Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 May 1989

Vol. 389 No. 4

Taoiseach's Visits to Japan and Moscow: Statements.

I propose, a Cheann Comhairle, to make a statement on my official working visit to Japan from 23 to 26 April at the invitation of the Japanese Government and on my meetings in Moscow on 22 and 26 April.

During my visit to Japan, I was afforded the honour of being received by Emperor Akihito who recalled his visit, as Crown Prince, accompanied by the Crown Princess, to Ireland in 1985 and remembered with pleasure the reception accorded to them by the Irish people at the time. He recalled with great interest the different areas of our country he has visited and how they had influenced him. I expressed the hope that their Majesties might find it possible to visit Ireland again at a convenient future date.

My meeting with Prime Minister Takeshita also took place on Monday 24 April and lasted for more than two hours, including a working dinner hosted by the Prime Minister. We discussed a wide range of bilateral issues, as well as international political affairs and European Community matters, particularly the preparations for the completion of the internal market by 1992. I took the opportunity of stressing Ireland's wish for a close working relationship with Japan and our concern for the development of an open world trading system. We referred to the Japanese five year plan and to the possibilities for increased tourism under their new "Ten Million" Plan.

The Prime Minister congratulated Ireland on our vision in setting up the Irish Financial Services Centre in which major Japanese concerns like Sumitomo, Mitsubishi Trust Bank, Daiwa Securities and Orix have already decided to participate. We agreed to establish a joint Forum for political, cultural and educational matters and another joint Forum for economic affairs. The purpose of these fora is to oversee and advance the growing relationship between our two countries; to serve as a clearing house for ideas and projects and to identify difficulties and problems. These fora represent a significant development and will be used to ensure that no opportunities for co-operation are neglected and that obstacles to trade, investment and co-operation are eliminated to the greatest extent possible.

Following the announcement on the following day of his intention to resign, Prime Minister Takeshita was kind enough to send me a personal message, assuring me that the understandings we had reached and the arrangements made would stand. I invited the Prime Minister to visit Ireland. He gladly accepted, saying that he looked forward to paying a visit when the opportunity arose.

I had a very satisfactory meeting with Trade and Industry Minister, Mr. Mitzuzuka, on the same day. Our discussions covered areas of co-operation in relation to trade and industry. The Minister was very forthcoming in his approach to the relationship between our two countries and clearly anxious to advance it to our mutual benefit. I stressed that Ireland, having one of the most open economies in the developed world, with exports equivalent to about two-thirds of GDP, was committed to international free trade. We believed that an imbalance between Japan and the rest of the European Community should be remedied by more trade and investment rather than by restrictions or limitations. I mentioned that our exports to Japan had, in fact, grown by 30 per cent last year. We agreed that the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Ministry of Trade and Industry should enter into direct communication at technical level on EC or bilateral problems in co-ordination with our embassy in Tokyo. Mr. Mitzuzuka proposed that he arrange for an investment mission to come to Ireland as soon as possible to examine all possibilities for Japanese investment here. I warmly welcomed this proposal and the mission is being arranged.

The Minister said that if there was any segment of local industry or any company which we would like to interest in this mission we should let his Department know so that it can be included for consideration in the mission. I should add that we also discussed the possibility of developing for the mutual benefit of our two countries, the services of the 160 or so FÁS students at present working with Japanese companies in Japan. Mr. Mitzuzuka indicated that he hopes to visit Ireland at an early date to pursue our discussions further and to see at first hand the progress being made in the Irish economy.

I received a courtesy call from a delegation from the Japan-Ireland Parliamentary Friendship Group, with whom I had an interesting discussion on parliamentary, trade and cultural links between Japan and Ireland, including the proposal for a new Japanese school here and the progress of the FÁS scheme in Japan for training Irish graduates.

My luncheon meeting with the Keidanren or Federation of Japanese Industries was constructive and fruitful. I emphasised that a key element of our industrial strategy is the attraction to Ireland of outside manufacturing and financial services investment. Representatives of Japanese firms with plants or interests in Ireland spoke favourably at the meeting of their experience and the success of their enterprise here. They encouraged other firms to consider investment in Ireland and took careful note of the MITI proposal for an investment mission, which I mentioned.

At the meeting of the Keizai Doyukai, or Association of Corporate Executives, on Tuesday 25 April, executives again spoke of their experience with investment in Ireland. An important point made by participants in the meeting was that, with the development of the internal market in the EC, they could now think of Ireland as part of a very large market and an important place to invest. They were very much encouraged by what I had said about the Government's attitude to investment and our support for a European Community committed to international free trade.

In addition to these meetings with representative bodies, I had a number of separate meetings with the chairmen, directors or chief executives of six very large companies who have invested or are considering investment in Ireland. These meetings were very friendly, informative and constructive. The companies indicated their continuing support for investment in Ireland. I am happy to report that I was greatly impressed by the quality of the IDA presence in Japan, their knowledge of the scene there and their extremely competent performance. They told me that the pipeline for Japanese investment in Ireland is at the highest level since 1972 and that they have set a target to double the number of Japanese companies in Ireland. I am sure that with the help and understanding of the companies, whose representatives I had the honour of meeting, this target will at least be met.

At every level, the Irish delegation was greeted with extraordinary courtesy and consideration and with a very positive attitude. I would like in particular to thank Prime Minister Takeshita for affording Ireland the opportunity of being the first country invited to Japan as part of a new arrangement for official working visits. Our gratitude is also due to Minister Mitzuzuka and to the chairmen and members of the Keidanren and the Keizai Doyukai who spared no effort to make our meetings pleasant and productive. The chairmen and executives of companies which have invested in Ireland spoke warmly of their experience and I expect that they will be joined soon by other colleagues wishing to benefit from the developments in the European Community as we move towards 1992.

I would regard the visit to one of the modern world's most remarkable countries as a success. I was honoured and gratified by the warmth of our reception everywhere and by the positive response we received at all our meetings and discussions.

I can assure the Dáil that there is a lively interest in Ireland in Japanese Government, business, financial and industrial circles. There is a positive attitude towards this country and a definite wish to seek out possibilities for trade and investment. Japan offers exciting prospects which we must fully and comprehensively follow up.

On the outward journey to Japan, at Sheremetyevo Airport in Moscow, the Soviet Government kindly arranged for a meeting to take place. The Soviet side was led by Mr. Kamentsev, Deputy Prime Minister and chairman of the Foreign Economic Commission of the USSR, and by Mr. Rachimbaev, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations. Other members of the Soviet delegation were Mr. Zilanov, Deputy Minister, Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Uspenski, Head of the Second European Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Krasnov, Deputy Head of the Second European Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On the return journey a follow-up meeting was held at the airport. Mr. B.L. Tolstykh, Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the Science and Technology Commission of the Soviet Union, led the Soviet delegation on this occasion.

At both meetings, the dialogue begun at Shannon on 2 April with President Gorbachev, was resumed and developed with particular reference to questions of bilateral trade, including possible countertrade arrangements between Ireland and the USSR. We also discussed multilateral issues, especially developments related to the European Community and relations between the EC and the USSR; and developments within the Soviet Union in respect of the democratisation process and perestroika.

I explained our interest in a possible oil barter arrangement whereby, for our mutual benefit, we would exchange oil and perhaps other resources from the Soviet side for Irish consumer goods and foodstuffs. When the Soviets indicated a corresponding interest we agreed to establish a joint expert committee to discuss technical questions related to grades of oil, their refining, the amounts that would be involved and other issues. That committee will meet in Moscow soon. I put forward a suggestion for consideration by the Soviets that they take a share in our oil storage and refining capacity on a partnership basis. The Soviet side expressed interest in this idea which they said they would consider favourably and let us have their reaction at an early date.

The Soviet side expressed a very definite interest in the possibilities for co-operation in the health service area. I explained the operations of PARC and mentioned that as preliminary meetings had been held, the way was clear for looking now at wider possibilities and said we would arrange for a delegation from PARC to pursue these with the appropriate authorities in Moscow.

In broadly similar terms, I explained the work and responsibilities of our State organisation, Eolas, in relation to science and technology and requested that a delegation be received to have preliminary discussions about the possibilities of co-operation. The leading Soviet Minister, whose area of responsibility is science and technology, responded very positively, mentioned areas of interest to him and welcomed the idea of a delegation coming soon to see Soviet scientific and research installations and to discuss further areas of co-operation.

In relation to fishing and ship repairs, I explained our wish to explore what possibilities for co-operation to our mutual benefit might exist, particularly in regard to Verolme Shipyard in Cork. In a considered response, the Deputy Minister for Fisheries, Mr. V. K. Zilanov, made it clear that he understood that we were necessarily bound by the provisions of the EC Common Fisheries Policy and recalled the negotiations now beginning between the EC and USSR on fishing. He suggested expanded bilateral co-operation with Ireland in three areas — viz. a joint facility in Ireland for ship repair and for change-over of crews, co-operation in fishery research and co-operation in processing and marketing. A USSR delegation will come to Ireland in early July to discuss these matters.

I mentioned that over a period of years our semi-State bodies had acquired experience in operating in the private sector and that their expertise in this context could be of value to Soviet State bodies in their new role. The Soviet Chairman responded that they had a substantive interest in personnel and management training; they would make every effort to overcome possible difficulties and would examine how best they could avail of the Irish expertise in this area.

As regards timetables and procedures for carrying these discussions forward in an organised and comprehensive way, we agreed to set up a general negotiating committee at high official level. That committee will meet as soon as preliminary investigations and contacts are completed. They should complete their work in June or July; in substance, they will prepare the agenda and a realistic programme of action for the meeting of Ministers of our two countries which will take place next autumn.

The other points covered in the talks are of more general interest: the two Soviet Deputy Prime Ministers stressed the importance of the increased Soviet-Irish programme of contacts at all levels, but especially the political level. Beginning with my meeting with President Gorbachev in Shannon earlier this month, and building on these two meetings in Moscow, further contacts now envisaged include a visit by the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs after the summer, a visit of Members of the Oireachtas to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, various contacts at official and expert level, and the more general Irish ministerial delegation visit to which I have already referred. As Deputies will be aware, after the first meeting in Moscow, accompanied by Deputy Prime Minister Kamentsev, I also visited the duty-free shop at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport, operated jointed by Aer Rianta and Aeroflot. My visit was in recognition of the remarkable success of Aeroflot, the first Irish-Soviet joint venture, since its establishment in February 1988, and of the significance of the Aer Rianta-Aeroflot business relationship in the general context of Irish-Soviet relations.

I am optimistic that these discussions will impact on existing Irish-Soviet trade and economic relations significantly. By raising our existing range of contacts to a higher level and specifically by providing a fresh, vigorous political impetus to a process already under way, the results for Irish trade and for Irish-Soviet economic relations can be immensely and immediately beneficial. I was particularly struck by the businesslike approach of the Soviet side towards action to develop practical economic co-operation in various fields and I look forward to favourable developments in the way I have mentioned.

I would like to conclude by some comments of a more general character. The visit to Japan, following the visit to Australia, and the development of relations with the Soviet Union is part of a conscious policy by the Government to strengthen Ireland's links as a member of the European Community with some of the major countries of the world, with which we have hitherto had little or no contact at the highest political level. The purpose of this policy is to allow us at an early stage to secure a full understanding of the many important and fundamental changes that are taking place internationally at present and to be in a position to accommodate these changes and when possible to benefit from them.

The completion of the internal market has focused world attention quite dramatically on the European Community. It has the potential to become the world's largest and wealthiest market in the next decade. Ireland, as a part of the Community, is of much greater interest to third countries, than we would otherwise be. We offer significant potential for trade and especially as a base for investment in Europe.

The growing economic importance of Japan, as a third force alongside the United States and Europe in the developed world is one of the most significant features of the international scene. Japan's economic performance over the last three decades has been phenomenal, and Japan is now steadily increasing her investment abroad and opening up her economy. It is vital that the growing relationship between Japan and Ireland should be recognised and encouraged by meetings with political and business leaders at the highest level.

As a necessary extension of perestroika the Soviet Union is actively looking abroad for economic partnerships and flexible financing arrangements so that some of the immense possibilities for development as well as improvements in living standards can be more quickly realised. In this context some of our State bodies and other enterprises are attractive potential partners and there are many significant bilateral opportunities to be explored. In this way the rather slow and formal pace of co-operation between Ireland and the Soviet Union that prevailed hitherto can be greatly accelerated.

The purpose of my recent visits and meetings, therefore, has been to give a new and stronger political impetus to these important developments and relationships, on the basis of the new credibility that Ireland enjoys, as a country with sound economic fundamentals and excellent prospects.

Visits of the kind which the Taoiseach has described are, in my view, to be welcomed. There are always benefits to be derived from improving, and indeed deepening, our links with major trading nations, with nations which have significant political and cultural interests. The idea behind the visit which the Taoiseach made to Japan began to take shape in the context of a visit to Ireland by a Japanese trade delegation in 1986. I am glad that initiative of the previous Government, like so many others, was followed up by the Taoiseach and the Government.

Japan, of course, can fairly be described as one of the great wonders of the modern world economy. In many respects, it is a country that has outperformed the rest of the world. It is a world leader in technology and innovation. Above all, it has shown a most remarkable capacity to apply new technology and new ideas and to turn them to competitive advantage. Japan also is a major political force on the world stage and, as an island nation, has become a major commercial force in shipping and ship-building throughout the world.

In view of all that, we must be pleased at the development of trading and cultural links between our country and Japan. Those links, of course, take many forms and the most obvious one, perhaps, is investment by Japanese firms in the Irish economy. It is fair to say that our experience of that kind of link has been very positive indeed. We will clearly like to see it develop further and to see an ever-increasing range of Japanese brand Irish-made products on sale in markets throughout the world.

Of course, much credit for developing those links belongs to the board and staff of the IDA, who have invested a great deal of effort in marketing the advantages of an Irish location to Japanese industry. Their success is to be commended: it is important to all of us. I would like to say that I fully agree with the comment by the Taoiseach about the IDA operation in Tokyo. In February, on my way to an engagement in London, I met the chief executive of the IDA who was on his way to Tokyo to do some of the advance work for the contacts which the Taoiseach had during the course of his trip. The job of the IDA is not commented on enough in the House. It is carried out with a great deal of expertise and dedication by the people involved.

Córas Tráchtála also deserve a great deal of credit for the work they have done in assisting our exporters to penetrate Japanese markets. We are only at a very early stage and it is a difficult market, notwithstanding the efforts made in recent years to encourage its opening up to goods and services from other countries. We have a number of Irish exporters to Japan, and their persistence deserves all the rewards that they can get. Cultural links between Ireland and Japan are expanding also. It would be fair to pay particular tribute to the work of the Ireland-Japan Association in that regard. This is an area which we should explore further to the mutual benefit of the peoples of our two countries and also — we should never lose sight of this — the development of cultural links can form part of the basis of expanding the level of tourism exchange between the two countries.

The Taoiseach's visit to Japan was part — a highly visible part, of course, but only a part — of that widening of contacts between the two countries. I was interested in the Taoiseach's reference to the institution of a number of new fora for, as I understand it, political, cultural and educational matters and a forum for economic affairs. That is an idea I would like to see developed a little more so that we would know what would be involved in it. It is the kind of structure which is well suited to what we might call the Japanese way of doing business and the Japanese style of administration. I am bound to remark that while I welcome the Taoiseach's progress in developing an economic, cultural and social forum of that kind, I would recommend to him that he turn the same style of thinking internally and look again at proposals my party made not so long ago for a forum that would deal broadly with those kinds of issues to the immediate and direct benefit of the Irish people. I suggest to the Taoiseach that if he feels that that kind of approach would be of benefit in Irish-Japanese relations it might be an equally good idea, if not a better one, close to home.

While I commend the visit, I believe it would be wrong to exaggerate the net effects it has had on the flow of Japanese investment to this country and on the flow of trade between the two countries. Political visits of this kind are a necessary but largely ceremonial part of the process of building up these links. In that connection — I am sure the Taoiseach will have done some thinking on this matter — the real question which we must ask is, what has been achieved by the visit that would not have been achieved otherwise? That, of course, is not the type of question the media were asking during the course of the visit but it is one which, in a more reflective mode, should now be taken up.

I should also like to ask about the political content of the visit. Japan is a major player in world trade. Did the Taoiseach have any discussions in Japan on the major world trade issues that are now being discussed in the GATT? During the course of his remarks the Taoiseach referred to the position of Japan in world trade and he spoke of his Japanese interlocutor being very much encouraged by what the Taoiseach had said about the Government's attitude to investment and our support for a European Community committed to international free trade. That is fine as far as it goes but was the Taoiseach referring, either by-the-way or specifically, to questions that arise in relation to international trade in agricultural products?

Japan is one of the countries that has in the past posed a number of difficulties for the European Community in terms of access. There have been a number of difficulties for us in terms of access for some of our export products to the Japanese market. Were those issues discussed during the course of the visit? Was there any discussion on the much wider, and indeed more preoccupying, issue of the whole approach that is being generated in the GATT to questions of world trade in agricultural products and support for agricultural producers? Again, that is an area in which Japan has from time to time been a difficult partner in discussion.

It might have been interesting for the Taoiseach to discuss with members of the Japanese Government their approach to proposals to do away entirely with domestic agricultural income supports. Japan, as we know, has an economy that has developed in a number of very novel ways but, like most other countries, it is a country which took measures, and still takes them, to protect, support and maintain its own agricultural sector. There might be a point in our coming closer to Japanese interest with a view to the way talks are going to go in the GATT. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should break out of the proper negotiating circle at the European Community but there are more ways than one to skin a cat. There are times in negotiations like that when it is very useful to know what the Community's partners outside might be thinking. It might be comforting to know that some of them would take a particular line on issues where, perhaps, we are not getting within the Community all we would wish in terms of the content of a negotiating brief.

Japan is an island nation that is bound by treaty obligations to keep armed forces for self-defence only. I wonder if the Taoiseach took the opportunity of having any discussions with the Japanese Government on how they see their role in contributing to world peace or in furthering the cause of global disarmament? Japan is in a unique position among all the nations in the world in terms of its military forces and its relationships with military blocs elsewhere. Indeed, it might be fruitful to find out what the Japanese viewpoint is on those issues of world peace and disarmament.

Turning to the Taoiseach's visits to Moscow, we must wonder if there is any significance in the fact that he was not met during either of his stop-overs by President Gorbachev. It seems to me that there must be at least as many milestones on a journey from Dublin to Tokyo as there are on one from Moscow to Havana. I wonder if, following the discussion we had here after the Taoiseach's meeting with President Gorbachev, the Taoiseach took the opportunity on either of those stop-overs in Moscow, or is it envisaged for any of the future discussions that are going to take place, of exploring what the Soviet authorities can do to cut off the source of supply of illegal arms and explosives from the eastern bloc. I imagine it would not have been appropriate to discuss that at Sheremetyevo when the Taoiseach thought he was talking to a young Irish lady, when in fact, she was a young Soviet lady.

You would have made the same mistake yourself.

I might have gone a little further, Taoiseach. It would be useful for us to know — and it would certainly be comforting for this House to know — that that particular issue, that is, the supply of arms and explosives, is on the agenda at some point during this series of further contacts the Taoiseach has been arranging with the Soviet authorities.

The Taoiseach told us he put forward to the Soviet authorities a suggestion that they take a share in our oil storage and refining capacity on a partnership basis. I am trying to keep count of just how many partners that is. I am not sure what the present situation is about discussions with a possible Nigerian partner nor am I sure if there is any foundation for suggestions that there were discussions with a possible South American partner. It appears now there may be discussions with a possible Soviet partner. At the end of all that, I am not too sure whether the Irish National Petroleum Company will know who heads up what or which bit of it is working for whom this week or next week.

While it might be interesting to establish whether there would be any interest on the part of the Soviet authorities, it seems a more co-ordinated approach is needed to make sure that one group of Ministers does not go off and sign a partnership agreement in Moscow and another group of Ministers sign a partnership agreement for the same set of assets in Nigeria and find out at the end of it all when they come back home that the Government here have decided to become a partner or beef up their partnership by putting in £25 million, which they are talking about putting into Whitegate over the next few months. There is a need for a more co-ordinated approach to this matter and while it might be interesting to sound out opinion around the world there is no substitute for knowing what you are doing here at home.

It seems that another possibility which was examined was an arrangement under which the Soviet fishing fleet would use the facilities at Verolme Dockyard in Cork. I think we would all welcome an initiative that led to resumption of activity down there but, again, it should be pointed out very clearly in advance, and we have bitter experience of this, that the Soviet fishing fleet have their own set of practices where maintenance and painting of vessels are involved. They have, for reasons best known to themselves, a requirement that a certain amount of the work be carried out by the sailors on board the vessels. That should be made clear very firmly in advance so that any future initiative — and I would like to see one — does not trip over that problem as one did indeed in the past with very deleterious results for employment in Cobh and the Cork area generally.

I must say the general impression is that the Taoiseach's visit to Japan and his two stop-overs in Moscow were useful, and I do not think we should in any way take away from that. However, it is a fact that the shine seemed to have gone off it rather a bit at the end with the Japanese Prime Minister announcing his resignation and the particularly tragic sequel there was to that. Of course, the shine had gone completely off the Taoiseach's visit by the time he got back here. There is a practice in some multinational corporations that they do not allow senior executives to make decisions on any important issues within 48 hours of arriving back from a very long trip. That is a practice that could perhaps be followed by the Taoiseach. He came back obviously jet-lagged, clearly a bit tired and who knows perhaps a little emotional and found that things were not to his liking here. In spite of all the drama and the comment that went on about it, I would have to point out to the House that we have been there before. The Taoiseach did a similar little dance on a previous occasion after he arrived back from a visit to the United States. If I were on the front bench over there with the group of Deputies who are there at present, I would pay a good deal of attention to the Taoiseach's future travelling plans and make sure that he never has a journey of more than two or three hours on a plane before he sets foot on terra firma here.

I might be travelling a bit further than you.

That will not be one where we will get jet-lagged. The Taoiseach will not have any need to be seeking partnerships during the course of that trip, and he will meet a few milestones on the way.

Having said all of that, and in spite of the fact that the whole thing went rather sour at the end when the Taoiseach got back here, I will conclude by saying, as I have said before, that these visits, and in particular the visit to Japan, seem to have been useful. They are a proper part of our international relations. I must say quite sincerely I was impressed by one passage in the Taoiseach's general remarks. I am very happy to see that he and the party he leads are now beginning in a real sense to turn their eyes outwards and to become, like my party and indeed one or two other parties in this House, a good deal more conscious of our relationship with the rest of the world than has been the case up to now.

I am glad of the opportunity to be able to say a few words in regard to this visit to Japan and the meetings which were held in Moscow on the way to and from there. I welcome, of course, the principle of these visits, and perhaps they have been undertaken insufficiently. Sometimes I ask myself, and particularly so after this last visit to Japan, whether they are undertaken directly for the furtherance of our relations with the country concerned or whether they are undertaken at least in major part for home consumption. One gets the feeling at times that playing to the gallery at home is a very major element and, of course, RTE did not exactly stint the worship, as I saw it, during the three or four days concerned.

It is valuable that the Taoiseach has gone to Japan even though there are no immediate results from his visit. I have some experience of going there myself. I found at all times that the decision-making period in Japan is extraordinarily long. Where Americans or Europeans might make up their mind about a particular issue in a matter of weeks, or perhaps at most in a matter of months, one is talking about a period of several years in relation to the Japanese. However, that is their style, their culture and there is nothing we can do about it. Some of the best results of the Taoiseach's trip may not be anything announced by him now but rather perhaps something that will happen in four or five years time. That is perfectly valid.

We should examine Japanese investment and trade with this country somewhat more objectively than we do. It is an unfortunate fact of life that Japanese industrial investment here is at a very low level. Approximately ten years ago we used to boast that we had 40 per cent of all Japanese industrial investment in Europe. I do not know what is the current percentage but it would certainly be very small because not a great deal of Japanese industrial investment has taken place here during the eighties. We have long since been passed out by many other countries in that respect.

It was a particular disappointment that the recent decision of the Toyota motor company of Japan to make an enormous investment, amounting to several billion pounds, in Europe went to Derbyshire in England rather than to this country. I venture to think that in some earlier times we would have been in there fighting for that investment, hopefully, with some success. As it happens, on this occasion, we do not appear to have been in the running at all although a number of European countries were in the running. That is a great pity because it would have been an invaluable investment for us. That investment directly provides 6,000 jobs in the slightly unlikely site of Derbyshire. Perhaps we could have offered facilities as good as those available there.

There has been an increase in Japanese non-industrial investment here which is to be welcomed but it is not as important in employment terms nor is it as important in actual investment terms as is industrial investment.

I join the Taoiseach in paying tribute to the extraordinarily skilful staff which the IDA and Ireland are fortunate enough to have in the IDA office in Tokyo. In that respect no other European country is as well served. Certainly it is not the fault of anybody there that the flow of investment has declined to the extent it has. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why this has happened. One possibility brought to my attention at any rate — I cannot vouch for its validity — is the circumstances in which a major investment was made in this country in telecommunications in the early eighties when what appeared to be likely to be a major Japanese investment was not proceeded with, and the investment was made subsequently by a French company without any great success that one can see in terms of employment or output here, which is disappointing. Such an occurrence can upset the Japanese perception of a country. Therefore, it might be worth examining why we are in our present position.

We talk about increases in Irish-Japanese trade which, of course, is happening all the time but from an extraordinarily low base. Irish exports to Japan — even though it is one of the richest markets in the world — are really a drop in the ocean compared with what they should and, in my view, could be. It is very difficult to sell into that market. With the greatest respect to them, at no time have the Japanese themselves made it easy to sell into that market. They are under a lot of pressure from the United States and the European Community to render that exercise somewhat easier. They are very slow indeed in how they move in that regard. If there is any one country in Europe from which exports should be welcomed in Japan I would have thought it was Ireland because Ireland, less than any other country in the EC, puts up barriers to Japanese trade. For example, more than one-third of cars sold here each year are imported fully built-up, from Japan. That is a much higher proportion of Japanese vehicles than is the case in any other European country. For example, France restricts the import of Japanese vehicles to, I think, 3 per cent. The French are not even prepared willingly to allow Japanese brand vehicles, now manufactured in Britain, access to the French market unless the Commission force them to accept them. For that reason it needs a bit more than the polite talk that takes place at these types of meetings and negotiations to try to ensure that we get a fairer share of the Japanese market for our exports. It is a very valuable market and one to which the Japanese have an obligation to give us greater access than they do.

It is noteworthy that about half the Taoiseach's text on his visit is devoted to the two meetings in Moscow. That may well be justified. Perhaps they are likely to be more immediately productive. If they are, I welcome the fact but here are one or two surprising elements in the discussions that took place that ought to be commented on. The first is the suggestion of some joint activity in relation to fishing, in particular the possibility of the use of Verolme Dockyard in Cork for purposes related to fishing and ship repair. On the face of it that appears to be a very good idea. Verolme has been closed for some years now. If it can be got going again that would be greatly welcomed. However, it is incumbent on anyone thinking in these terms to remember that not all Soviet fishing vessels are used for fishing, that perhaps quite a proportion are used for other purposes. That does not invalidate some arrangement being made in regard to the use of Verolme. At the same time it might be borne in mind that an understanding be reached that vessels used there would be confined, in so far as at all possible, to fishing and nothing else.

I note also from the Taoiseach's remarks that he made the suggestion to the Soviet authorities that they would take a share in our oil storage and refining capacity on a partnership basis. I find that a little surprising because already at least two other countries have been asked to make proposals in this regard and nothing has been worked out on that over the past year or two. The Taoiseach refers to the fact that he suggested an oil barter deal. Elsewhere he referred to the necessity to talk about possible countertrade arrangements between Ireland and the USSR. If we are having a barter for oil we are not having countertrade; the two things do not appear to me to be compatible.

I do not know that a barter arrangement for whatever goods we would supply, foodstuffs or other commodities, for oil is a particularly good idea. If it is proposed to have the Soviet Union supply us with oil it seems implicit in what the Taoiseach says that he envisages their supplying us with crude oil. I doubt very much if the Soviet authorities would want to supply crude oil; they would want to supply product because they are relatively near us. It would be much more valuable from their point of view to supply refined product and that aspect has not been clarified. My recollection is that most Soviet oil is quite different from North Sea and Saudia Arabian oil, which is refined at Whitegate at present. Soviet oil, therefore, for the most part could not be used in Whitegate, without major changes being made in that refinery, which might then prevent it being used for other types of oil. If the Soviets are able to supply the type of oil that could be used in Whitegate, that would be a different matter. However, the question arises as to whether they are prepared to supply crude oil or would much prefer to supply product, as they have been supplying to this market for the past 15 to 20 years.

Deputy Dukes adverted to the most noteworthy part of the Taoiseach's visit to Japan and Moscow as being the homecoming because it appears that on his arrival, a great deal of political instability seems to have been caused by what he said. Of course, this contrasts greatly with what the Minister for Health had said on that very same Wednesday morning on the Dáil motion. The Minister for Health had said that the Government did not see that motion as a matter of great consequence and that there was no question of it causing a general election or anything of that kind. The Taoiseach, on arrival, seemed to be rather annoyed and the unstable atmosphere that has existed for the past five or six days was engendered by him by what he had to say. It may well be that this concern about the possibility of the election does not arise out of a defeat on a motion last week in respect of which the total amount of money that would have been involved over a three year period was only £1.2 million. It may well be that the Taoiseach's concern arises out of other matters, which seem to be in the process of disclosure at present and which are a great deal more fundamental than the question of the expenditure of such a relatively small amount of money.

Would the Deputy agree that this form of speculation is rather remote from the Taoiseach's visit to Japan and Moscow?

It is certainly connected with the homecoming, which is often supposed to be the best part of a trip, but which in this particular instance was less happy than it might have been.

The Chair would regard it as somewhat alien to the statement.

On that basis, Sir, I will conclude by simply saying that I am glad that these visits take place. Rather than criticising the Taoiseach for making them, I encourage him where possible to make more. I think it is beneficial to the country. The fact that it is considerably beneficial to the Taoiseach is by the way. If the country benefits, that is what is important. Countries like Japan, the Soviet Union and others lay great store on a visit from a country's leading political figure or the holder of senior political office. For that reason I hope the Taoiseach will not be averse to making more visits of this kind to open up contacts and possible markets for this country in a world which is changing very rapidly. I agree with him that we need to adjust to change as rapidly as we can and to seek to benefit from it.

As a matter of principle I am in favour of visits of this nature. The Taoiseach visited Japan, and had a stop over in Moscow, and the main part of the visit in particular was very necessary. By and large only good can come out of these trips. Given the economic weaknesses which still exist in this country and which will exist for a considerable time, I believe it is very necessary for us to take every opportunity to increase our volume of trade and to attract foreign investment wherever possible. If we aspire to creating the jobs we so badly need, it is obvious that we will have to attract foreign investment and find foreign markets for our goods.

Japan is an obvious target. It is a country which has a lot to offer Ireland. We have boasted in the past of having had reasonable success in attracting Japanese industry but this has been only a drop in the ocean when compared with the potential investment.

Perhaps it is within the tenor of this report to comment on the lack of coordination between the various State services. I would have liked if the Taoiseach had looked at the situation as it exists in Japan and in the Far East in general. I believe we should have far greater coordination and a far greater commercial role for the Department of Foreign Affairs in promoting Irish trade, particularly in places like the Far East. To my knowledge some countries, for example, Finland, have appointed a specific minister for foreign trade. It might be difficult to take their example because of the constituency demands on Ministers but I urge the Government to look at this possibility. I know that the Finnish Minister for Foreign Trade spends more than six months of the year abroad selling Finland and attempting to find markets for Finnish products. From the trade figures, it appears that he does this quite well. There is no doubt that there is huge importance placed on visits by high political figures to countries. Japan, in particular, takes great pride in such visits. I had the honour and pleasure of representing the Government on a visit to Japan in 1986 and I can concur with what has been said about the IDA — their approach and professionalism is second to none.

As we are all told, the Japanese take two to three years to make major decisions in commercial dealings and it is very important that while they are making their decisions we keep in regular contact with them and offer every encouragement to them. I believe that such events as the Japanese trade mission to Ireland in 1986 and my visit to Japan in that year when I met with many companies, companies the Taoiseach met with also, are very necessary in establishing a link with the Japanese.

I would have liked if the Taoiseach had focused somewhat on access to the Japanese market. In 1986 there were many serious issues relating to high barriers which the Japanese placed on Irish exports, but perhaps at another time the Taoiseach can inform us if he had discussions with the ministry of trade, in particular, on our access to their markets. The efforts by CTT in regard to the Japanese market are to be commended. However, perhaps they would need more staff because of the size of their task. At a time of cutbacks in public expenditure, it is very difficult to increase the allocation to State agencies like CTT and the IDA but in my opinion money invested in these semi-State bodies to be spent in places like Japan, Korea or elsewhere in the Far East gives a multi-fold return and should certainly be encouraged. Should the Government seek to increase funding for these agencies, I would lend my total support.

There were what I would describe as weaknesses in the trip. There was a mass of benign coverage of the Taoiseach's visit. That is his pleasure as Taoiseach. However, there was some incredibility about the coverage of the political difficulties during the course of the visit. In that respect the timing was unfortunate, though through no fault of the Taoiseach. I can only say that the resignation of the Japanese Prime Minister, which was obviously a major political upheaval, must have pre-occupied the man in question during the Taoiseach's visit.

The visit to the Soviet Union, which is obviously a part of the building of links with the Soviet Union certainly highlighted that there are certain opportunities. As a small nation I believe we should pursue these. I commend the Taoiseach on the proposed visits which are to take place in the autumn. These are of interest to this country and I hope they are of benefit. I hope the House will have an early opportunity of discussing exactly what the Government have in mind in relation to their economic strategy and to strategies generally for the links with the Soviet Union. I believe there are enormous possibilities. What we are now witnessing is perhaps the most interesting in the history of the Soviet Union. There has obviously been a new awakening in that State and I believe they are looking more to the West to developing links and, for my part, I believe we should reciprocate and cooperate with them.

I hope we will have some clarification of the Government's intentions on the development of an energy strategy because so far as Whitegate and the Whiddy storage facilities are concerned, regrettably it seems that there is a decision a day from the Government, depending on which Minister is speaking. If a Minister is visiting the south he seems to feel it incumbent on him to offer a new policy or a new strategy in relation to our resources. They are not altogether co-ordinated. I do not want to labour the point, but it would appear that discussions are in train with three different countries in relation to our oil storage facilities in Whiddy and also we are talking about a major investment in Whitegate. Perhaps the Minister responsible would come into the House at an early stage and afford us the opportunity of having a discussion on what basis these negotiations are taking place and what are the prospects in relation to the current world oil situation for developing these facilities which, needless to say, are in great need of development. In relation to Whiddy and the oil strategy generally, there is a need for clarification of the position.

As I said at the outset I commend the Taoiseach on undertaking this visit. I am not sure that he would be overly enthusiastic about going away again given the tenor of his arrival back in the country. If the Taoiseach goes away again perhaps we could ask that he arrive back on a Monday or a Friday in everybody's interest.

I welcome the opportunity the Taoiseach has given the House to respond to his statement and his visit to Japan and the Soviet Union. As the Taoiseach has pointed out, Japan is a major trading nation and it is important that we should have friendly political links and productive trading links with that country. To that extent, the Taoiseach's visit was an important one and very welcome. It must be said that it was hardly the history making dramatic breakthrough that the Government press machine sought to suggest.

The most optimistic reports in relation to the visit to Japan suggested that while in Japan the Taoiseach got promises of investment of between £20 million and £30 million, which was likely to have a job creation potential of around 1,500. It is significant and it should be noted that these promises are not included in the Taoiseach's statement today. Perhaps the Taoiseach could take the opportunity to put on record whether these promised investments will come and, if so, when. It remains to be seen if this promise of investment translates into reality and if the jobs actually materialise. If all the jobs that had been promised, not just by this Government but by previous Governments over the past 15 years, had materialised we would have a very small unemployment problem. Even the 1,500 jobs promised arising from the Japanese visit — welcome as they will be, if they materialise — would be a drop in the ocean as far as the current unemployment situation is concerned, in that these 1,500 jobs would constitute the equivalent of, say, two weeks' emigration figures.

Two of the promised Japanese projects are proposed to be located in the Financial Services Centre in the Customs House Dock site. I and The Workers' Party have always been rather sceptical about the job creation potential and the projected job creation at that centre. It would seem that this Government have placed considerable hope in relation to job creation there. No doubt jobs have been provided during the construction of the centre. As long as it continues they will be there and as far as the construction industry is concerned they are welcome. But financial services are simply not going to provide the jobs on the scale needed to deal with our employment levels. Indeed, an article in the Evening Herald of 25 April 1989 reporting on the Taoiseach's visit to Japan, pointed out that while many of the world's major financial giants have shown an interest in Ireland the number of jobs created to date — in relation to the Financial Services Centre — has been tiny. Companies like Chase Manhattan are already operating with fewer than five employees. According to the IDA, even after taking all the 60 projects which have sought approval, the initial yield in jobs will be only about 1,400. That is a long way from the projected 7,000 which had been talked about when this project was proposed. What this House has to accept is that relying on the Japanese or on financial services will not make a significant impact on our unemployment figures. If we want to reduce unemployment we will have to do it primarily ourselves and the main job creation vehicle will have to be in the industrial area.

The Taoiseach's stop-overs in the Soviet Union were of equal importance to the Japanese trip and judging by the Taoiseach's statement would appear to have been more productive. The Taoiseach was able to avail of his stop-overs at Moscow to follow up on the talks held during the visit of President Gorbachev to Ireland. I hope the Taoiseach was suitably impressed by the duty-free shop at Moscow Airport, which is now being run by Aer Rianta. It shows, I believe, that a well run innovative semi-State company can be a successful commercial ambassador and a valuable earner for this country. It shows the important potential of the State sector and that far from selling off State companies, as the present Government are doing and are planning to do, it is in the interests of this country to expand, develop and modernise our State sector as part of a comprehensive job creation strategy.

An agreement with the Soviet authorities regarding the possibility of their fishing fleet using Verolme Dockyard for repairs and maintenance to their trawlers would be a welcome breakthrough for the Cobh area which has suffered so badly from job losses during the past decade. The facilities at Verlome and the skills of the workforce in the area have been totally under-utilised. The joint Soviet-Irish proposal in relation to Verolme could be an important step towards putting the yard back on a firm footing as a significant employer in that area.

In relation to the oil situation and the barter deal which the Taoiseach has been talking about, and because of the continuous strangle-hold which the multinational oil companies have on the economy of this country, it is important that the discussions with the Soviet authorities on a barter deal be brought to a conclusion as soon as possible. The events of the past few weeks have shown just how important it is for this country to secure a source of crude oil, independent of the multinational oil companies. The price of crude oil in the international market is likely to increase steadily over the next few months, fuelling inflation in the Irish economy and putting more pressure on interest rates. Against this background a barter arrangement which would protect the country against inflationary pressure has particular attractions.

In relation to the suggestion made by the Taoiseach that the Soviets consider taking a share in our oil storage and refining capacity on a partnership basis, I take the same view in relation to such a deal as I have taken in relation to the Nigerian proposal, that in any such deal we should ensure that this State retains control over our refining capacity and over the Whiddy terminal and the oil storage there. It is not good enough to allow such strategic things like oil and the supply and refining of oil to be taken out of the hands of the State.

Top
Share