What I think happened is that the project was brought to the Government table by the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism. Either he approved of the project in bringing it to Government or he did not. If he did not, why did he bring it to Government? I believe he approved of it but, having brought it to the Cabinet table, he found arraigned against him one or two of the senior members of Government, whatever way one wants to count seniority. I do not know how they do it.
Another factor came into play and that is that it is now an established fact that a former economic adviser to the Taoiseach in the period 1974-1977 and 1981-1982 was appointed by the Government as a director of the IDA. He quarrelled with the credibility of this project at the IDA authority level. He lost out there and the IDA approved the project to the Government. He went behind their backs to his political masters and urged the Taoiseach and Minister of Finance that Ireland was paying too much for international projects and that they could be got cheaper. The result was the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance decided against the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism and decided that the IDA should tell Hyster they were happy to accept the project provided Hyster would up their £1 million initial investment. If the Taoiseach and the members of the Government believed this was a high risk project and was too expensive it was their prerogative to refuse the investment. However, the Minister should not con the people into believing that it was too expensive or too high a risk to be taken on board and then say they would accept it with all its warts if Hyster would put up a further sum of £1 million. The Minister lost at the Cabinet table because the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance accepted the opinions of economists who are responsible to nobody, who do not go into the public arena looking for investment, who make judgments from a sheltered viewpoint and yet can tell everybody how to run his business. The Minister gambled and lost. It was probably not the Minister's decision and he is not the one who should be here this evening.
It is well know that the Department of Finance and certain economists believe that we are paying too much for international investment. If that is the Minister's decision, let him say so in a policy document instead of ruining the credibility of the IDA and spoiling their efforts to try to bring investment here. It is obvious that the Minister accepted the view of one economist to knock this project for the sake of a sum of £1 million. I am sure that the IDA knew, as I know having negotiated with them, that the Minister had not a pup's chance of getting the project back on the rails. There were already better terms available in Holland and the Minister asked Hyster, who had already brought a very significant project into Blanchardstown, a company who had lived up to all their responsibilities here, to put up a further £1 million. That conclusively shows that the Minister is totally incompetent in assessing commercial judgment. It was a calculated risk going back to Hyster and the Minister lost.
I have already stated the facts of the proposal before the Minister. State funding is never paid out in the first year of investment but in annual payments and if the company do not match their investment, the State grant is not paid. I can only come to the conclusion that using their own selective statistics of £11 million funding to the sum of £1 million from Hyster, was a deliberate propaganda ploy by the Government to undermine and discredit the expertise and commercial judgment of the IDA. It was to bolster flagging public confidence in the Government, to show that they could effectively manage the country's affairs and that they were in a position to tackle the unemployment crisis. The Minister knows very well that it was within the criteria and guidelines of the IDA, that it was not a high risk operation and that it was value for money.
If the Minister had not accepted the project at the very beginning, there would have been some credibility in his stand. There is no credibility in saying that he would have accepted it if Hyster had put up a further sum of £1 million. On a close analysis of the facts, any normal person would conclude that the Minister made a miscalculation and that the commercial judgment within the Cabinet is nil. Indeed, it is also dangerous when it results in losing good projects like this. I challenge the Minister to give us all the facts. For the first time in the history of Government Ministers, Deputy Bruton destroyed the confidentiality of negotiations between the IDA and a commercial concern for political ends and the repercussions will be felt for many a long day. Having selectively broken confidentiality, the Minister then took the ratio of £1 million to £11 million or £1 million to £14 million. I ask him to fill the gaps and to let everybody make his own judgment as to the facts.
It is not the first project which has been lost. The week before, a canning plant for Guinness's Brewery went to Belfast providing jobs for 270 people. At the press conference in Belfast, it was clearly stated that they were delighted to wrestle it from the Republic. The Minister should spell out his policy and if he does not want any more international investment here he should say so. However, the Minister and the Government should know that we will need large scale international investment for quite a long time to come and we are failing to capitalise on the benefits of the large scale investment which has gone on here for many years. Under successive Fianna Fáil Governments, very large industrial projects were brought in and are still in place with many spin-off benefits. The black hole in the economy is a clear indication that we are not capitalising on the benefits of large scale investment. We have succeeded only to a very limited degree — about 20 per cent — in supplying the services, components and the needs of large scale investors and that is why the black hole exists. There is also lack of confidence for further investment here.
The Minister's disastrous decision in relation to Hyster cost the Limerick region 800 jobs. The IDA own the factory and it is lying idle. The Minister took two selective figures, one at each end of the spectrum, and misled the people of Limerick and his own backbenchers in the area. I cannot understand how he misled the Minister for Justice if he can read figures and I do not know if he can. How did he let that happen to his own region? It did not happen when Fianna Fáil were in office and it will not happen as far as they are concerned in the future.
In The Irish Times of 20 May 1985 the Taoiseach said that the decision to seek additional investment from Hyster was one shared by this whole Government. While denying that Deputy Bruton's statement last Friday undermined the credibility of the IDA he said that one thing that was never made clear is that the Government make policies and the IDA execute them. He also said — wait for it — he was afraid that over a long period of time the Government have abdicated their functions and that Ministers have not carried out their functions in determining the policies which should operate, under what circumstances grants should be given and the kind of input which is needed by a firm coming in here. He went on to say that they had to exercise their responsibilities in Government, that they were acting responsibly and that the IDA had to accept that.
The first criterion for any Minister in Government is to respect confidentiality between a firm negotiating a package and the IDA. The Minister has broken that confidentiality and he has also misled everyone by saying that former Governments did not carry out their duties and responsibilities in relation to the Irish taxpayer. The Government must have very short memories. The Minister for Justice must have a short memory and the Taoiseach must have a short memory, but this is what we have come to expect from him in his continuing propaganda exercise in relation to this disastrous decision. It is dishonest for any Taoiseach to say previous Governments did not carry out their responsibilities. He should remember that the Government of the day did not take on board the De Lorean project. I am not in a position to know if the Learfan jet was offered to the IDA — perhaps the Minister knows and will tell us. He should look at the history of different Ministers and then try to convince us that this is the only Government which turned down IDA projects. Instead he continues to make these propaganda statements using his Ministers and many well known sources——