Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 4 Jun 1970

Vol. 247 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 40: Industry and Commerce.

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £23,555,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1971, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of sundry Grants-in-Aid.

In the Book of Estimates the net Estimate of £23,555,000 for the year 1970-71 compares with a sum of £19,633,600 granted in 1969-70 (including Supplementary Estimates of £3,121,000 and the transfer of £42,600 from the Vote for Remuneration) and shows an increase of £3,921,400.

The principal increase arising in the financial year 1970-71 is the increase of £3.5 million in the provision for capital expenditure for the Industrial Development Authority. The provision for An Foras Tionscal in 1969-70 in the main and supplementary Estimate was £15 million compared with £18.5 million now provided for the authority. Other increased provisions are: £228,067 for the authority for administrative and general expenditure; £137,000 for the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards; £96,000 for Córas Tráchtála and £80,000 for administration and general expenses of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Ltd. There is an increase of £80,000 for shipbuilding subsidies after taking into account the reduction of £80,000 in 1969-70 for this service by way of the Supplementary Estimate passed in February last. Provision for additional staff in my Department accounts for an increase of £34,883. Increases in other subheads amount to £35,325 bringing the total increases to £4,191,275.

The principal decreases are £60,000 in the provision for technical assistance after taking into account £100,000 included in the Supplementary Estimate to which I have already referred. Provision is not required this year for a National Productivity Year; £64,000 was voted for this last year. The provision for the Buy Irish Campaign is down by £30,000; the provision of £40,000 for this service in 1969-70 included a non-recurring grant of £20,000 towards the erection of a display centre at the National Development Association's premises in St. Stephen's Green.

There was a decrease of £18,000 in the provision for the payment of interest subsidy to Shipping Finance Corporation Ltd. Other decreases amount to £22,450 bringing the decreases to £194,450 to which must be added an increase of £75,425 in Appropriations-in-Aid after taking into account the reduction of £47,000 in Appropriations-in-Aid in the Supplementary Estimate previously mentioned. The total decrease is therefore £269,875 and the net increase in the Estimate is £3,921,400.

The past couple of years have been a period of remarkable growth in Irish industry. The quarterly industrial inquiry figures show that the increase in production in industry has been accompanied by a very significant and very welcome rise in industrial employment, the figures for transportable goods industries in each of the four quarters of 1969 being between 10,000 and 12,000 higher than in the corresponding periods in 1968. In June of 1969 we broke through the 200,000 mark in employment in these industries for the first time and by the December quarter the figure had reached an all time high of 207,000.

Although the exceptionally high rate of growth in our exports achieved in 1968 was not fully maintained in 1969, the rate of increase, despite disruptions of production, was significant.

The rapid expansion of our industrial sector is an achievement for which all those concerned—management, workers and State and semi-State agencies engaged in assisting Irish industry, especially the export orientated firms—can justly take credit. But we must realise that it is taking place within a general economic situation which, in certain other respects, gives cause for concern. The pressure which excessively high imports are bringing to bear on our capacity to pay our way internationally, and the threat which excessive income increases carry for the competitiveness of our industry both on home and export markets, are symptoms of danger which we would ignore at our peril.

In the debate on the Estimate for 1968-69 it was necessary to emphasise that industrial adaptation is a continuing need. At present we are spurred on to take adaptation measures because of the approach of free trade with Britain and the probability of an even wider measure of free trade through membership of the EEC. Continuing developments in industrial technology, changes in marketing conditions and a host of other factors will continue to exert pressure on us to keep under constant review production and marketing techniques and other aspects of our industrial activity. Physical adaptation, by way of re-equipment and improvement of premises and other facilities, is and will continue to be an important factor in the overall task of enabling our industries to meet the challenge of tomorrow.

In the structural and organisational aspects of industry my Department in its contacts with industrialists, both at the firm level and the industry level, continues to stress the importance of rationalisation, whether achieved through mergers and amalgamations or through other forms of association. The Department not only encourages such measures in a general way but concerns itself with identifying situations where specific forms of association or co-operation offer prospects of greater productivity and wider markets. In such activities the Department operates in close collaboration with appropriate organisations offering technical and other specialised forms of assistance to industry.

Towards the end of 1968 the Government established a Committee on Industrial Progress, which is engaged in assessing progress made by industries in preparation for free trade with special reference to product policy and marketing problems. Having regard to the progress made in physical adaptation, the main aim of the committee's work is to identify the activities on which resources can most profitably be expended. The committee has arranged for surveys of a number of industrial sectors. Reports on some of these surveys have now been completed and the first report has been issued.

The most important form of adaptation that is needed in industrial life is the adaptation of mental attitudes. Without this, schemes of assistance by way of grants or otherwise cannot be fully effective. I have no doubt that there are many people engaged in industry who adequately appreciate the extent of the changes in the trading environment in which we now operate, the fact that the phasing out of protection is for many industries reaching a crucial stage and that within a few years at most the full pressure of external competition will be felt in all sectors of industry. It would, however, be unwise to assume that everybody engaged in industry, whether at management or other levels, fully realises this. I am afraid there are still too many people in industry who are not preparing to measure up to the demands which free trade will make on them personally; too many who have not yet rid themselves of the hangover from the period of protection. It is essential, both in their own interests and in the interests of the community as a whole, that such people wake up to the realities of our situation.

It would, however, be a mistake to see that situation solely in terms of the dangers it presents. We must think in terms not only of an increasingly competitive economy but also of an expanding one. If the opportunities which this offers are to be fully exploited, our managers, technicians and operatives must go all out to bring themselves to the highest pitch of efficiency. There is no lack of facilities to enable all who are engaged in industry to become more professional and more competent in their jobs. It is up to them to make the fullest use of these facilities. By so doing they will ensure that the most up-to-date knowledge and techniques will be harnessed in the service of Irish industry and that employment of a worthwhile character will be maintained and expanded.

As you know, the Industrial Development Act, 1969, became law in December last. Since the Act was very fully debated during its passage through the Dáil and Seanad I do not propose now to make a lengthy statement on the reorganisation of the IDA that is currently taking place in accordance with the provisions of the Act. As indicated, when the Bill was being debated, it is hoped that the IDA will now function with even greater efficiency than before and that industrial development in Ireland will go forward even faster. The Act, which became fully operative on 1st April, 1970, dissolved An Foras Tionscal and transferred to the Industrial Development Authority the powers, functions, rights, duties and liabilities of An Foras Tionscal. The expanded and reorganised IDA will vigorously pursue the task of accelerating industrial development with the aim of achieving more rapid progress towards full employment and better living standards for our people. The changes which have been made and are being made over the whole field of our industrial expansion programme are required in order to ensure that we are geared to meet the competitive and challenging era which lies ahead. The new Act makes provision for three new forms of cash incentives for industrial development; the authority may now give grant assistance towards fixed assets provided through leasing arrangements, they may subsidise interest payable on loans raised to provide fixed assets, and give grants for industrial research. The Act also gives legal effect to the scheme of grants for the re-equipment and expansion of existing industries which was introduced in March, 1968.

For projects located in the designated areas, formerly described as the undeveloped areas, An Foras Tionscal approved grants amounting to £11.2 million during the year ended 31st March, 1970 and £2.3 million was paid in grants. At 31st March, 1970, after making allowance for projects previously approved which did not proceed and for other grant adjustments, the total amount approved in grants for 352 projects in the designated areas was £27.8 million of which £12.4 million had been paid leaving outstanding commitments of £15.4 million. The total capital investment required for the approved projects is estimated at £66 million and the additional employment to be provided is estimated at 28,000 persons. Two hundred and eighty of the projects were in production at 31st March, 1970.

For projects located outside the designated areas, grants amounting to almost £13 million were approved during the year and almost £7 million was paid. At 31st March, 1970, after making allowances for projects previously approved which did not proceed and for other grant adjustments, the total amount approved in grants for 432 projects outside the designated areas was a little over £45 million of which nearly £20 million had been paid leaving outstanding commitments of about £25 million. The approved projects will require a total capital investment of £147.5 million and it is estimated that they will provide additional employment for about 38,000 persons. Two hundred and ninety of these projects were in production at 31st March, 1970.

The Small Industries Programme which was initiated in three selected areas in 1967 has now been extended to the country as a whole. I am happy to say that the extended scheme is proving very successful and many additional small firms have been assisted under it.

An Foras Tionscal, co-operating with the Small Industries Division of the Industrial Development Authority in the implementation of this programme, had, up to 31st March, 1970, approved a total amount of £2.9 million in grants for 403 projects recommended for assistance under the scheme and, at that date, had paid a total amount of just over £1 million in respect of such grants.

Grants amounting to a total of nearly £22 million were approved by An Foras Tionscal up to the termination of the scheme on 30th June, 1968, for 1,438 works of enlargement and adaptation requiring a total capital expenditure of over £97 million. The amount of grants paid during the year was £2.4 million, bringing total payments at March, 1970, to £14.9 million and leaving outstanding commitments of £6.9 million.

The Re-equipment Grants Scheme was introduced with effect from 1st March, 1968, and provided for grants of 35 per cent in the designated areas and 25 per cent in the remainder of the country towards the cost of fixed assets of programmes of re-equipment, expansion or modernisation. To date over 1,000 applications for re-equipment grants have been received. So far 571 cases have been approved, involving an investment in fixed assets of almost £24 million and grants of £5.9 million. Up to 31st March, 1970, no payment had been made in respect of grants under this scheme; payments are expected to commence shortly.

Since July, 1966, when legislation enabling An Foras Tionscal to develop industrial estates was passed by the Oireachtas, work on development of the estates in Waterford and Galway has progressed very satisfactorily. To date a total area of 742,000 square feet of factory space has been constructed. A further 160,750 square feet is under construction. The total capital expenditure to date is just £3.4 million.

There are now 24 firms operating on the estates. These comprise five American, four German, three British, two Swiss, one Anglo-Italian, and nine Irish firms. In addition four other projects have been approved for location on the estates.

Employment in the factories amounts to 933 persons at present, 70 per cent male, and the projected employment for the above 28 firms is in excess of 2,000 of whom 70 per cent are expected to be men. There is every reason to believe that each estate will provide direct employment for 2,000 persons at full development and a sizeable increase in the volume of employment in service industries can also be expected.

An Chomhairle Oiliúna, the Industrial Training Authority, have taken two standard factories covering between them 39,000 square feet on each estate for industrial training centres. A range of training courses specialising in the engineering skills is being provided and the existence of these training facilities adds greatly to the attraction of the estates for industrialists.

The demand for estate factories has been such that the original annual building programme of 90,000 square feet of factory space for each estate has been revised upwards to keep abreast of demand. In Waterford site works will commence in the near future on the recently acquired additional 62 acres.

The aggregate amount which may be expended by the Industrial Development Authority to meet its administration and general expenses and to discharge the obligations or liabilities incurred under the Industrial Development Act, 1969, or otherwise including those transferred to them under the provisions of the Act is £100 million. At 31st March, 1970, the total amount of grants approved was £97.7 million of which £48.3 million had been paid. Outstanding commitments in respect of grants approved by An Foras Tionscal amounted, therefore, at 31st March last to nearly £49.4 million. These commitments must now be undertaken by IDA. Total capital expenditure to 31st March, 1970, on the development of the industrial estates was £3.36 million. As Deputies are aware, the industrial functions of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company were extended to include the Clare/Limerick/North Tipperary region and departmental responsibility for the activities of the company, except those relating to tourism and aviation, was transferred to my Department. The effect of the extension of the company's functions to the region is to require additional grant-in-aid in respect of their running expenses and additional share capital for industrial estate development and factory building in the region. The Bill to provide for the necessary amendments to the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited Acts, 1959 to 1968, has already been before the Dáil and is now before the Seanad.

The technical assistance grants scheme is one of the State aids available to both manufacturing industry and the distributive trade. Its aim is to promote efficiency in industry and in distribution. The need to review and adapt, where necessary, continues with the progressive removal of tariff protection under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement and with the prospects of our membership of the European Economic Community. Assistance is given to manufacturers towards the engagement of efficiency experts. Similar assistance is given to the distributive trade services, provided it is sought on a collective basis through approved groups. In addition grants are available under certain conditions towards the cost of visits abroad by representatives of manufacturing firms and of the distributive trades.

The Government have shown their willingness to assist those who are ready to help themselves. In the last decade assistance to industry under this scheme has amounted to approximately £1½ million. The consensus of opinion among firms availing themselves of these grants is that the expenditure incurred by them has proved a very worthwhile investment. Those energetic and forward looking firms who have been preparing in this way for the challenge of the new competitive world will be in a strong position because they have shown that they are alert to the necessity for innovation in order to avail of opportunities in export markets.

The Irish National Productivity Committee, which was brought into existence in January, 1959, by agreement between its constituent bodies and with the full approval and support of the Government, have a special value in bringing together, at industry level, representatives of labour, management and education. The active involvement of labour is important in encouraging industrial productivity.

The value of the committee's achievement so far has been demonstrated by:

(1) the successful establishment outside Dublin of regional joint committees to promote improved communication and efficiency in industry;

(2) the establishment of the ICTU education and advisory service which INPC continue to finance; this provides an educational service for member unions and an advisory service staffed by trained work study practitioners;

(3) the promotion and development of professional institutes in the personnel and work study areas;

(4) the development of an advisory service which is playing a very important and increasingly effective role in meeting the objectives of the small industries programme;

(5) the successful organisation of the National Productivity Year.

The necessity for Irish industry to keep itself up-to-date in the matter of scientific and technical innovation has been emphasised. If we lag behind in this field we may find that our competitors, who are fully alive to the value of the scientific approach, will force us out of those foreign markets in which we have fought so hard to secure a foothold.

It is essential, therefore, that the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, whose main function is to secure an improvement in the level of technology in Irish industry and to encourage the introduction into manufacturing processes of the very latest scientific methods, should be provided with the facilities to enable them to carry out their task.

There is a constantly increasing demand from manufacturers for the various services provided by the institute. Since 1966, for instance, the number of reports issued on laboratory analysis and testing has trebled, and the number of reports on factory and laboratory investigations has doubled. Requests for information and advice trebled during the same period and the number of research and development projects handled also increased substantially; in the year ended 31st March, 140 of these projects were dealt with, many of them arising from demands from manufacturers for the development of new and improved materials and components. This increased activity has given rise to a need for substantial increases in staff, the construction and extension of building accommodation and the provision of a wide variety of new equipment.

During the debate on the 1968-69 Estimates, reference was made to the five year plan of expansion submitted by the board of the institute. In considering these proposals we had had the benefit of the views of the National Science Council. The broad outlines of the growth of the institute, as envisaged in the plan and as clarified, and in part modified, in discussion with the council have been accepted.

It has not been found possible, either last year or in the current year, to provide a grant-in-aid sufficient to implement fully the early stages of the plan and it is likely that full implementation of its proposals will not now be realised within the time schedule laid down. Last year the grant-in-aid was increased by £125,000 compared with the previous year and in the current year an additional £137,000 has been provided bringing the grant-in-aid to £800,000, an increase of 50 per cent in the last two years.

In 1969, both total exports, and exports of industrial goods, reached record figures. Total domestic exports and re-exports amounted to £371.1 million compared with £332.5 million in 1968. When exports from Shannon are included our total exports in 1969 were worth almost £410 million.

Detailed figures for 1969 show that total domestic exports increased by 11 per cent over 1968. Industrial exports showed an increase of 18 per cent. This latter increase is of great significance because it reflects the further progress towards industrialisation and also because it is industrial goods which sell in more distant markets and which will help in attaining a more diversified export trade. We have, of course, always realised the need for diversification of our export markets, but the introduction of British measures to reduce imports at the end of 1968 emphasised the point and gave added impetus to our attack on new markets.

Exporting in 1969 was difficult, both because of British measures to curb imports and because of reduced industrial output following strikes at home which slowed the rate of increase in exports during the early months. However, the impact of the special measures for market diversification shows in the figures for the year. Exports other than to Britain and Northern Ireland showed an increase of over 25 per cent. These exports were spread over a wide range of countries; the biggest increases were in the EEC and North American markets. It must be our aim in 1970 to maintain and develop these exports, while availing ourselves fully of the expected easing of conditions in the British market.

Total domestic exports to Britain and Northern Ireland, although they continued to increase in 1969, show the effects of the general slowing down in consumer demand in Britain. There was a heavy increase in our imports from Britain, mainly in capital goods and in materials for further production, in the same period. Developments in both exports and imports are kept constantly under review.

Provisions exist within the Anglo-Irish Agreement for seeking remedial action in the case of any industry which is seriously threatened by increased imports resulting from the operation of the agreement. In the context of free trade, however, the effective answer to rising imports is an increase in exports.

In 1969 the Government decided that steps should be taken to initiate discussions at official level with East European countries, except East Germany, with a view to the conclusion of trade agreements with these countries.

Since then trade discussions have taken place with Bulgaria and there has been an exchange of views about the development of trade between Ireland and the USSR, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Further discussions in regard to trade with these countries, in cluding the question of trade agreements, are expected to take place.

During the past year Córas Tráchtála have continued to assist, financially and otherwise, an increasing number of exporters. The operation of the special diversification measures which I have already mentioned has brought about a noticeable increase in overseas promotions, including market surveys in the USA, Canada and the Middle East and increased promotional activities in the EEC and Eastern European countries as well as in North America and Australia. A full-scale trade mission has also visited Middle Eastern countries.

The export award scheme was introduced in 1968 and six further awards were presented in 1969. The scheme is intended to give State recognition to successful effort in exporting. The stress laid in the criteria of success on the use made of design, efforts in product development and adaptation, modern marketing methods and general enterprise further emphasises the importance of these factors from the point of view of export development.

The future development of our exports and of our economy as a whole is bound to be affected very profoundly by the outcome of our application to join the European Economic Community. International developments last summer and more recently the outcome of the Hague "Summit" meeting in December, 1969, have produced a clear indication of the political will of the member States to enlarge the Community and to open negotiations for that purpose with ourselves and the other applicant countries.

Indeed, work has been proceeding on the preparation of the Community negotiating position and the Council of the Communities hopes to complete this work in the month of June. On this assumption, the council is now proposing that a formal opening session of the negotiations should take place in Luxembourg on 30th June. It is envisaged that this will be followed by substantial negotiating sessions with the applicant countries not later than the autumn.

Since it is intended to provide time for a debate on EEC membership for this country in the near future, I do not propose dealing with the implications for Irish industry on this occasion.

The Government have extended, for a further period, the operation of the Prices Stabilisation Order, 1965, under which I am empowered to investigate and control prices. My policy in this regard will continue to ensure that there will be no unwarranted price increases.

In case there may be any misapprehension about the effectiveness of this policy, or in case it may be thought that price increases in full compensation for all increased costs are conceded more or less automatically, I should like to make it clear that each price application is subjected to a detailed and thorough examination in my Department. Each applicant is required to furnish very full supporting details, including documentary evidence in support of all cost increases claimed by him, the precise manner in which the proposed price increase will be applied to different products, goods, or services, the additional revenue expected to be derived from the price increase with full details of the way in which this sum has been computed, and copies of his certified financial accounts for a number of the latest years.

When all the information and evidence furnished by the applicant has been thoroughly investigated, and when the figure for the minimum of allowable cost increases has been determined, the capacity of the applicant to absorb cost increases is examined and, in a large number of cases, a price increase is conceded on a scale which will compensate him only in part for his minimum allowable cost increases. Thus applicants are required where possible to absorb a considerable proportion of their proven cost increases.

Deputies may be interested to know that in a recent 12 months period it was indicated in a total of 214 cases that no objection would be raised to certain price increases. The total of the cost increases claimed by all the applicants in these cases was roughly £22 million. The total for the minimum of allowable cost increases in these cases, as computed by my Department, was about £14 million, and the total of compensation given to the applicants, by way of price increases for the minimum of allowable cost increases, was £13 million. In this period of 12 months, therefore, the price increases conceded represented on average, only 59 per cent of the cost increases claimed by applicants, and only 93 per cent of the minimum of allowable cost increases as computed by my Department.

I must point out, however, that it it is unreal to expect that substantial cost increases, which occur under the headings of wages, imported raw materials, etc., can be absorbed by the industrial sector without compensatory price increases. Cost increases can only be absorbed either at the expense of profits, or by increased productivity. The certified financial accounts furnished by price applicants have revealed that, with few exceptions, profits in industry are reasonable; in some cases they are, in fact, at a dangerously low level, and in a considerable number of cases, profit trends, both in relation to turnover and to capital employed, have been on the decline in the period since price control was introduced.

This is a situation which needs to be very carefully watched in relation to further capital investment by industrialists on adaptation and expansion, or to the attraction of new industry and the provision of additional employment. Industry has been repeatedly exhorted to adapt to meet free trade, but it must be borne in mind that capital expenditure on adaptation must be financed mainly from profits.

The capacity of industry, therefore, to absorb cost increases from profits is now generally very limited and, accordingly, we must in future rely almost entirely on increased productivity to counteract any further cost increases, if the effects of such cost increases on prices are to be mitigated to any extent. I cannot, therefore, over-emphasise the urgent necessity for management in all industrial concerns to explore every possible prospect of increasing productivity, and to keep existing procedures under continuous review with a view to effecting progressive improvements towards this end. Equally I must urge workers to lend their whole-hearted co-operation to managements' efforts in this regard, so as to enable the maximum amount of unavoidable cost increases to be absorbed and thus mitigate the effects of these cost increases on prices and on the cost of living.

The Dáil has passed the Merchandise Marks (No. 2) Bill, 1969, which will enable me to make Orders requiring the marking of quantity and, where necessary, the name and address of the packer or importer on specified pre-packed goods as well as requiring the sale of such goods in standard quantities. I also hope to be in a position soon to introduce a comprehensive consumer protection Bill which would deal with other aspects of informative labelling, false or misleading trade descriptions and price indications and, probably, misleading or deceptive advertising.

So far the activities of the Fair Trade Commission have been confined to the supply and distribution of goods, but I now consider it desirable that the legislation should provide for investigation of restrictive practices in a wider field. Accordingly, I am having legislation prepared to amend the Restrictive Trade Practices Acts with a view to extending the scope of the commission. Hitherto it has been confined to dealing with restrictive practices relating to the supply of goods, or to services which were ancillary to the supply of goods. My intention is to remove this restriction and extend the scope of the commission to services generally, including professional services so that practically the whole of commercial life, with a few specific exceptions, will come within its purview.

The legislation will also introduce institutional changes, chiefly the creation of a special post the holder of which will be provided with statutory powers to carry out the investigatory functions hitherto discharged by the commission itself. This change should provide for greater speed in the operation of the legislation as well as ensuring that the commission can undertake an inquiry with the appearance as well as with the reality of complete judicial detachment.

The inevitable emphasis on manufacturing industry tends at times to obscure the important position which the distributive trades hold in the economic life of the community. The distributive trades are the channels through which the greater part of Irish manufactured goods reach the consumer. It is only by matching efficiency in industry with efficiency in distribution that we can ensure that the most favourable conditions prevail for the selling of our products in competition with imports. It is for these reasons that I intend to encourage a continued and sustained effort to achieve greater efficiency in distribution.

I have referred earlier to the assistance given to this distributive sector in the way of technical assistance grants and through the INPC. In this regard I would like to emphasise that the ability to achieve greater efficiency and competitiveness is not the prerogative of the large scale enterprises only. It is my intention to ensure that the framework of distribution in this country will always hold a place for the small and medium sized businesses which are prepared to make the fullest use of aids and incentives open to them.

Meetings between various groups of Irish manufacturers and the distributors of their products have continued under the aegis of my Department during the year. Distributors have recognised that, even apart from any question of patriotic duty, it is in their own interests to promote the sale of Irish goods, for without a properous industrial sector they themselves cannot prosper. I would hope to see a growing realisation of this amongst consumers too. It must be evident that, with the trend towards freer trade conditions, there is a tendency to import goods even where comparable local manufactures are available, which in the long run must be detrimental to the whole of the Irish economy. I would again appeal to consumers to buy Irish goods where available but always subject to the consideration that the home product must be competitive in terms of quality and price.

The changeover to the metric system of weights and measures is a process which will ultimately permeate every aspect of our economic affairs. Initially, the emphasis will be on metrication in industry and, indeed, the pace of change in that sector will determine the rate of change for the economy as a whole. It is recognised that the period of transition will vary from one industry to another depending in some cases on intrinsic factors affecting the different types of industry. It was for these reasons that no rigid timetable was imposed. Nevertheless, the Government feel that conditions will favour a change to metric system by 1975 for the greater part of industry.

My Department has been in contact with many organisations representing industry and has been encouraged by the response. Some industries favour an early change to the metric system. The consensus of opinion is that there are not likely to be any insurmountable difficulties.

The Government will do everything possible to facilitate the change to the metric system and various measures have already been initiated. Industry in general does not need, and indeed in some cases, has made it clear that it does not want, guidance as to the exact timetable of conversion to metric which it should follow. The time will come, however, when the distributive sector and the public at large will have to be prepared for the changeover. I feel that a broadly representative Metrication Board to prepare a programme in this respect could be useful, and I am keeping the possibility of such a board before me as matters develop.

Minerals exploration is proceeding satisfactorily. There were some 669 prospecting licences current at 31st December, 1969, compared with 480 at 31st March, 1968.

Detailed reports for 1969 from the three base metal mines have not yet come to hand but Press releases by the operating companies indicate satisfactory results for the year. Despite a labour dispute resulting in a three-months stoppage at the lead/zinc/silver mine at Tynagh, County Galway, indications are that, due to significant lead and zinc price increases, the company's outcome for 1969 is expected to approximate to that of the previous profitable year. At the copper/silver mine at Gortdrum, County Tipperary, exports of concentrates in 1969 were almost 16,000 tons. The discovery of mercury in 1968 led to certain temporary difficulties, but these have been largely overcome and exports of mercury commenced recently. The lead/zinc/silver mine at Silvermines, County Tipperary, opened officially in September, 1968, has completed its first year of trading. Projected annual output of the mine, when in full production, is 225,000 tons of concentrates. The increase in value of exports of metal ores and concentrates from £9 million in 1968 to £17.3 million in 1969 reflects the substantial impact of these three mines on the economy. The value of exports of barytes rose from £683,000 in 1968 to £930,000 in 1969. The sale of the assets of Saint Patrick's Copper Mines, Limited, to an international consortium has been completed. The Avoca Mines are being prepared for reopening and are likely to be in production by the end of 1970.

Results of exploration for petroleum and natural gas within the land area of the State carried out by Marathon Petroleum Ireland, Limited, under the 1959 Oil Exploration Agreement have not been encouraging and interest has now turned to offshore or continental shelf areas. The Continental Shelf Act, 1968, provides a statutory framework for the exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of this country's continental shelf in accordance with the principles laid down in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf. An order was made under the Act in 1968 designating certain areas over which the rights of the State will be exercised.

Following protracted negotiations with Marathon Petroleum Ireland, Limited, agreement was reached whereby the company had been granted exclusive rights over three offshore areas included in the designation order and representing less than half of our shelf area. The 1959 oil agreement with the company had been amended in the light of this settlement. The company have completed a seismic survey of certain offshore areas followed by more detailed investigation and have been granted a petroleum lease in respect of an area of 400 square miles about 30 miles off the coast of Cork. The company have commenced drilling in the area. A number of companies have indicated interest in offshore exploration. Further areas have been designated and it is proposed to grant non-exclusive licences to competent applicants conferring on them the right to undertake general surveys over our entire designated continental shelf area exclusive of the area granted to Marathon. The potential of our shelf area is still largely unknown but it is hoped that the exploration of the area will result in the discovery of valuable resources, the exploitation of which could be of great benefit to the economy.

The phased reorganisation of the geological survey, initiated in 1968 with a view to equipping it to provide the specialist services necessary for the expanding mining industry, is proceeding satisfactorily.

Subsidies have been paid on ships built in Verolme Cork Dockyard from the commencement of shipbuilding operations. A total of nine ships have been built and subsidy payments are made from time to time on the recommendations of a special committee. At present, four ships are under construction at the yard.

Total subsidy payments from their inception to 31st March, 1970, amounted to £1.36 million.

Following a report by a firm of consultants on the future prospects of the yard, the Government agreed in November, 1967, that the dockyard may, as well as continuing in shipbuilding activities, engage in ship repair work and in certain fields of general engineering work not subject to protective duties.

Provision of subsidies at the existing level will continue for about a further two years when the position will be reviewed. When the subsidies for shipbuilding were introduced in 1963 the Government also agreed, subject to certain conditions, to a waiver of interest on loans which Verolme Cork Dockyard had obtained from the Industrial Credit Company. Under the 1967 reorganisation proposals, it was agreed that this waiver of interest should continue until such time as the company has reached the profit stage. This is, of course, a form of additional subsidy. Interest waived amounted to some £87,000 annually, and the accumulated amount waived at 31st March, 1970, was £724,000.

Towards the end of 1968, the board of Verolme Cork Dockyard, Limited, was reconstituted giving the State two representatives, one of whom is chairman.

Shipping Finance Corporation, a subsidiary of the Industrial Credit Company, has for a number of years been making loans at low interest rates to shipping companies to finance the purchase of new vessels from Irish shipyards. It is necessary to recoup the Industrial Credit Company to the extent of the difference between the rate charged on these loans and their borrowing rate plus something for out-of-pocket expenses and to build up a reserve. A provision of £61,000 for interest subsidy is, therefore, made in this year's Estimate.

In conclusion, I shall be glad to answer any questions which Deputies may wish to put on details of the Estimate, which I now commend to the House.

I would have expected that at this crucial stage in our industrial development, as we move towards freer trade both on the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement front and on the EEC front, the Estimate might have been used by the new Minister for a major policy speech, for a speech that would not go into the absolute detail of expenditure as prepared by his officials but would have given a lead in regard to the development of industry. What we have had is a detailed announcement of the various activities that are occurring at this time.

I do not think that is the function of a politician, of a Minister. I excuse my good personal friend, for whom I have the highest regard in his new office, on the basis that he had not time and that the stress and strain of political activity in the last few weeks may have deprived him of the opportunity to address himself to our major industrial problem and to give an appraisal of our opportunities and disabilities as we approach Europe and as we enter into free trade association with Britain. The Minister's speech was like my wife's shopping list. It gave item by item the things that were needed in various sectors. They might have been included in the speech perhaps after the Minister had dealt with the major items, items which would be restricted entirely to policy. It could have meant the Minister would have been on his feet for an extra half hour but physically he is well able to do that. We are entitled to have a lead from the Government even if in a particular constituency it might lose votes for the Government. It is a safer job, as far as industrial development is concerned, to give the shopping list, as we have been given this morning.

I want to define certain matters in relation to industry that everybody knows but which it is necessary now to declare in this House because they have not been declared from whence they should have been. It is to industry we must look for the new jobs and the defence of the old jobs. When one is in a defending position there are always casualties. One must face the fact, whether or not it be pleasant to record, that in the defence of jobs that exist here there will be casualties in times of freer trade. We look to industry, first of all, to defend the existing jobs. Having accepted that in agriculture there will be a dropping off in employment we must look again towards industry for new employment.

To achieve this we must broaden our industrial base. It was extremely simple here, for instance, to make flour. The wheat was grown and a certain percentage of it was included in the grist. A certain percentage of hard wheat was imported. The flour was made and sold to our industrial workers and the price went into the industrial workers' wages. That situation is now gone. Whether the Minister has adverted to it in his mind, he has not adverted to it in his speech.

In order to broaden our industrial base we must succeed in attracting here not only people who can bring in an industry but who can bring in a complex, where in return for a grant there will be not only one new industry but the hope—not just hope in the religious sense but based on informed investigation—that the industry would produce four, five, six or seven satellite industries. This would be the marvellous situation which we would never achieve but the one we must look for, the one which we could half achieve, and in half achieving it, we would bring great benefit to the country. Take, for instance, the opportunities we lost. We lost Dupont to the North of Ireland when we almost had them. The arrival of Dupont will probably mean the establishment in the North of Ireland of five or six other industries dependent upon and satellite to the major industry. The introduction of industries like Imperial Chemicals could be a major factor in the creation of a new development which could be a far more important factor than the giving of grants. As we go along we become more sophisticated and cosmopolitan. The giving of grants is absolutely necessary for one reason and one alone, that we must compete with every state in Europe and in the world for international industry on as good terms as they are offered.

I remember well being here, longer than many Deputies in the House, in 1956 when the party of which the Minister is a member opposed the Industrial Grants Act which for the first time gave grants for industry outside the undeveloped areas. There are now different names like "designation" and so on. It makes no difference. The spokesman of the party which so violently opposed that proposal occupied the position I now occupy, shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce, then Deputy Seán Lemass, later Taoiseach. In the same year the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was introduced by the late Deputy Gerard Sweetman as Minister for Finance. For the first time it gave freedom from income tax for new exports.

When we enter the EEC one of the sad things will be that while we may be allowed to give industrial grants for some years after joining, we may not be allowed to give freedom of income tax for new exports. Those measures in 1956 introduced by the inter-Party Government and opposed by Fianna Fáil were but the start of what should have been a highly complex approach to the development of industry, needing great expertise and effort which have not been produced by the Government in power since 1957.

I have spoken about the broadening of our industrial base. However, that is only possible when there is created here, apart from grants and incentives, a climate for growth which means that people are naturally attracted to this country to set up industries here. In my view the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement was merely a fact of life. If Britain was moving towards the Common Market we had to move with her; 74 per cent of our exports go to Britain and we had no choice. One can live on an island in the social sense and be quite glad that we are surrounded by water but in the economic sense this is not possible. The former Minister for External Affairs, Deputy Aiken, often said that he would be very happy if every ship was at the bottom of the sea. That just is not on in the seventies because our boys and girls can go to Liverpool for £5 and they will not nowadays tolerate situations that existed previously. Therefore, there was no question about the EEC or the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement. We were like a train on a railway track; we had to go the way that was decided by others.

The Minister's speech was merely a shopping list; it was a list of the things being done in the Department of Industry and Commerce, completely irrespective of what Minister or what Government was in office. It gave to the industrialists and the workers of this country no indication of where we are going, no policy statement and no hope of a steady course towards an objective in the future.

The operation of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement has been extremely bad. The former Minister for Industry and Commerce had in his power the opportunity to invoke, as has been stated by the Minister in his speech, certain provisions of this agreement under which we could have taken steps when our industry was threatened. A most difficult situation existed, for instance, in the fertiliser industry when for a period of two years imports were allowed at costs below the prevailing prices. The provisions of the agreement stated that where damage could be proved we could invoke a section of the agreement to see that further imports were not allowed. In this, however, the Minister dithered and demonstrated that, like all Fianna Fáil Ministers, he was not a businessman. In this House we are surrounded by statisticians, academics and historians but it is extremely important that the person in charge of a Department such as Industry and Commerce should be one with a practical knowledge of business.

In my view, the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement were not invoked quickly enough and grave damage was done to the fertiliser industry. It could have caused substantial unemployment which would have been very serious but my information is that, in fact, it resulted in loss of profits to the companies involved. We should remember that all shareholders are not millionaires; some are unfortunate widows or retired people waiting for the next dividend to pay the grocer's bill.

I have also received information regarding the boot and shoe industry. I am well acquainted with this industry because one-half of the workers engaged in this trade are in my constituency. It is my information that 50 per cent of the boot and shoe industry will be dismantled in the period commencing 1st July, 1971, because at that time the quota will disappear and will be replaced by a tariff of 52½ per cent on imports from continental sources and 22½ per cent on imports from British sources.

The Minister's predecessor has been extremly lax in his duties. Although some of us still wear leather shoes many people, either for economic reasons or because they prefer to do so, wear shoes manufactured from man-made materials. Deputy Treacy, who is well acquainted with the shoe industry, raised a question in connection with this matter in this House some time ago. Many thousands of pairs of synthetic shoes have been imported. This was possible under a different provision of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement. I have been speaking with five people, all of whom are at director or managing director level in this industry, and I saw a pair of shoes made here as an experiment in which there was not a fraction of leather, although the finished product looked like a leather shoe. My information is that neither the tariff of 52½ per cent on imports from the continent nor the 22½ per cent tariff on imports from Britain will have any effect. I was quoted a wholesale price for imported shoes at 18s 6d. which were sold in Grafton Street at 79s 6d.

I should like to discuss the various approaches adopted by Fianna Fáil, Labour and Fine Gael. The Labour approach was not correct; their line was "We shall live on this `economic island"'. I suggest that is not possible in the present age. The Fianna Fáil approach was "We have made the bargain and that is that. It is far more important to look after the interests of our party than it is to look after our duty to the people". The Fine Gael approach has been to try to get the Government to do something about the individual problems that will occur. However, no matter how much effort we made we did not succeed in stirring this recalcitrant and difficult Government. As a result we are now faced, having given the example of the fertiliser industry and what happened in a minor way, with the major catastrophe because, as I said earlier, what we should be discussing this morning is the defence of jobs and the creation of new ones, accepting, as we do on all sides of the House, that it is in this sector this work must done. I want to quote from Fine Gael industrial policy. The Minister raises his eyebrows as if he thought such did not exist.

Which one?

The one I have been looking after for the past seven years with considerable success. Fine Gael industrial policy is to institute immediately with Britain at Prime Minister level and every other level discussions on the operation of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement and to expand from there to the discussions now starting in Brussels on the European Economic Community, discussions, as far as we are concerned as Irishmen, on the defence of jobs here and the creation of new jobs here and the invoking of every paragraph and subparagraph in the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement and the Rome Treaty to see to it that those who think Ireland is a dot on the map will have to look at our problems and realise that with all the expertise at our disposal, all the effort our energy can produce, we are going to defend the last job and look for the next new one.

This has not been done by the Government. I gave two cases merely as examples, both in spheres of industry with which I am closely associated, in one case for geographical and political reasons and in the other for business reasons. I gave two examples of how the Minister's predecessor fell down on his job.

The next thing that should be done but has not been done, but if a Fine Gael Minister, myself or somebody else, were occupying the Minister's seat this morning it would be done, is that a highly-expanded market appraisal effort must be made. The Fianna Fáil Party—I criticise myself also on this— always react as political animals. I use the term in its dictionary sense that man is an animal and without intending offence to the Minister or the Government. It is not politically sound; it does not gain votes but rather loses them, to set out on a market appraisal policy and tell people, particularly the workers in certain industries, that their chances are at best less than average. The position in Fianna Fáil has been that all that has been kept under a cloak.

There are sectors of industry where it is quite clear that factories will close down, other sectors of industry where it is clear the lifetime will be from two to five years. There is a village not very far from the Minister's sphere of operations where it appears to me, on the best possible study of the accounts of a public company and the general situation in a particular industry, that the only source of employment there will close down. It was the Government's unpleasant duty in years that are past to say so and then say in relation to that industry: "We are now going to co-operate and try to create there, where a loss of employment for approximately 200 people will occur, another industry that will employ as many, if possible, as are disemployed". Thus they would tell people the truth.

Politically, that might lose votes for the Minister. In the beginning you might replace 200 jobs with only 50 while you might have in your judgment, on the best advice of all who could advise, a potential of 500 jobs. There are two things about eating bread; one is that it is soon forgotten; the other is that it is very nice when you have it and it is disastrous when you have not. In the short term the failure of the Government to indicate the sectors of industry that will be affected very seriously by the advent of freer trade has been a grave dereliction of duty. It is not my job to name the village but if the Minister wants it I shall give it to him. He can make his choice. He can speak now or be silent.

I know my constituency.

The Minister knows the village of Clara?

I never looked upon it as a village.

These are facts that are unpleasant. As a businessman it is my duty to produce them and I shall do so here this morning. It will probably take until lunch time.

I want to talk now about the sectors of industry where there is difficulty, the sectors where there is opportunity and the political dereliction of duty on the part of the Government in not producing facts because they would have lost votes. Parallel considerations are the geographical and population situations. We have had the Buchanan and the Devlin Reports. The Government first put Buchanan in a coffin and buried him for about 18 months and they touched on Devlin only in the remotest way. I do not suggest that a Cabinet, holding meetings on Tuesday and Friday mornings and deciding on major movements and changes should accept every word that Buchanan or Devlin said. Rather I should say that such a Cabinet, where they seriously disagreed with either Buchanan or Devlin, would have the responsibility of saying so. That has not been the Government line.

Before the Minister became interested in Industry and Commerce I have been saying for a few years—this will not endear me to Leitrim voters—that you should not have a growth centre in Leitrim. It has not got the population situation. It is true that it has people emigrating and we want them to move towards employment but we should rather have a growth centre in Sligo because Sligo has the port and is a great gateway to the west. In my view this should have been said. After four years of trying, the Minister's predecessor said it in the last six months. The first thing that must be done in regard to the geographical and population situation is that the Department and the Minister must confer with the Department and the Minister for Local Government on the infrastructure that is so necessary for industry.

Take a very simple thing. One tends to go back to one's constituency. Take Greenore port. We now have a service in Greenore port where a 3,000 ton ship can come in and tie up at any stage of the tide. There are lorries running from Greenore port to as far away as Galway. The Department of Local Government are giving Louth County Council, of which I am chairman, a 100 per cent grant for the road from Dundalk to Greenore. On the money available this year we have been in a position—and this is a good thing—to spend one-half of the cost of £45,000 to make a road through Carlingford to the border to import through our port and to send goods to the North of Ireland—what sort of goods they might be might interest the Minister but not me.

Apart from that aspect of the matter, here we are creating the infrastructure for industry. There are industrial sites at the port. A person wishing to use that area for industrial production can be assured of the arrival and departure of ships up to 3,000 tons at any stage of the tide.

There are two things that have to be said and which the Minister's predecessor and Fianna Fáil have not said, for the simple reason that they might lose votes in one place and might not gain them in another on the basis that while bread is important eaten bread is soon forgotten and it might take five to ten years before a projected expansion would take place and there might be an election in the intervening period. First, there is the necessity, in some instances the brutal necessity, for the Government to make a complete appraisal of the sectors of industry that will not do well in freer trade conditions and of those sectors that will do well. Secondly, there is a responsibility on the Government to designate the areas where, neither accepting nor rejecting Buchanan or Devlin, in their view, as a Cabinet, the Department of Local Government would produce the infrastructure of roads, services, houses and so on which would provide the incentive to industrialists to come here rather than to go somewhere else.

It is a matter of some satisfaction to this side of the House that the small industries programme which we produced six years ago was eventually espoused by the Government. As far as many people are concerned, the great architect of industry was the former Deputy Seán Lemass. He opposed the two Acts of Parliament to which I have referred, in 1956. We have always been, if not five years ahead, certainly three years ahead of the Government in regard to the proper lines for industry but by some extraordinary malfunction of the Irish mind Fianna Fáil have been regarded as the industrial party. This may have some relation to the activities of a formerly anonymous group which became public, with disastrous consequences for Fianna Fáil, a little while ago. Its name is Taca. There was a situation that many industrialists and some of their workers believed that the Seán Lemass line was "dead on" and that we on our side would not create industrial employment. Be that as it may, I want to record the fact that the small industries programme was first announced from this side of the House. If the Minister wishes to do some homework he will find my words are true.

The programme is going well but there are certain exclusions with which I do not agree. There are, as mentioned by the Minister, surveys in progress, as I know, not only in connection with the small industries programme but also in connection with the major industries programme, as to whether or not certain operations should be eligible for grants. One exclusion with which I do not agree is the exclusion of cabinet making. I know of a very successful small operator who was a very good carpenter ten years ago and who has developed his business to the stage where he is employing 20 persons and is exporting about two-thirds of his production to the North of Ireland. There is a very specific reason for that. The Archdiocese of Armagh extends to the Boyne river and there are new churches being built. If a parish priest in County Louth is satisfied with this man's work he may well tell another parish priest about it and it is a ten to one chance that the other priest who may be on the other side of the border will place an order with him. This cabinet maker cannot get a small industries grant on the grounds that there are too many cabinet makers. At my behest—and I have nothing but praise for the official concerned—he had a visitor from the Industrial Development Authority and he has been ruled out.

At present there is a survey proceeding as to whether or not a grant should be given to printing establishments and as to whether or not there are too many competing. What about the huge grant given to a lithoprinting establishment at Kingsbridge, not under the small industries programme but under the other programme, about two years ago, that is calculated, in the view of certain editors of provincial newspapers, to be capable of closing up their job printing business completely? Is the decision that is now in the balance the result of the decision of the Government three or four years ago? These are matters of detail that are important and that reveal the lack of performance and the inability of Fianna Fáil to face up to the position as far as industry is concerned.

I come now to the question of re-equipment grants and I shall give the policy of this party which I hope will be blazoned in the newspapers tomorrow. There is now a grouping of re-equipment grants and grants for new industry. The adaptation grant scheme was restricted to industries with a heavy export potential or which were disposing of imports to the same degree. We on this side of the House and I in particular fought hard here over the last four or five years to get that changed on the basis that it did not defend existing jobs. One industry which was disqualified and afterwards included as a result of my activities and the activities of others in the House was the bakery industry. The reason given for the disqualification by the Fianna Fáil Minister for Industry and Commerce was that in the Common Market small bakeries near the Border would have no chance, that huge bakeries from Belfast would send in lorry loads or train loads of bread. These bakeries were excluded from adaptation grants. Eventually as a result of activities on this side of the House the name was changed to "re-equipment grants" and bakeries were included but at a level of 25 per cent as against, at that stage, 50 per cent grants for new industries or 66? per cent grants in Deputy J. Lenehan's area—the undeveloped areas.

Of course, we never changed to the two-tier system for the new industry grant. The level of grants remains about the same—without going into detail about the two-tier system—but re-equipment grants remain at 25 per cent, maximum. It is the policy of this party, which I want to repeat for about the tenth time in the hope that it will get over to the people, that where an existing industry produces a major capital development in relation to the capital employed therein, in the opinion of the IDA, grants shall be at the same level as for new industries. I suggest that if an industry has a capital employed of £50,000 an expenditure by that industry of £30,000 or £40,000 is a major expenditure and should be treated from the point of view of grants as a new industry and should get the level of grant at the higher figure. It is highly important that this should be so.

I want to quote two cases and they involve friends of mine. There is an industry in Drogheda town which employs 200 girls, with principals and capital from Germany, which received a grant of £160,000 and there is another industry in the same town which existed in a premises which were condemned by the corporation and which bought a bank premises—the bank had moved to another street— because behind the bank premises there were 1½ acres. In that area a new factory was built to employ 300 girls and the bank building was used merely as showrooms and offices. That factory received a grant of £16,000 and it is doing precisely the same job as the other company. One of the industries is exporting girls' frocks, skirts and outerwear to Marks and Spencers and other large chain stores in England; the other is exporting the same type of article to the Continent, to the parent company and other organisations. It is entirely wrong that a change has been completely resisted by Fianna Fáil. If a person has a capital of £100,000 employed and expends £10,000 on capital expenditure then at that stage it is highly questionable whether he should get any grant at all, but if a person has a capital of £50,000 and spends £30,000 on a major development of an existing industry then it is a sin if he does not get a grant of not more than but of an equal amount to a new industry coming in. If one were to look at the matter from the point of view of justice one would say that a person who has been employing people in this country for the past 30 or 40 years should be entitled to a bigger grant. This is a very important feature and one which cannot be stressed sufficiently.

I have dealt with geographical problems and population problems and the great advantage to a person who might instead of emigrating to Birmingham from Leitrim emigrate instead to Sligo if the facilities, amenities and opportunities exist there. I have also dealt with the political aspects of the matter and with the political approach of the previous Minister.

Now I want to deal with the question of permanent capital for industry. We have here a situation whereby the banks say—quite frankly I do not believe this will happen—that the system of permanent overdraft accommodation has gone and that now people will have to go for a fixed term loan which will be of short duration; that instead banks will produce subsidiaries alongside them, financed presumably from the same kitty, and they will give long term finance at different interest rates. There is another answer to this problem and one that has not been produced by the Government which over a number of years had the opportunity of doing so. In the State of Minneapolis, or any other State in the United States, the man who drives the cab probably has shares in the company that owns the cab; the man working the hotel lift probably has shares in the telephone company whose telephones you use. In this country we never had that approach. People naturally have savings and if you look at the figures for savings you will see that they are quite considerable. They used to be kept in people's stockings under the bed but now they are in banks, at very low interest rates, or in the post office or in national loans. It would not affect either the banks, the post office or the national loans if the floatation of public companies from the private company situation here were expedited and encouraged by the Government. At present the medium sized company just cannot do that; the facilities are not on. The situation does not lend itself to this development. Legislation could be produced whereby advancement in this sphere could be expedited and the average company, which is a relatively small, privately owned company, could, instead of borrowing large sums from the finance houses, have the opportunity of giving the people the chance to invest in it and take their chances.

This has not been done and it is a major dereliction of industrial policy by the Government. Perhaps, it would be more appropriate if I raised this on the Estimate for the Department of Finance but as it is so related to the situation we are now discussing I am sure the Chair will bear with me for mentioning it in passing. This can be done and it is highly important that it should be. The opportunity to do this and the underwriting of floatations in this way should be expedited and expanded by the Government. In this country we have not got large capital sums. All one has to do at about this time of the year is to go to the south of England to see the personal wealth of people in a country which many think is half broke, see the great volume of wealth which has been built up over three or four centuries of colonialism. We have not got this here; all we have is the memory of the Black and Tans raiding the place and taking whiskey and cigarettes during and after the Civil War. I deliberately refer to the Black and Tans. We have not got this kind of money here. What we have to do is look for our people's savings, give them the opportunity to buy a share at 10s and to see it ten years later, not like a national loan coming back to them at 10s when, in fact, it is worth 3s, but seeing the share quoted on the stock exchange at 20s so that they can say not only are they getting a fair return on the appreciation of their money but that if they want to get their principal back they will get it not at the sum they paid for it but on the appreciation of the buildings, the goodwill and the profits of the company at 20s.

That situation has been neglected completely by the Government. I would love to give the ordinary decent plain people an opportunity to invest in the company in their own village or town on the basis that with the fall in the value of money the appreciation in their investment would cater for their old age, or the rainy day.

Before moving to the Minister's diatribe I want to deal in a general way with the question of the climate for growth. You can give all the grants and all the incentives you like artificially, you can make all the moves you like within the confines of the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Finance and, when you have done it all if there is not a natural climate for growth and for the expansion of industry, you will not attract industrialists from outside.

We may as well face the fact that the creation of industry here will be achieved on the attraction of industry or on the sending of our own people abroad to get the technology to produce the goods. For the attraction of industry you must have a stable society. You must have a society, whether it is stable or not, that people believe is stable. You must have the proper situation. I have dealt with the man who wants to put his savings into something viable and accumulative. That man will not be attracted to do that unless he sees stability in the industry itself and in the country as a whole.

I will not discuss the events of the past three or four months. Their repercussions will be utterly disastrous so far as the attraction of industry is concerned. I will leave the matter there and say no more than that about it. There is another factor, that is, the situation on the labour relations side and the opportunity for profit. I want to suggest to the House that far more important than the actual cash increase given to a worker in an industry—leaving out side issues, hours, conditions of work and employment, status increases and things like that— is what that basic increase is worth.

I want to suggest that any homespun economist will agree—and I think the Minister and I can be described as homespun anyway whatever else we may be described as—that if you give too high a wage increase it is dissipated entirely and completely by price increases and that the factual increase is far less. This is what absolutely irritates the workers. In their effort to get the same living conditions as they had six months before, or a little better, they have to aim their sights not at the target but far higher. The reason for this is typified in the manufacturer paragraphs in the Minister's speech dealing with consumer protection and prices.

You cannot have a prices policy without an incomes policy. While the Right Honourable Barbara Castle has been denigrated in the British House of Commons over the past number of years for her prices and incomes policy and everybody has said it did not succeed, the truth is that it did succeed as to 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 per cent of its content. You can take your pick as to whether the figure was 30 per cent or 70 per cent but every success, whether it was 1 per cent or 70 per cent, was an improvement.

There is no point in the Minister talking about consumer protection and prices if he does not do the more difficult job of entering into a prices and incomes policy which he has utterly abandoned. I want to bring to the notice of the House a question which I put down a fortnight ago. I apologise, Sir, because I have not got the exact reference with me but I think the House will find the question easily if they so desire. I asked the Minister whether or not since the increases in wages given were far greater than the 7 per cent indicated by the Taoiseach, the Government would change from their policy that where wage increases of more than 7 per cent were granted a wage increase of 7 per cent only would be taken into account when allowing price increases.

There is no point in trying to get industrialists from abroad to come here and employ our people if, when a wage increase is granted, the fair and proper price increase is not also allowed. There is no point in saying: "You must live on your own fat." Industrialists and people involved in business know that this is not an easy medium to work in. They know that what looks like a profit situation today may become a loss situation six months from today. This Government, politically stupid, in my opinion, stated that they will only allow a price increase equivalent to the degree of change caused by a 7 per cent increase, and one week after the Minister's statement about 7 per cent or 30s paint operators got 23 per cent and the average increase is in the order of 20 per cent. How can we hope to encourage people to come here and employ our citizens who are emigrating to Birmingham, London and Coventry if we do not have, not a half-baked or half-way prices policy, but a prices and incomes policy?

I know the difficulties involved in a prices and incomes policy. I know you can bring a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink. Such a policy must be voluntary and it must be proposed by an honest Government. Whether or not that policy loses or gains votes, it must be seen by the decent plain people of Ireland to be in their interest. Such a policy has not been proposed.

I want to refer the House to the White Paper on the Common Market which was circulated a week or so ago. In that volume there is a page and a half on prices and nothing on incomes. As a businessman, close to business in this country—as I have to be to exist—I want to say that a prices and incomes policy embraces not only wages but dividends, profits and directors' emoluments. We are all in this boat and it could sink. The people of this country will accept such a policy and translate it into support in the ballot box, if that is what the Government want, only if it includes every feature and every factor in the production of goods for profit.

But it is utterly stupid for any Minister for Industry and Commerce in his speech—which I sadly observe was produced by his Department—to talk consumer protection, to talk about prices, without talking about incomes. I want to suggest what is the self-evident truth that if an outside body —this would be the ideal—were to produce a figure which would be quite clearly the maximum that could be afforded—not the Taoiseach's 7 per cent, off the cuff, but a figure arrived at by close investigation by all the people concerned, the union representatives, the business representatives and others—which would be the maximum figure represented by a factual increase by advantage in purchasing power, I think the Irish people would buy that. However, the Irish people will not buy any of the larky-parky such as the 12 per cent which we had here from the former Deputy Seán Lemass before two by-elections or the 7 per cent or 30s by the Taoiseach off the cuff and without reference to anybody. I want to suggest that there are machineries and organisations in this country that could be brought together to produce the best advantage for the Irish people. I want to suggest now that, from the Minister's speech, anything else, and the best he can offer, is a most abject failure.

I do not know whether or not the Minister addresses himself to the speeches at the Fine Gael Árd Fheis. He might, with some profit, address himself to them. I, in my capacity, had the responsibility of producing certain figures in relation to the number of jobs created. I did not just accept Government White Papers, and so on. I looked, during my appraisal and assessment, at the number of jobs created and at what they cost. I find that, at the Fine Gael Árd Fheis, I was kind to the Government. I find that the figures produced at page 11 of the Minister's brief which he read here this morning are in fact more critical, more damaging and more definite in the proving of such facts. But, as I said when opening my speech here this morning, you can and you must give grants and you must give incentives. Your shop window must be as good as that of any other country when you seek industrialists from abroad to employ our people. If you have not your prices and incomes policy and your climate for growth then all your grants and incentives— artificial as they are—which were first introduced by an inter-Party Government of which Fine Gael was a major party, and which were opposed by Fianna Fáil, will be to no avail. To prove this, I adduce the figures presented to us by the Minister.

At the Fine Gael Árd Fheis, I was kind. I said that it took £23 million to produce 13,000 new jobs. A simple sum in addition now—from the Minister's speech—shows me that it took £24.2 million to produce 12,000 jobs. The Minister then went on to the stated capital expenditure, taking into account the capital expenditure, by the industrialists themselves. That is grand. He produced the figure that, as I understand it, by dividing 28,000 persons into £66 million—I trust I am correct here—it took £2,000 to employ a person.

I want to tell the Minister and his Department that it takes a very much greater amount to employ a person in 1970. As a simple explanation of that, I would suggest to the Minister that, when he leaves Leinster House in his State car, he should look at the next lorry he sees moving down the road and the driver and his helper. A heavy lorry costs about £7,000. Then consider the loading of the lorry and the machinery necessary for such. Just on that alone, before you move towards the funding of business activity—managerial work, executives and offices—the figure of £2,000 per man per job is entirely inadequate. The probability is that it takes from £4,000 to £6,000 per man per job to employ a man in industry in Ireland today. In fact, I challenge the Minister to prove, when replying, that £2,000 will employ a man in industry in Ireland today. These are figures that people who are not close to the problem very often find disturbing. Disturbing things should not be swept under the carpet. They should be produced in this House.

I want, therefore, to tell the Minister —I think it is probably profitable for him, in his first days of office, to be told it—that all the incentives that can be given by way of money, by way of Government loan and by way of legislation to give advantage for tax purposes, are of no avail if the great amount of money that is available in the world to employ people within an industry is not attracted here by a climate for growth which means a stable society, a stable industrial base, a good labour relations situation and the opportunity to make profit.

The Government have been lucky in two ways. The Minister, in his new office, will have time profitably to examine from day to day the terms of trade. At the time of the accession of his party to office in 1957, the terms of trade were diabolically against this country. The Suez crisis and the Korean War had created a situation whereby everything we imported was at a fantastically high level and everything we exported did not happen to be making the same high prices. The Government have enjoyed, over the past ten years, a very satisfactory trade situation that should have been exploited to the fullest. It was not done. The things we export have been keeping pace in price with the things we import yet, if one looks at the present balance of payments situation—and, of course, the Minister may adduce to his advantage the fact that there has been a spectacular increase in industrial exports—one realises that, with the terms of trade satisfactory over the past ten years, we have not taken advantage of the opportunity there afforded and our industrial expansion has not been sufficient.

Why did Dupont go to the North of Ireland? If there is an Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, why do we not see huge corporations such as Imperial Chemicals coming here to set up, with the best labour force in the world in the shape of our Irish boys and girls, a major industry when they know that, within years, there will be free movement of goods not only to Britain but also to the Continent?

It is because a climate for growth is not there; it is because this Government have prostituted every opportunity that ever existed to the ballot box; because the opportunity for profit is not there, and because our labour relations are very bad indeed. Our labour relations are bad not because we have a selfish or bad or difficult labour force but because the housewives and the working men and women of this country find that they cannot live. The hopscotch system of prices and incomes being decided by whom is the strongest party has resulted in a situation where a man cannot rear his family any more. And God help the Government who take over.

Let us realise too that but for two major strikes, the cement strike and the bank strike, we would have economic chaos. Having, as we have, political chaos, if we had economic chaos as well, I wonder how many years would it take us to recover. Remember, however, that such an eventuality is but delayed. Remember that the bank strike will be settled, but when it is settled it may take three months to find out what our overdrafts really are. When that has been done and the necessary corrective measures have been applied, we must face gross unemployment over the next 18 months or two years, as a result of the political dereliction of duty by this Government in not trying to correct this sad situation before the election of June last, the political dereliction of duty by this Government in not trying to correct the situation because they had their own family troubles.

I do not want to widen the scope of this debate, but it is extremely relevant that there is not in this country a prices and incomes policy, that the question of rounds of wage increases, price increases and all other extremely relevant movements in the industrial sector have been set aside for the political profit of the party in power in producing the date that suited them best for holding an election, in the timing of wage increases or in the granting or non-granting of price increases.

We who have the responsibility in this House of looking at industrial policy must look at it not as a narrow alley in which you hire men and women and pay them a wage but as a situation in which the whole of the economy is directly related and more so every day to our advancement in the industrial sector. We have spent £24.2 million to create 12,000 new jobs. The Minister will probably say in reply: "You did not take account of the people who left agriculture."

I started my speech by saying that everybody accepts that the sector in which new jobs will be created is the industrial sector and that we know there will be fewer jobs in the agricultural sector. However, if it takes £24 million of the taxpayers' money, either capital money to be funded out of above-the-line expenditure over the next 20 years or so, or, alternatively, moneys provided straight from the Exchequer collections over the year, then we have failed. When we have not provided the incentive without that for people to come here and employ workers we have failed. We may find that these boys and girls will simply export themselves to Britain or somewhere else and then they will not have votes, and, perhaps, a few clever and well thought-out moves at a certain stage might convince people at home that they should vote in a certain way.

However, the responsibility of this House in relation to the creation of jobs and the defence of jobs that exist has not been met and has never been met by the Government in relation to industry. They have never taken account of the existing people who have employed Irish men and women for 30 or 40 years and they have approached industry with the characteristic thimble-rigging philosophy that dates back to the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Seán Lemass.

A very good Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Not within streets of Deputy William Norton or Deputy Daniel Morrissey, not within streets, because he was facile, because he was able to talk to the boys, and there is no worker in any industry who does not know it. I now want to deal with the question of cartels and monopolies. It is much easier to establish a cartel or a monopoly in a small country than in a large one, because in large countries they come into being as a result of mergers or agreements. In this country, however, you can have a cartel which looks like a competitive situation but which is, in fact, an entire cartel or monopoly. I have no objection to instancing a meeting in which I am not involved but with which I am closely associated, namely, the flour milling industry. Let us face it. There are two groups in this country—I say this not in any spirit of criticism—and a few small independent operators, and that is the flour milling industry. If you want to deal with them, which I have to do in order to try to get back some of the wage increases that have been granted—and more luck to the people who got them —you just deal with one group, the Flour Millers' Association.

There is a very bad labour relations situation in the cement industry. The present impasse has more to do with labour relations than money, and I want the House to understand that clearly. There are in the fertiliser industry —I do not want to mention names but the names are obvious in this case— two operators, one much larger than the other. Move from there to various other industries. Take the manufacture of cement blocks and the production of stone for road building, house building or anything else. There you have what is virtually a monopoly situation. A small operator is tolerated but could be put out of business overnight without having any material effect on the net profit and the huge monopoly that is involved.

That is where the Minister has a duty in relation to prices and incomes. Great power should not be vested in individuals. However it will be seen that we have such intense competition for the volume of trade in this country that profits are too low. That may horrify people and suggest to them that I am advocating higher prices but the fact is that to keep business running and to defend small shopkeepers a decent profit is an essential prerequisite.

I have had the duty in the past seven years of producing industrial policy for my party. One of the most difficult fields in which I had to produce an attractive policy was in the sphere of the small shopkeeper as opposed to the huge supermarkets. I racked my brains to try to find something that would be practical and would support such individuals. At many Fine Gael Árd Fheiseanna I heard people speak on the plight of small shopkeepers and I found myself unable to produce anything concrete for them, even by way of criticism. Today I have been able to criticise the Government and the Minister's predecessor on various aspects of industrial policy but here was one aspect on which I found myself unable to offer any constructive suggestion.

The fact is that competition is too intense. The small shopkeeper is not in a position financially to advertise in the national or local papers; he must content himself with using his shopwindow as his medium for advertising. If, for instance, he decides to offer a bargain of a box of biscuits which were originally priced at £1 at a cost of 13s 11d he may manage to sell perhaps half-a-dozen boxes. However, the huge supermarkets can mount a high-powered campaign on radio and television and, as a result, can very often sell 5,000 boxes of biscuits. It may well have happened that the supermarkets originally got a reduction on the boxes of biscuits from the manufacturer who would be very pleased that goods bearing his name would go into 5,000 houses. It is not a question of prices or even of profits; it is a question of sale.

I would say to the Minister that perhaps there is some opportunity of helping the small shopkeeper by looking into retail prices in a kindly way. That does not mean that the public should be asked to pay too much but the situation should not exist whereby the small shopkeeper is constrained to make only a tiny profit in order to counteract the huge supermarkets. A more reasonable approach to prices would be a good departure for the new Minister for Industry and Commerce, although I have little time for the prices section in the Department because of their dilatory action. The Government devoted 1½ pages to the question of prices but the whole matter of wages, profits, dividends and all other facets of industry should be examined.

I should like now to deal with a campaign which has been conducted in the past few months in relation to the prices of scrap iron and steel. The Government have done nothing and I have found it difficult to assess the situation. I am told that the price of scrap steel is more than doubled if one gets it in large quantities rather than in small quantities. Perhaps the Minister would deal with this matter. His predecessor dealt with it in reply to questions but there is still worry in the country that this scrap steel and iron is a source of great profit. I should like if the price paid by Irish Steel Holdings in Cork for scrap steel in various quantities might be dealt with by the Minister.

In relation to the question of the Verolme Dockyard, as a politician and shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce, I agree that in a small country such as this where 700 to 1,000 men might be put out of employment the Government should take some action. I have seen this happen in Dundalk Engineering Works which was then the GNR Works. The action of the Northern Ireland Government not to send more work to this engineering works meant that 1,000 men would be disemployed. In the case of the Verolme Dockyard, having regard to the absolute necessity to provide industrial employment, the Government must step in and the taxpayer must be prepared to bear the cost. Our party have decided to continue our policy of support for Verolme and to copperfasten as far as possible the 700 to 1,000 jobs involved.

I have, however, a criticism of the waiver of interest which the Minister has mentioned in his speech in regard to this company. I would prefer that all subsidies and helps given to that company, and every other company, would be provided by Vote in this House. We have seen a Vote of £1.8 million for that company. I understand the amount so far paid is £1.3 million. That is the right line. Great irritation and annoyance has been caused to Members of the House and the general public for many years by the non-introduction of the interest factors in the accounts of State companies such as Aer Lingus. Instead of a net profit to which any accountant could put his name you got something called an operating surplus. As a result of criticism here and outside, the system was eventually discontinued and we got a net profit figure for that particular company. This waiving of interest is not in the interest of people employed in these companies or anybody else. The proper thing is to let whatever is done be done here openly and debate it here. The profits of every State or semi-State company in which the Department is involved should be produced in a form and manner—trading account, profit and loss account, balance sheet and report—to which any accountant could sign his name. This is a criticism which I think could easily be remedied by the Minister.

I have very little time for the prices section of the Department of Industry and Commerce. In fact, I should like the job of giving them a political dose of salts. I note that the prices stabilisation order has been extended. This is a further indication that the Government are not interested in a prices and incomes policy but interested in just papering over the crack in the wall. Prices are only one side of the coin. The other side as well as the milled edges must be taken into account before we can get a result.

I am pleased to note that there is off-shore petroleum exploration and that our mining operations are going well. It would be churlish of us on all sides of the House if we did not refer in this context to the wonderful work as businessman, solicitor and politician of the late Deputy Sweetman. It is sad that somebody who did so much and created so many jobs in this field and was so highly valued by the people here is now no longer with us. His particular sphere was finance in his time as Minister but he was also a man with great knowledge and a sense of truth that imbued his every action. What he sometimes said we did not like to hear but when we were half way home we often had to admit to ourselves that what he said was true. On this Estimate I should like to refer to his particularly successful operations in regard to the development of mining. I am sure Members opposite do not object to this. I hope that the spadework done in the early days by that particularly honoured, respected and loved Member of this House will proceed from strength to strength.

Development of industrial estates is progressing slowly. In fact, private concerns and companies are setting up industrial estates and availing of the ordinary grants in certain areas. In my own constituency in Dundalk this has been done very much to the credit of those who took the risk in an effort to preserve jobs there. The Government have been dilatory in this matter for the political reason I have already mentioned. Industrial training is also moving slowly. Most people are still living with the idea that free trade will never happen. Let us face the fact that in 1975 we shall have entirely free trade with Britain and while in particular sectors we shall have the right to take steps over a period of 18 months to protect jobs that might be wiped out, that is all we have, so that by mid-1976 the huge industrial production in its many varieties in Britain will be available to Irish consumers who have not been traditionally loyal to Irish goods.

That is sad to record. Preference should certainly be always given to Irish goods but apart from people on all sides of this House who, knowing the political implications, have very often gone out of their way to buy Irish goods, Irish consumers have a bad record in regard to purchasing their own products. This cannot be emphasised sufficiently. When one looks at the provisions of the EEC one finds the safeguards available under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement are largely not available under the Rome Treaty. Anybody who has done business with Continentals knows that, as distinct from doing business with the British, it is all in the game to "do you down." All you have when dealing with Continentals, whether purchasing from them or selling to them, is your legal rights which are extremely hard to enforce when the other party lives in another country.

My personal experience in this regard is that I would prefer to deal in Britain than in any Continental country. It is a matter of standards: Continentals do not seem to have the same business standards as we or the British have. The Common Market situation in this regard will translate itself right through to the politicians in Brussels and sympathy and understanding will not be as readily available. That is why the Government here must make a strong effort to provide industrial expansion. They are not doing this at present.

In his speech the Minister spoke about trade delegations in Bulgaria and trade with Czechoslovakia. I have tried that also; it did not work. I remember a funny story about a Member here who did not speak for 20 years. Many years ago when he was referred to on the other side of the House he rose to protest to the Ceann Comhairle. He said a Member opposite had called him a Bulgarian. The Member opposite replied: "I did not. I called you a vulgarian." The other Member said:

"That is all right, then", and sat down. He might not have been far wrong. One finds in trading with those countries behind the Iron Curtain that they are utterly ruthless. While efforts to develop trade with those countries must be continued, I would not hold out much hope unless great advantages were involved for them. I believe that the easiest form of trade development for this country is with Britain. Because of the fact that we are entering the Common Market we must expand our trade with the Continent but we are suffering from the grave disability that our industries are small and that apart from price and supply, sales expertise and presentation are the things that will make the difference. We will have a tough time developing sales expertise and presentation over the range of our products to meet the competition of continental countries which can apply their expertise and presentation in selling to the Irish consumer.

I do not want to detain the House much longer. I have been speaking for two hours, which is unusual for me, but I do want to say that the Government have not come clean with the people. They have not indicated the sectors of industry which will be in difficulty. They have not indicated those areas where industry should have been developed. Detailed statements on these matters and in regard to the Buchanan and Devlin Reports should be made available to the people at the earliest possible stage. These statements may gain votes for the Government in one place and may cost them votes in another but that is a risk the Government must accept.

In relation to the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement with particular reference to the boot and shoe industry, talks should be instituted immediately at prime minister and ministerial level in relation to the saving clauses in sections of the agreement. The British invoked the agreement when they produced their deposit scheme. We have been extremely dilatory and have not taken every advantage of the agreement. A market appraisal drive has not been instituted. The reference by the Minister to Bulgaria does not convince me. There are political difficulties because a market appraisal may produce a situation in which industries might be described as doing indifferently. The Government have a responsibility to make this known to the people. Taking into account geographical and demographical factors they must indicate the areas where industrial development should take place, and, having done that, must co-operate with the Department of Local Government in creating the infrastructure of roads, houses and services that will provide the impetus that the City of Craigavon has given in the north. The Government must expand the Small Industries Programme which was produced from this side of the House years before they implemented it. They must raise the level of re-equipment grants in relation to the amount of capital employed in the industry to the same level as for a a new industry. When the debate is published there will be proof of the necessity for this step in the examples I have given. The Government must expand the building of industrial estates and must do it quickly. That is also related to my statement as to what should be done in relation to geography and demography. Instead of relying on overdraft accommodation from banks, which will not be available in the future, existing private companies should be put in a position by good underwriting facilities not at present available to go public so that the postman, the liftman, the cabman or the roadworker can have a few shares in industry.

The Government must introduce, not a prices policy, not an incomes policy, but a prices and incomes policy —we will do it for them, probably, according to the way things are moving—which will embrace not only wages, prices and costs, but dividends, directors' emoluments and salaries, in the full realisation of the fact that this would have to be voluntarily accepted by the people and must be backed by a cross-section of those involved in the trade unions, in management, in local government, the civil service or in politics. The people must be informed as to the real increase in living standards that can be afforded. The 7 per cent mentioned by the Taoiseach and the 12 per cent mentioned by the former Deputy Lemass a few years ago must die the death they deserve.

In doing all of these things that I have mentioned, the Government must produce a climate for industrial growth. I produce from the Minister's speech a figure of £24.2 million of capital moneys in grants to produce 12,000 jobs and I bear in mind the 16,000 persons who left agriculture in the year. The figure of 28,000 jobs produced for an expenditure of £66 million, representing £2,000 per job is an incorrect figure. It is my personal experience that it takes £6,000 or £7,000 to produce a job.

I give this figure merely to show how much the Minister and his Department are out of touch and to prove to the House and to the people that the purchase of jobs with money will not succeed. The production at election time and for political purposes of wage increases and other advantages, price control and all the rest of the jiggery-pokery must stop. There must be created without regard to the future of politicians of any party, a climate for growth that will induce foreign industrialists to come here and to create employment for our people.

I have listened very carefully to the last speaker who painted a very pessimistic picture of the country and of our industrial revival. I was interested to hear if he would say that Fianna Fáil as a Government had done any good at all. He adopted the attitude that anything started by Fianna Fáil was no good. It is a pity that an intelligent Deputy, a decent man, could not have been a little more constructive in this day and age. Great advances have been made in the industrial field in our time. The Deputy referred to the great advances made by his own colleague and he is entitled to do that just as I am entitled to stress the great advances made by my former colleague, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr. Seán Lemass. He did wonderful work and showed great foresight in regard to our industrial development. Backed by the Fianna Fáil Party he tried to encourage industrialists to come here at a big disadvantage at that time. I am not saying anything about the work done under the Cumann na nGaedheal Government. The then Minister had his job to do for ten years. One had to fight against tradition and we had Lloyd George saying behind the backs of the plenipotentiaries "We are giving them the agricultural south and they will never be able to carry on." That is the history of both the Cumann na nGaedheal and Fianna Fáil Governments; that is what they were up against. We never got any money from anyone except from our own people. When we started we were down to rock bottom. We made great advances against great odds.

Mr. Lemass had to contend with the second world war during his term of office and that slowed things up a great deal but he got going and was responsible for some big schemes. When the Inter-Party Government came in they scrapped them. Why? It was a foolish thing and I hope that future politicians will not say that because a scheme was started by their opponents it cannot be a good one. A lot of good things have been done by the Opposition parties and we are big enough to give them credit for them. I do not want to go back over history but I do want to show how vicious and blind politicians at that time were. When the inter-party Government came in in 1948 they wanted to sell the planes which we had purchased for the trans-Atlantic air service just because this was a Fianna Fáil project. I hope in my time and even when I have gone that such a political approach will never be made again either by my party or by any other party. As far as Aer Lingus and Aerlínte were concerned that put us back 20 years. Possibly it prevented us from flying into United States cities from which ten years later we were debarred. There was a foolish philosophy adopted during that period. It is very difficult to understand very intelligent men trying to build a wall around the country and trying to stop the great industrial revival.

One of our greatest industries is the tourist industry. We are not concerned with it under this Vote but it is one of our major industries and one which in the mid-forties was misrepresented. People said we were encouraging foreigners to come and eat our food. Today we are delighted to have this industry. It was criticised by a Deputy over there who later became Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Inter-Party Government and then he stated that the tourist industry was a wonderful industry. You had this philosophy among people who could not make up their minds about where they are going. This is our country and we should help one another to make the country better for everybody. Today Aer Lingus are employing 4,000 or 5,000 people and providing them with a good living. They provide a great contribution towards our tourist industry and their international contacts have been responsible for attracting industrialists here. Bord na Móna were also started by Fianna Fáil and one can recall the wonderful work done by that board, what they did during the world war and since and what they have done for the production of electricity. These are advances we never dreamed we could achieve.

Many other bodies have also achieved a great deal for the country. The Inter-Party Government failed in 1957 but that might have happened us too in that period. The explanation was that we had no industrial exports which were worthwhile. Our only worthwhile export was cattle. When the Argentine decided to export all the cattle they could to England they were sending in more cattle on one boat than we could sell on the Dublin cattle market. As a result our balance of payments position went wrong, our loans failed and we had thousands and thousands unemployed. We had nothing to fall back on, no tourist industry or anything else, only our cattle and invisible assets coming in by way of contributions from emigrants and others abroad.

All of us who have lived through such a period do not want to live through it again. Even if some of our industrial enterprises failed, and even if we did give grants to industrialists to encourage them to come in here, and to our own industrialists, we did all that to try to create employment. It would be too much to expect that every one of those industries would succeed. They did not all succeed but it was better to take a chance and ensure that we were moving in the right direction.

A boat that remains at anchor loses ground. The great industrial growth which was started is competing favourably with our agricultural exports. That is good. Industrial reorganisation has been carried out. I want to remind our people in the industrial field, both workers and employers, of the great challenge we are facing in the Common Market. The factories which got protection from the Government will now have to compete in world markets. These matters are of deep concern to all of us on all sides of the House. We have made wonderful advances and we expect to make more.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Irish people and our industrialists who went abroad and found markets for our products in various countries. They are the great heroes of our time. I do not know if my colleague the professor will agree with me, but I think we should show our appreciation of these industrialists, these economic heroes, and of what they have done. Perhaps we could have a President's list every year or something like that. I have not given it too much consideration. These people should get some official recognition because they have contributed so much to our country in helping us to get foreign trade and to get markets for our exports. Our diplomatic missions abroad have helped us. Various Irish people living abroad have tried to help us. With the big industries we have here we should have better markets abroad.

One of our exports that comes from the land is our Irish whiskey. The United Distillers are doing a very good job in trying to get markets abroad for Irish whiskey. After the war the Associated Distillers of Scotland spent millions of pounds. They even paid corkage in the United States. Any place you travel in the United States or in Europe you will find Associated Distillers of Scotland whisky sold there. When I was in Berlin I had brought some Irish whiskey with me. I was a member of the Council of Europe. I tried to find out if people there would like Irish whiskey. The local papers said at the time that I was not a diplomat but a salesman for Irish whiskey in Berlin. I do not say that every one of us could do this. I just did it in a general way. Powers had sent us some little bottles of whiskey to give to the people in the trade.

We can see the potentialities for our whiskey exports. It would have been better if the United Distillers had been set up after the war but, we are all wise after the event. If I did things right I might be better off too. I made mistakes in my time too. Many times over the years I have spoken about the potentialities of that market. We would need to grow thousands and thousands more acres of corn and barley to supply that market. I hope we have now got off the ground and I wish the United Distillers luck.

We have come a long way in the industrial field by training our boys and girls. Wonderful work has been done in the field of technical training. After leaving this country, having been educated here, our technical people have succeeded in getting some of the finest jobs abroad. That is a tribute to the Irish race as a whole. Córas Tráchtála have done wonderful work. The last speaker gave no credit to Córas Tráchtála for the success they have achieved. They created a world market for certain Irish products. I hope they will continue to be successful. I hope our diplomatic missions will help us to get more and more markets.

We hear a lot of talk about the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement. That was the best agreement that could have been made in the circumstances. It takes two people to make an agreement. It took two Governments and the Civil Service advisers of both Governments to make this agreement. I hope there is no Irishman who would make a bad bargain for our country so far as trade or anything else is concerned. A point was made about our trade with eastern Europe. Why should we not trade with anybody who will buy from us? As far as our balance of trade is concerned we should be very careful to buy from countries that will buy from us. We should reciprocate as far as possible. It is not always easy to do this. If we could do it it would be to the advantage of our economy.

The small industries programme has made some of our people very happy in various areas. I hope that the owners of old factories and of factories that have been extended or newly built are aware of the gift they are getting from the State through these industrial grants. The re-equipment grant is another grant which was brought in by this party. There are industrial estates in Waterford and Galway and we have industrial estates in the city and county of Dublin. The last speaker said we had not done anything in the industrial field. We have done quite a lot in the industrial field. If you walk around the suburbs of Dublin you can see the amount of work that has been done with the encouragement of our development authority and private enterprise.

The Shannon Free Airport Development Company has helped to improve our trade balance. It was once referred to as a white elephant but it is improving day after day and year after year. It is giving gainful employment to our people. That was part and parcel of Fianna Fáil policy.

The Irish National Productivity Committee have been doing a good job. The Institute for Industrial Research and Standards are doing valuable work with the view to improving the quality of the Irish product which is an essential feature of a successful export arm. Only the best should be good enough for the home market and for our export arm. That has been a Fianna Fáil project and there should be general appreciation of the great strides that have been made as a result of the setting-up of this institute.

Deputy Donegan had much to say on the subject of prices. In the Minister's absence, I would suggest that Deputy Donegan—who unfortunately has left the House—be assimilated into the Department of Industry and Commerce and put in charge of prices and incomes. Such a tactic was used by Abraham Lincoln with anybody who criticised him unduly.

Deputy Donegan might well be in charge very soon.

We have had our industrial upheavals from time to time. That is the price of democracy. There is not a right to strike in countries behind the Iron Curtain. We have machinery here for dealing with industrial relations difficulties. It was set up under the Industrial Relations Act, 1945, and down through the years, it has achieved various successes. It is impossible to settle every dispute in a free industrial relations court where either side has a right to refuse to accept the court's recommendations. My hope is that, in time, people will realise the supreme importance in industry of industrial relations. I do not intend to name names but I have in mind a firm employing over 3,500 people who have an industrial relations officer who is so skilled and interested in his work that he takes an interest not only in the workers themselves but even in their families. Whenever there is a sign of a dispute in the industry, he is able to take action immediately and to pour oil on troubled waters. An industrial relations officer is a very important and necessary individual in industry. No training in the world will make a successful industrial relations officer out of a person not suited to that work but a skilled and suitably trained person can contribute much that is worthwhile to the benefit of our community.

Industrial relations would be a matter for the Department of Labour.

I am referring to the matter in a general way. I bow to the ruling of the Chair. Our great industrial revival under Fianna Fáil was very much in my mind. Fianna Fáil also set up Irish Shipping, Limited, as a result of which we have our own shipping.

Mr. Jones is on that board—Deputy Blaney's friend.

I am sorry for Deputy Donegan: all he could do was criticise anything which the Government were doing for the benefit of the country. The past couple of years has been a period of remarkable growth in industry. The increase in production has been accompanied by a very significant rise in industrial employment. In June of 1969 for the first time we broke through the 200,000 mark in employment in these industries and by the December quarter the figure reached an all-time high of 207,000. I am sorry my friend, Deputy Donegan, is not here because he might not have seen or heard about these figures which represent the advances which a great party and a great Government have succeeded in achieving.

We have already referred to industrial organisation, the number of factories we have succeeded in establishing as a result of our industrial revival. We have succeeded in producing goods we previously had to import. We in this House should remember that no matter where we go we are all Irish and are all concerned with the wellbeing of the country. Misrepresenting facts is not of very much use. Constructive criticism will enhance the prestige of any Deputy, even with his own constituents, as I have discovered from experience.

I believe that when we enter the EEC we shall be as good as the best, because a trait in the Irish character enables us to survive in adversity. One thing that concerns me is some of the factories that have their parent body in other countries, in England, Scotland and elsewhere. When it comes to the export market, provided we do not interfere with them, it is all right. It reminds me of the Prime Minister of England in the 18th century when in 1798 prior to the Act of Union he was jealous of the industrialists in this country and tried to discourage them. There are snags for us here today, but when the foreign industrialists came here we were glad to get them. We gave our industrialists protection down through the years and I hope they will now realise they will have to stand on their own feet in the very near future.

I wish the new Minister for Industry and Commerce well, and I hope he will help the nation as he did in other spheres.

The new Minister for Industry and Commerce has come in here in rather extraordinary circumstances. He himself could not have guessed some weeks ago that this would happen. He was basking away in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, a quiet post, and now he is in charge of Industry and Commerce, a very important position in the Cabinet. The statement he has introduced today we can read as the statement of the previous Minister, Deputy George Colley. How long the new Minister will have to look after this Department will probably be decided today. However, this is an important Department of State and has to do with one of the crucial issues facing the country at this time, that of employment. While our politics may appear to be exclusively concerned with matters of war and peace, the real struggle in this part of the country, which goes on regardless of the high points in politics, is a struggle to achieve something near full employment, a struggle in which, over the years since 1957, we have failed to make appreciable progress. It is only fair to say that there has been an improvement in latter years. The general economic position in Europe as well as the amount of foreign capital coming into the country and the amount of new industry being set up with foreign participation have helped in providing extra employment.

On average about 12,000 people leave agriculture each year. Add to that the number of school leavers entering the labour force each year and it indicates that to keep our heads above water we would need something in the region of 25,000 new jobs every year. It is true that last year we were ahead on employment. According to the Third Programme we set out to create something like 31,000 new jobs over the four years since the publication of the programme. Last year we achieved our target figure for new jobs.

In taking the target of the Third Programme of 31,000 new jobs over four years, this gives us an average per year of 8,000 new jobs. Therefore, even meeting the targets of the Third Programme, we are still very far off the real need of about 25,000 new jobs per year. We are providing, going very well at the moment, only about 8,000 to 10,000 per year and we face a future in which expansion in job opportunities will be increasingly difficult. Whatever the final outcome of our application to join the Common Market, the fact remains that all around us there are countries who are engaged in reducing existing tariffs.

We face the certainty of increased competition on the home market. Under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement this summer we will further reduce our tariff and, consequently, competition with British imports will be come more fierce. Even today when taking a stroll through supermarkets and other retail outlets one can notice the increase in imported goods. When the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement was signed in January, 1966, we knew that in the years 1970-73 we would be facing the worst period for this economy in the lifetime of the agreement. One recalls the hopes entertained of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement but it has not been a good bargain for us in the area of industrial employment. In the remaining three years of the agreement we will see that our forebodings in regard to the effects on this sector will be fulfilled.

We face a problem that the overall size of Irish industry is much too small by international standards. We have been late in the industrialisation race which means we must compete in the free trade area community with countries having a far longer industrial tradition. This means that the State's participation in industrialisation is much more important than similar State initiative in other countries. As a party committed to expansion of the State in industry, a party that has pioneered policies in the area of State enterprise, it is interesting to note that even in those countries with a longer industrial tradition the State has been used as an important element in their industrialisation programmes. One thinks of Italy where the State has participated in such diverse fields as oil, automobiles and so on.

Because we were late in the industrialisation race, State participation here must, to that extent, be even more significant. The institutions we set up must be that much more efficient; they must do that extra work because of the problems faced in providing employment in this country. It was disappointing to note that the Minister's speech did not display any appreciation of the extra burden and responsibility of the State in this area. One could well imagine the speech being made by any other Minister in any European country where the problems are not as grave as those facing us.

Whatever political viewpoint one holds on the matter of State enterprise, the fact is in free trade conditions if you wish to retain ownership of industry in Irish hands the State has a most important role to play. Even if there was little belief in the efficacy of State enterprise you would have to concede that it has a most important function in retaining economic power in Irish hands in a period of free trade. For a country with a fragile industrial base the logic of free trade must be that the small units will be taken over by the larger units. The small units may simply be turned into agencies of the larger units and, therefore, a most important task devolves on the State to protect Irish assets and to retain as much economic control as possible in the hostile environment of free trade.

Every paragraph of the Minister's speech ends with the threat posed to our economic expansion by free trade. The Minister is wise to do so but we must remember he is a member of the Government which has little bargaining power when it comes to consider our application for entry into the Common Market. As numerous questions in this House have demonstrated, this is a Government which, even in the area of defence, have handed everything away when it comes to entry into the EEC. This is a Government which say "We are quite confident we will be able to deal with any competition in Europe that may be forthcoming". This is a Government which deny they have serious problems in the matter of our application for Common Market membership. We consider this has been the most unwise bargaining posture to adopt because we obviously have major problems in the matter of our application. It is apparent that a major threat is posed for much of our industry in the matter of our policy on the application to join the EEC.

It is evident that the units of our industry are too small to compete with giant European monopolies. Judged simply on the issue of survival in a free trade area environment, the recent link-up between the firms of Carrolls, Irish Glass Bottle Company, Waterford Glass and the United Distillers of Ireland must be welcomed. Obviously we will need firms with a strong marketing arm if we are to survive in a free trade area environment. A great number of our firms have little experience of this kind of marketing in export conditions. Still less have we built up any tradition of export to Europe and a link-up of large firms, making them better able to withstand competition from abroad, is most desirable.

The State may also have a valuable function in actual participation with private enterprise in our approach to free trade conditions. In the recent Industrial Development Authority Bill, we gave power to that body to buy shares in firms which they had helped to set up and to appoint shareholders. I think a shareholder has been appointed to the Italian firm that has been set up in Sligo and this is to be welcomed.

While one frequently hears statements from politicians about their adherence to the principle of private enterprise one often wonders what exactly is implied by the term private enterprise in this country. There is scarcely a firm here that is not helped by the State either by adaptation, training or other grants. To some extent, the State helps private enterprise. This is as it should be because employment is a matter that affects everybody in the community. The State must take up the position of increasing partnership in these particular enterprises which are helped with taxpayers' money because if the provision of employment and if the preparedness of these firms for free trade conditions is of importance and if the State considers that their survival is important enough to provide them with taxpayers' money, then it should also apply that the State should have some say in the control and policy of these particular firms. Even if they be family firms who seek money from the State the State must see to it that that money is well spent and that the employment position is well protected.

In 1968 a commission was set up to report on industrial progress. This commission was to report on the preparedness of particular sectors in Irish industry for the Common Market and I would urge on the Minister that he hurry up publication of these particular reports. It is extremely important that we know at this time how prepared each sector is for the problems ahead. Two years is a long time to have waited for results. I am aware that the clothing industry report was published about a week ago but there are a number of other reports which we are anxious to get. For instance, there is the report on textiles and the report on food processing around which so much of our agricultural industry is based. The last full-scale investigation of the effects of free trade on Irish industry was in 1960 when the Committee on Industrial Organisation investigated particular areas and produced a report at that time. Now, almost ten years later it is extremely important for us to know the position of our industries in regard to the preparedness for Common Market entry because on their preparedness depend the employment figures for the middle 1970s and thereafter.

Our negotiators on Common Market entry will need to have the facts before them when they sit down to bargain and negotiate at the end of June or later this year. These facts have not been available up to now. We have had Ministerial statements to the effect that adaptation grants have been taken up but we have no idea of how well adapted or otherwise is Irish industry for the future.

According to OECD our industrial production last year was at a growth rate of 6.6 per cent. This was down on the 1968 growth rate which was 12 per cent. Before we commit ourselves to any wild jubilation at the upward increase in our growth rate it is wise to remember that most of the countries of Europe with whom we shall soon be associated if the Government's plans come to fruition had a much higher growth rate for that year. For example, Germany had a growth rate of 13 per cent; France had a growth rate of 12½ per cent; Belgium had a growth rate of 10½ per cent while Holland had a growth rate of 12½ per cent. Therefore, it will be seen that our growth rate of 6.6 per cent does not compare very favourably with the growth rate in those countries. We must remember that their growth rate has to be registered against a much larger industrial basis than our own.

The attitude we have adopted in relation to the whole matter of our application for membership of the Common Market is, to my mind, the wisest one to adopt at this particular time. The Government are, themselves, the victims of their own propaganda in relation to Common Market entry. It would appear that they have expected too much from entry. Deliberately, or otherwise, they have led people to believe that the Common Market is the answer to many of our economic problems. This is not so. We are in the position, because of this Government's policy down through the years, that if Britain enters we would have no choice but to have some form of association with the Common Market countries.

In so far as Ireland is concerned the Common Market solves no particular problem of economic development. I do not know of any country, at least in recent history, that has managed to industrialise itself in conditions of free trade. I have heard of countries which industrialised themselves first and then sought free trade but I know of none who opted for free trade without having industrialised themselves.

However, as I say, Government policy has brought us to the point where there is little mobility left for any Dublin Government because they are tied hand and foot to the British economy. Whatever little mobility is left must be used to the fullest extent by our negotiators.

I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that the Minister has referred to the fact that there will be a debate on the EEC. Perhaps the Deputy will not widen the scope of the debate at this time.

I do not intend to pursue that line any further. It is outside the Minister's control. As you say, we shall have a debate on this topic some time later, that is, if there is any time later for any particular debate. We have always taken the view that employment figures spell out the success or otherwise of economic policy. They are the valid criteria on how the economy is progressing and on how we are fulfilling our social obligations to the majority of the citizens of the State.

It is interesting to recall the shortfall in the Second Programme of 1964. In 1964 we thought we would have something like 334,000 employed by 1970. In fact, we have only 305,000 employed in those particular areas. We must recall, in judging the extent of failure to reach that figure, that the Second Programme projection in 1964 was not on the basis of providing full employment but simply allowed a large emigration figure. In hoping to achieve that total employment in manufacturing industry of 334,000 we have not met the target first put out in 1964. We are off it by about 30,000 jobs. Therefore, despite the progress which has been made—and there has been progress in the diversity of new industries set up—we have not really made deep inroads, not changed anything dramatically in the matter of the number of new jobs being created each year. That still remains the problem we have not overcome.

Something the Minister mentions in his speech, which has helped in recent years, has been the inflow of foreign capital, the extent of foreign investment in the economy, the number of new industries being set up with outside help. The sensible attitude to foreign investment in the economy must be to welcome the opening up of new markets and the introduction of new forms of expertise and so on. But it is an insecure base on which to mount a really big attack on the unemployment figures. Many Deputies have mentioned already in the early stages of this debate that, where a great amount of our industrial activity takes place under the aegis of foreign firms, this represents that much loss of control by this country in the policy decisions of those firms.

I was in the United States recently and heard of one foreign-owned firm operating in Ireland for some time which had been contacted by American businessmen to open up an export market to the USA. These businessmen were told by that firm, which gave much needed employment in this country, that that export market was the concern of the parent firm in England. We do not know in what other areas this may be happening, but it shows you that foreign firms set up in this country may not be amenable to the national aim of expanding our export markets. Those firms may have other plans. The plant they set up here with the aid of the taxpayers' money may have a totally different place in that firm's overall investment policy, in that firm's overall international position, than that which would be chosen for it by the Irish Government. The local people may be happy to see a new factory starting, but an Irish firm hoping to open up an export market may find that that firm is not interested in that particular export market. I know from personal experience of one or two cases in the United States where the branch firms of foreign companies operating in Ireland were not interested in a particular market because they considered that was the preserve of the parent company. The policy we have been pursuing boils down to this. "We will provide the factories; we will provide the training; we will provide the tax free allowances; we will provide adaptation grants; we will provide all manner of cash incentives simply on the basis of the foreign person coming in and providing new jobs."

This philosophy behind this is not very well thought out and it certainly does not give great confidence for expansion in the future. It is true the IDA legislation, which we passed recently and which the Minister refers to in his speech, represented a major advance in our thinking on the matter of industrial organisation in that recognition was there given to the idea that grants would be graded in accordance with the technological level of the firm, the growth rate of the firm, the possibilities of that firm linking up with others—that all of those things would be factors in the amount of cash given to the firm. The more we bring in this qualitative assessment of those to whom we hand out cash and of what their plans are for the future, the more we will be on the right road. This idea of striking a bargain on the mere supposition that jobs will be provided at this point of time is not sufficiently well thought out. We need jobs—nobody queries that—but we need jobs which have a possibility of providing further jobs. We need industries which show signs of future expansion and in which management will be interested in going out to capture export markets wherever those may be captured. We need to know a little bit more about what the parent firm really thinks of their investment in this country.

We have had the previous Minister for Industry and Commerce—and I have no doubt that when the present Minister has had a few weeks in the job he will be replying in much the same vein—saying that we have had a very low failure rate here and that there was nothing to be alarmed about. By that was meant that firms had not closed down in the period in which the grant had been given; in other words, in a period of four or five years the failure rate had not been that great. Can anybody predict with any confidence what the failure rate will be over the next ten years or over the next 15 years in relation to many of those firms? Are the IDA or the Department in general taken into the confidence of the parent firm in relation to their Irish investment? Before we hand over money through the IDA and other agencies do we know that the parent firm have not another plan entirely for this investment of theirs? Are we subsidising dead-end jobs, jobs which will result in despair and not hope for the workers and employees?

Those are questions which must be asked. This is not to ignore the possibility of foreign capital participation. We should have as much of it as possible but it should be the right quality capital investment. It should be at the right price. Those questions should be answered. We must look again at the trend in the last three years in particular because the participation of foreign-owned industries has been greater in those years. We now have the ironic position that a great deal of the taxpayers' hard earned money is going to firms very rich indeed in their own countries merely to get their goodwill in setting up factories here.

It seems to me that, if we must subsidise private enterprise, then at least the more the grant we give is hedged about with guarantees for the jobs of those employed, the better. We must hedge these cash grants with such guarantees. We do not have anything like full participation in the planning of these firms at employee level. The only connection with many firms so established has been at their inception. The Department official confers with these people when they come to Dublin. If the official thinks the investment is providing so many jobs the money is given. There is little evidence given to us in this House of any follow-up contact between the IDA and the managements of these firms. I should like to see as soon as possible after their setting-up, these firms preparing the way for Irish nationals to take over the key management jobs. There has been a tendency to retain key personnel and management jobs in the hands of foreigners. There are Irishmen skilled in management working abroad today through lack of opportunity at home. This is another of the criteria we should adopt. Where a firm comes from abroad a scheduled period should be given to them for a turnover to Irish nationals of all the important jobs in the firms.

The boards of these firms should include a shareholder representing the State who would look after the State's investment in that firm. It is not good enough for the Minister to give us a set of reasons why a particular firm has closed up, or for the Minister to say that nobody was responsible. We want week-by-week surveillance of these firms in regard to providing the jobs and repaying the grants given. This is the only way the State can protect their investment.

A great number of questions hang over many areas of industrial activity. We in this House will not know accurately in facing free trade how we are placed until we have reports of the committee on industrial progress. One thinks of the fertiliser industry. I should like to have heard more from the Minister even in his speech here today. It is true that we are facing a debate on the Common Market later in this month. I should have thought the Minister in his speech today would at least have given us his estimation of the preparedness of particular industries to face free trade. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to reply, will give us some idea of what will happen in the fertiliser industry. I am concerned about this industry. We would like to know whether we can continue the present subsidy arrangement in conditions of free trade especially as it affects NET. NET provides fertilisers mainly for grasslands and they may be in a strong position. I will be curious to hear whether the company specialising in tillage fertiliser can continue with the same subsidy arrangements as heretofore in conditions of free trade. The whole area of free trade bristles with unanswered questions, with questions that the White Paper did not answer and with questions with which the Minister's speech here today does not deal.

The Minister talked about the importance of buying Irish goods. We have never had a tradition of a home market. Other countries taking on competition from abroad can rely on a long tradition in their home market and on long buying habits among their public. The ordinary Britisher may say that he has no time for nationalism but, when it comes to purchasing, the average British citizen is more patriotic than the citizen of this country. Admittedly our products must be efficiently produced and competitively priced. We suffer from a national inferiority complex in this matter of purchase. One can think of numerous shops and stores where it is difficult to get the Irish article, where the Irish article may be just as good but where it is more chic to buy something foreign.

This is a national characteristic but it is one we must seriously consider when talking about our home market. We never had the tradition of strong bias in favour of home buying. T.P. Moran and other patriots at the start of the century attempted to make it a national belief but they did not succeed. We have had too short a period of preparing for industrialisation. We do not have a strong tradition of purchasing home-produced products. We have a kind of snobbery which suggests that the quality product is always the foreign product, that the Irish product is inferior and that it is not quite as smart to buy the home product. This means that as well as product barriers which must be overcome we have psychological barriers to overcome in the matter of retaining the home market in the years ahead. When the tariffs come down again this year we will see an increase in the amount of penetration of our market by British products.

We have often drawn the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the number of retail outlets falling into the hands of foreigners especially in the case of supermarkets. Going through any supermarket one will see English cheese, biscuits, sweets, and confectionery. In many of them one will not see Irish cheese being shown on the cases. One will find that many of these supermarkets, either by agency agreement or otherwise, seem to stock only English products. Whether we like it or not—and this party do not like the trend towards supermarkets because this party represents the small man at business, at work or elsewhere in the country—the bulk of Irish consumers will increasingly tend to do their buying in these supermarkets which give little evidence of any interest in the home market. Later this summer when more of our tariffs come down and when competition gets tougher, we will find that Irish jobs are being lost.

The Minister talked about certain people being unprepared for free trade and spoke about mental attitudes which have not changed. Many Irish firms consider this whole matter of getting export markets as being an unnecessary exercise. I do not know where the fault lies. It may lie in the confidence of this Government in our suitability for Common Market membership. Many of our firms are not interested in capturing foreign markets. Many firms consider that the slice of the home market which they have enjoyed over the last ten to 15 years will suffice for them in the future. Many of the firms are small themselves and have not a proper marketing arm to seek new markets if we become members of the EEC. This all adds up to a pretty frightening future. The Minister, speaking as Minister for Industry and Commerce, gives little evidence that the Department of Industry and Commerce are awake to the urgency of the situation. This speech could be compared with any speech by a Fianna Fáil Minister for Industry and Commerce since 1957. It gives little evidence of being an Estimate prepared within a few weeks of the time when our negotiators will once more renew their application to join the Common Market.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Barr
Roinn