Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Jun 1991

Vol. 409 No. 4

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Community Industrial Policy.

Proinsias De Rossa

Question:

3 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the position taken by the Government at the 22 May 1991 sitting of the intergovernmental conference on the development of a Community industrial policy; his views on the inclusion of a chapter on industrial policy in a future union treaty; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

There was no detailed discussion on this topic at the meeting to which the Deputy refers. In continued discussions of this matter by the Intergovernmental Conference on Political Union Ireland's position will largely be influenced by the contents of the agreed statement on Community "Industrial policy in an open and competitive environment" which was agreed by the Industry Council meeting on 26 November 1990.

Does the Taoiseach support the concept of incorporating a reference to industrial policy in any proposed new treaty or in amendments to the existing treaty? I am sure the Taoiseach will agree that the current unemployment crisis in Ireland cannot be solved on its own and, that there has to be a European dimension to whatever steps we take to resolve that crisis. Surely a specific reference to an industrial policy in the treaty would ensure that there is a commitment at European level to deal with such problems.

Such a commitment exists and will increasingly exist in the context of Economic and Monetary Union. I am not sure there would be widespread agreement to incorporating anything of that nature in a new treaty.

There clearly is not widespread agreement, in fact, there is severe disagreement at EC level with regard to incorporating such a proposal. May I ask the Taoiseach if, in his view, it would be important for the European Community to develop an interventionist approach with regard to industrial policy? To simply allow the market to operate freely without some intervention would mean that jobs would be created at the centre and not at the economic periphery where we are situated.

As we have already indicated on countless occasions, we are achieving a fair amount of success in having firmly established the principle of economic and social cohesion. It is on those principles and that kind of policy that we rely for the development and promotion of the interests of peripheral regions.

Yes, but——

Sorry, I am calling Deputy Bruton.

I do not intend to elaborate on this matter, but may I ask the Taoiseach to confirm that the Commission paper which the Council agreed on 26 November is clearly a non-interventionist approach to industrial policy and that regional and structural funding on its own, while it may create the conditions for job creation or job location in Ireland, will not result in job creation here unless there is a specific policy by the European Community to directly become involved in directing investment towards Ireland? There is a key point here: do we support an interventionist or a non-interventionist policy which is being promoted at this time by the Commission and the Council?

The Community is firmly committed to the concept of a free market. We have all seen the disastrous results of other systems, but as far as the Community is concerned and as far as we are concerned as a peripheral region of the Community, our approach is to have our interests protected and looked after and to have our development promoted by policies of economic and social cohesion. That is the line of approach we have adopted.

Would the Taoiseach not agree it is ridiculous that rich countries in Europe pay substantial grants to industry to attract them away from the peripheral regions, as witness the Belgians, the Dutch and the Germans? Would the Taoiseach further agree that if economic and monetary union and cohesion are to mean anything, there must be effective rules to ban the heavy subsidisation of industrial location in areas where there is already excessive industrial concentration to the disadvantage of peripheral areas like Ireland?

I do not want to be drawn into that area at this stage but I agree with the Deputy, and I am sure he would agree with me that what we must do is ensure positive policies of economic and social cohesion to protect all the economic and social interests of the peripheral regions.

Would the Taoiseach not agree that the matter I have raised must be dealt with definitively in the inter-governmental conferences, otherwise economic and monetary cohesion will not amount to a hill of beans?

I would not agree with that. While our primary concern is for the peripheral regions and while the peripheral regions must have their own priority in the policy of economic and social cohesion, it is possible to visualise other specific areas within the Community which geographically might not be on the peripheral areas but which would justify some special measures.

The Taoiseach has indicated that the Government's approach is to insist on economic and social cohesion as the principle on which the European Community must develop, and that is a very laudable approach, but the reality is that the the policy instruments — the Social Fund, Regional Fund, CAP, etc. — do not deal specifically with the development of industry. While we might get a commitment in theory to social and economic cohesion, if industrial policy does not direct industrial development and job creation towards Ireland and other peripheral regions, social cohesion will not take place.

I do not agree.

Top
Share