The prospects for increased employment and increased production this year do not look too good at present. The projections of growth for 1970 are down on the growth projections for 1969. Quite apart from any political crisis there may be in the country at present there is a crisis in industry as a whole because of increasing competition and this summer, when we will have another reduction in the tariffs between our goods and those of Britain, there will be that much keener competition on our home market.
I have already pointed out that a serious situation faces us on the so-called home market. There is a great increase in the amount of imported confectionery of all kinds, biscuits and cheese, with the result that comparable Irish goods are not being purchased in the same volume. If one looks at the figures for biscuits, cakes and confectionery between 1967 and 1969 there has been an increase of 147 per cent in imports. The main component of this increase is in the biscuit field. In many of our supermarkets at present it is easier to buy English biscuits than the comparable Irish article. There is a fantastic and phenomenal increase in the sale of these goods. It is more than a coincidence that many of these supermarkets have already fallen under the control of British parent firms. I think of the supermarket chain, Powers, and their association with Associated British Foods. They are, in co-operation with these agencies in England, intensifying their attacks on our home market.
The Minister had some pious platitudes in his speech about his desire to see small retail outlets increased. He said he desired to see them fostered and rendered more efficient. The plain statistical facts are that these small retail outlets are being swallowed up by the large supermarket chains and that an appreciable element is controlled by Britain. This means that the home market is being steadily taken over by British agencies. Similarly, in imported clothing and footwear on the home market there has been an increase of 123 per cent between 1967 and 1969. All of these increases are directly attributable to the effects of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. We can prove in pounds, shillings and pence that the increases are directly related to the manner in which our tariffs have gone down summer by summer. We can say with absolute certainty that, after the further tariff reduction this summer, these imports will have increased commensurately by this time next year. There has been an increase too in imports of agricultural machinery, notably tractors. Admittedly we cannot manufacture our own tractors but it is regrettable in relation to a great deal of the other machinery necessary for agriculture and industry that we evidently cannot make any arrangements to manufacture or provide this at home. There has been an increase of 80 per cent in imports of agricultural machinery between 1967 and 1969.
All these storm signals for our home market must be studied with great care by the Government if they are interested in these things any longer. It means that this so-called secure home market is more and more under siege by competitors abroad. Without ever going into the EEC the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement contains all the ingredients for a massive onslaught on our home market. Without ever invoking the Treaty of Rome this Government, by their participation in the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, have put in jeopardy the jobs of thousands of Irish people. Therefore, in those areas where there has been a great penetration by British interests we should seek a review of the effects of this agreement. Most certainly we should cast a cold eye over the entire operation of this agreement because, whatever may have been said at the outset about its benefits and advantages to this country, since its inception it apparently means that the British partner in the agreement has gone ahead and done exactly as he saw fit to suit his particular condition at any time.
It is true that there was an increase in jobs in 1969 but in our projections of job creation we have constantly underestimated the number of people leaving agriculture. Each year the number of young people leaving agriculture —and they are mainly young people— has exceeded the projection made the year before. Each year the number leaving agriculture has been in excess of the number estimated by 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 people. We must revise our expectations of the number of people leaving agriculture over the next few years. In each year the number leaving will exceed the official numbers we have had up to now by 4,000 or 5,000 people. This is one of the reasons why we are not creating any new opportunities for the population as a whole. Last year the number of new jobs created in industry roughly equalled the number of people leaving agriculture, so that we are tending to maintain a stationary position in the matter of jobs. We are not making any notable advance. We are merely cancelling out the losses in agriculture by the number of new jobs we create each year in industry.
It may be all right for the Minister to say that he is in favour of small firms, small distribution agencies, continuing. The cold facts suggest that the foreign competition, the larger grouping in supermarkets, is steadily making life impossible for the small shopkeeper. In fact, the real effects of Government policy must mean the ending of the small shop era. This, I am afraid, is rapidly becoming a fact up and down the country. I do not know what the turnover of the average small shopkeeper is. We hear a lot about the claims of different interests in our community—farmers, urban workers and so on—for an agreed annual increase in their income, but I would say that a number of small shopkeepers must be living on less than £9 or £10 a week. They may have a large turnover but many of them must be earning no more than this per week for much longer hours than any other element in the community.
There is an unfavourable trend in the new industries we are getting and I do not know what the answer to it is. The equation between the capital we are putting into it and the number of people who will be employed seems to be becoming more and more chaotic and out of balance. For the Pfizer plant in County Cork, with a suggested capital of £8 million, we will get 350 jobs. This is a very high price for new jobs created. For the BASF factory proposal, for a suggested capital of £20 million, we are getting 700 new jobs. It is true that in many of these cases if these firms link up with existing firms and if, for example, in that southern area we are planning to establish a chain of chemical industries, it may be considered worthwhile. But we must remember that, where capital investment of £8 million to a foreign industry is involved, then the Irish taxpayer is paying many millions into that investment and, consequently, less money is available for starting industry in other parts of the country. The positive side of such investment is the employment it creates, but it must mean also that our scarce capital is rendered that much more scarce and cannot be spread around. Certainly the equation of £8 million for 350 jobs requires much argument before it can be accepted. I hope the Minister has indulged in this kind of argument. We must subject each new investment of this size to the most stringent criteria to ensure that the capital we have available is used to the best possible effect.
Everything we say or do is affected by our application to join the EEC. There is enough fissionable material in the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement to explode any possibilities we have of building up an independent home market and thereby creating more jobs. The EEC will be the challenge of all challenges if we are forced to join it. The Government's White Paper on the EEC states it is necessary to face up to the fact that membership of the EEC would pose problems, possibly of a serious nature, for some sectors of industry as well as for individual firms.
We must know what negotiating terms the Government propose in their application for membership and what remedial action they propose to take to ensure that jobs are made secure. We cannot simply leave this to the good will of the Confederation of Irish Industries, the Federated Union of Employers or even to the Government itself; there must be total co-operation of all those involved in providing jobs.
Every Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the present Minister is no exception, in his Estimate speech has admitted that certain firms have not adapted as rapidly as desired. The present Minister has admitted that certain sectors of industry do not seem to be concerned that the outcome of our entry to the EEC may be to diminish the number of jobs and close many firms. The Government cannot ignore this attitude any longer. We can count as lost all the jobs provided at present by firms who have not adapted or have not shown any interest in competing in an open European market. The Government must take emergency action, if they are serious about saving jobs and ensuring that the mental attitudes—which the Minister has stressed are so important in the face of free trade—of managements controlling these firms are changed, and must consider removing the aids, grants and tax concessions from those firms because the criminal neglect of the future of their employees calls for such stern action. I realise this course of action is unorthodox but in cases where firms are not co-operating or preparing for entry into a free trade area I think it is necessary. It is not sufficient that year after year we should come in here and bewail the fact that so many firms are not interested in making these necessary preparations. We must take stern action.
It is true that any enlarged market area will give us further export opportunities but what has influenced this party's attitude to the possibilities of free trade and what has made us oppose the measures suggested so far has been our realisation that we have a low level of development. We are not in the same category as our future partners. Industry in member countries is far better developed than ours and these countries are in a far better position to take advantage of any large marketing area. We require a different relationship with any free trade area than these countries would. We need a particular relationship to suit our under-developed conditions.
If we are to take advantage of this large export area which may be opened up to us in any future arrangement our preparation must not be confined to physical adaptation of plant and so on. The amount we spend on research in industry is pitiful by international standards. If we are to take advantage of these newly opened export markets we must devote a greater amount of cash to research.
Marketing itself is at a very early stage of development here. It is doubtful if management is convinced about the importance of marketing techniques. The development of a proper marketing technique calls for research of the product and development in selling. Such facilities are employed by many firms in Europe but our small unit size means that these areas are purely of academic interest. Proper attention to market production, development and so on is essential if we are to take advantage of these new export markets. Many home produced goods are losing their place on the home market to foreign produced goods and this is probably due to our poor command of design. Clothing and footwear imports amounted to nearly £5 million in 1967 and to £11 million in 1969. There are many firms engaged in manufacturing clothing and footwear here but I think these import figures are attributable to the lack of design and lack of style of our goods. The Kilkenny Design Workshop is doing an admirable job in this field but a great deal more needs to be done especially in the clothing and footwear lines where style is the important factor. What chance have Irish goods abroad if people here refuse to buy them to the tune of £11 million in spite of the fact that there is a very high duty on all goods imported from Europe?
These are some of the problems that Government reports talk about when they say we have encountered X problems and we are considering Y of them and we shall be issuing a further report in due course. This official manner of brushing away real problems is at this moment a luxury we can ill afford. That is a startling increase in the volume of imports in this particular area and does not give us much encouragement as to our capability of withstanding the keen competition that faces us in the future.
It has not been all a case of lack of progress and dismal failure; there has been some initiative on the part of Irish firms and it must be hailed and welcomed and, if possible, improved. The initiative of the eight leading sweet or candy manufacturers—as they now call themselves—and the Sugar Company in an effort to open up a new export market to the United States must be hailed. This is the kind of thing we want. If our small firms are on unit size too small, co-operation is no longer a luxury. Individualism in industry will not pay in future. We must have more co-operation and we must have the Department of Industry and Commerce itself initiating merger talks between companies. No longer should they be content to turn up when the mergers take place, to cut tapes and act as bystanders. Through the IDA and other specialised agencies the Department must enter into the merger area, bring about the merger of Irish firms working in the one industry and tell these firms that their safety in future depends on their co-operation now and that now is the time for them to get together to withstand future competition.
What we have been saying in the wilderness for years past about the necessity for the State itself to make a positive approach in the matter of industrial investment and to involve itself in the creation of new industry, we can now see will be ever more necessary in the future. Those Deputies in every part of the House who have been calling for our involvement in the EEC or in the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement must now realise that in order to defend the taxpayers' investment in the country the State itself must take far greater responsibility for ensuring that employment and economic control can be maintained to the greatest degree possible in Irish hands in the future. The State itself must initiate mergers and take part in the decision-making in Irish industry at present to a far greater extent than in the past.
There has been a merger between Carrolls, UDI and Waterford Glass and that is a very welcome development also but there are too few examples in Irish industry of this kind of merger to face the dangerous future. Too many firms are apparently still refusing to go ahead with adaptation and so on and I have suggested certain remedies should they continue in that attitude.
Admittedly, it is only a minority of firms but I noticed last week in a report of, I think, the women's outer garment industry that at least five firms—I shall not mention names; some of them were Dublin firms—had received grants but had refused to fill in a questionnaire to tell the Department concerned with the report exactly how their adaptation was proceeding. They could take the taxpayers' money but would not answer the Government's questions. This kind of approach in Irish industry must be ended because if any Government is to negotiate for proper conditions in the EEC it is essential that they should know the true position in Irish industry. If Irish firms consider that they can continue on a Sinn Féin course of refusing to give any information to the Government about their adaptation and preparedness at this time they must be disillusioned because they are not playing the game. They receive taxpayers' money but will not answer the taxpayers' representative when he asks them how the money was spent and what are their plans for the coming year. I read in that report of at least five or six firms who refused to answer the questionnaire. All of us must complete income tax forms as individuals each year and we are heavily penalised if we do not. I think we must also consider penalties for those firms which take money and refuse to answer the questions they are asked.
