and gravity which have not emanated from the opposite side of the House, last night expecially.
When dealing with this area there can be no running away from the simple fact of the fundamental environment for employment. While we have many indigenous advantages to attract foreign investment and for the expansion and development of various sectoral aspects of industry, essential cost inputs to industry — energy through electricity, telecommunications charges, transportation costs, through fuel costs and many industrial and other services, aside from the central industrial issue of restrictive trade practices in many of our professions — are the basic reason why we are falling down in the area of viable production. Be it in the agri-related area or manufacturing industry, we have not the fundamental basis of competitiveness to produce goods and services profitably and viably and thereby protect jobs. The Government recognise the need to control inflation and interest rates before dealing with the symptoms that are highlighted by a debate such as this.
Listening to some of the speakers to this motion one would think that this problem of escalating unemployment had only just developed in the four months since 14 December. Perhaps it is conveniently forgotten that in the last two years, on any 12-month basis, 40,000 jobs were lost. Seeking to blame, the Fianna Fáil motion directly condemns the total failure of the Government. We should be fair and look for blame on all sides in relation to the dilemma we find ourselves in. The record shows that the previous Government did nothing to control the costs that I speak of. That is one reason why I must not support The Workers' Party amendment which seems to put the emphasis on State-owned development of manufacturing industry as a solution to the unemployment problem through State industry.
The reality is that part of our problem is the tax burden we must carry because our semi-State bodies this year will run at a loss of £170 million. The high costs and high-cost structures in the semi-State bodies provide no real alternative in the free-trading economic world in which we live. If we seek to apportion blame — in industrial relations — that is not very constructive but it is relevant when the Government are taking the flak we see in regard to the crucial pay guidelines that are to be negotiated that staff of the ESB are prepared to cause a blackout if necessary, regardless of the effects right across our whole economy. Also a major company, Asahi, are crippled on a dayto-day basis while the parent company are reviewing their future operations, and this is due to an NBU strike in CIE. In many receivership instances we see the failure of companies as going concerns because of the claims and efforts of those who are due for redundancy in the attempt to preserve the company and whatever remaining rationalised jobs can be preserved. Their wish for severance pay and for many other claims weigh over and above statutory redundancy payments which means that the receiver does not have the money. Under law the Government do not have the money either and, therefore, the investor who wishes to take over the company cannot do so because there is a lack of co-operation.
I learned today that in a company in Dublin, which is struggling to survive, absenteeism — and this is true of many companies — on Mondays, especially during the summer, is as high as 30 per cent. These are some of the reasons. We must also look at our banking system. The interest rates, and I am not necessarily speaking about the free market rate, are simply higher and the profit percentages are also higher than in other countries and, therefore, they limit the money and costs that any business can carry. If we are apportioning blame, we should be realistic about it.
Last night Deputy Reynolds mentioned that the early warning system which he had rightly set up in Government had broken down and that the Government are doing nothing to counter the problems in this area. I have it directly from the Department and those concerned that the efforts in relation to identifying the warning signals prior to the advent of receivership have intensified over the past few years. Through a diversity of State organisations, namely IPC, the lending institutions of the ICC and the ACC and, of course, the rescue operations of the State agencies directly responsible, the rescue board of the IDA and Fóir Teoranta have weekly meetings which have been intensified. In the instances of the companies in question, Telectron, Dunlop and Black and Decker, every effort was made by the State agencies to prevent them from closing.
There is an ACOT advisory service through which there is daily communication with all the rescue agencies in an integrated and co-ordinated way to ensure that everything possible is done to avert receivership. It is fair to point out that in the case of these companies, where they had European operations, their rationalisation programme and losses were not limited solely to Ireland. The action they had to take was regrettable but it, too, was not related only to Ireland. In the case of Black and Decker, my information is that they had been on a three day week for some years now and, although Deputy Lenihan said the closure was out of the blue, I am assured that everybody in the area knew there were problems for quite a considerable time.
I should like to mention what the Government are doing now in this area. The Minister mentioned that the planning board has been set up, that there were changes in regard to regulations relating to VAT on imports at the point of entry, the employment task force and the national planning board. I was interested in discussing with SFADCo their proposals in relation to the food sector. They have intensive development now in relation to this sector and they have a three phase programme whereby they will get existing small business people in the secondary processing of foodstuffs, such as tomato ketchup and horseradish sauce, to develop them into a large concern. They have done this by taking on board these people and by giving them advice in terms of marketing, research and development, management and will eventually help them to build units of 30 square feet which will provide a pilot project.
With regard to Limerick and Shannon, one might well ask why Mattersons were not successful. The reason is they were in the canning industry with a high volume turnover, low costs and high output but, when the State took it over, through the Sugar Company, the reality was that the low cost structure disappeared. They were not able to provide the goods and services at a competitive price.
In the areas of secondary processing of our natural resources of agriculture, fisheries and forestry, inter-departmental groups, through civil servants, tend to look after their own areas of responsibility. We hope that by raising it at the highest ministerial level they will overcome these problems. I hope that the National Development Corporation will be actively involved in this area and that they will use the shareholding equity of the primary producers, the people already in the production business, and the retailers to provide a continuous marketing trading co-operation in sectors that will be used to ensure that there is real job creation in this area. But there is also a need for technical trade barriers within the confines of the free trading Treaty of Rome countries. It is possible, through the enforcement of technical standards for certain items, to curb the extraordinary growth of imports and, without having a protectionist policy, we could have some real structures which would help to solve that problem.
The Minister asked if Deputies had any ideas to advance which would contribute to a solution of this problem. I suggest that the National Development Corporation should be primarily involved in the post farm gate, post harbour, post forestry activity of getting involved and getting a sufficient share of the market in that area. I hope we will see expansion of the innovation centre set up in NIHE in Limerick, incubator factories as stated in The Way Forward, and that we will have a residential State run business centre. If people have a good idea for setting up a business they could go to the centre and avail of the full expertise in all the problems associated with setting up one's own industry. The old maxim is that the way to get rid of bad debts is by good management and I hope such a centre will be set up on a permanent, residential basis.
I hope the task force will try to ensure that the county development teams will be expanded and developed instead of regionalisation which has utterly failed. We should have one field officer from the IIRS, CTT and the IDA in each county development team and they should be on the ground to provide an expert, localised consultancy service. I wish to mention briefly, although it is not totally relevant to industrial policy, the activities of the Youth Employment Agency. It has already been mentioned in this debate that there are 56,000 young people without jobs. As the youngest Member of this House I am most concerned about this aspect of the problem.
While the agency had problems with short-term policies, and had to use existing channels to expend such large amounts of money, it is time that their medium-term policy started to work. There is a need for a job development scheme for one year guaranteed to all school leavers integrated with the work experience programme and the AnCO training schemes. Our technical schools are empty in the summer where real training and education could be provided related to the need for employment opportunities and moving away from the sterile type of education and training for clerical and administrative work which has been taken over by technology.
The Goods Council in conjunction with the Youth Employment Agency should use their initiative to provide co-operative structures, and whatever, on the basis of import substitution even for small items which could be produced here by sole Irish producers or to service large manufacturing industrial units. The agency should pilot schemes. Instead of having grants paid through different Departments for house improvements, the unions should have an open viewpoint on traditional areas of labour which could be looked at again to provide schemes involving young people.
