asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he has yet received a report from the EEC task force investigating the importation of footwear and textiles; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
79.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Imports Investigation.
78.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he has received any reports that goods from Korea may be dumped on the Irish market; and if he will investigate these reports and indicate, if they are true, the effect such dumping may have on employment in this country.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 78 and 79 together.
There has been an initial reaction from the EEC Commission to the case which was presented to them about the problems of the textiles, clothing and footwear industries.
Adjustments are being made in the quota licences being issued this year for textiles from 16 Far Eastern or Eastern European State-trading countries to which the low-cost quotas apply so that imports under the quota will be of fabrics which complement rather than compete with Irish production.
As already announced, An Coimisiún Dumpála have initiated investigations of alleged dumping of textiles, clothing and footwear by certain low-cost countries. Regarding the matters raised in Deputy Lemass's question, the position is that imports from the Republics of Korea (North and South) will be covered by these investigations. An assessment of the effects of dumping, if any, on employment in this country must await An Coimisiún's report to me.
The EEC Commission have initiated consultations with the Republic of Korea on the question of market disruption in Ireland caused by the rapid growth over the past 12 months in imports of clothing from that country.
Consultations are still going on between Ireland and the Commission on the further measures which might be taken to safeguard the position of the clothing, textiles and footwear industries and Commissioner Gundelach had discussions on this aspect with me, here in Dublin, on Tuesday, 14th January.
Will the Minister state why long ago he did not take the action which is now being taken when something worthwhile could have been done?
The characterisation of long ago is of such indecision that——
We will say six months ago when it was quite obvious that the textile and footwear industries were in danger because of imports from low cost countries.
The figures available to me do not sustain the allegation that six months ago this was quite obvious.
The Minister is now trying to get out of giving a direct answer to a direct question. I pointed out here previously that he lacked any sense of urgency in relation to this matter. Is the Minister aware that there has been a further deterioration in these industries even since the Private Members' Motion was taken here?
I am so aware.
Is it a fact that the Minister was informed by members of the task force that it was a matter for the Government and for himself to take action in relation to the importation of textile and shoes from low cost countries outside the EEC?
The battery of possibilities was discussed with the task force and with Commissioner Gundelach and his staff. Some of the actions are appropriate to this Government with the approval of the Commission and others are appropriate to the Commission. We have taken the actions appropriate to this Government.
Again let me direct this question to the Minister: was he informed by the EEC task force that the question of importation of footwear and textiles from low cost countries outside the EEC was a matter for the Irish Government and could have been dealt with by him without consultation with the EEC?
No. The Deputy does not understand the situation.
At this stage will the Minister consider taking unilateral action in spite of any of the niceties which might be required of us in order to comply with EEC regulations? Other countries are putting themselves in a position where they can protect their own employment and their own industries and they look to the EEC afterwards. As the Minister must appreciate, this is a matter of grave urgency. Factories are closing. Hundreds are being laid off work. These factories may never be in a position to get back again on to the same production lines as they had before.
The core of the Deputy's supplementary is that we should take unilateral action and he urges this for the sake of protecting jobs. I can assure the Deputy from contacts with the Commission and through the Commission information about other European countries, that as a country extremely dependent on exports, were we to take unilateral action we would suffer by precipitating a chain reaction which would hit our exports very severely and which would result in precisely the further deterioration in the situation which both I and the Deputy are anxious to avoid. Unilateral action in this context is extremely dangerous.
Is it not a fact that in the course of questions in this House and in discussing the Private Members' Motion we pressed the Minister from this side of the House on many occasions to take action even if it were only to consult with the EEC as to what could be done and he did not take any action of any description until two days before the Private Members' Motion was discussed?
That is not a fact. I repudiate that totally.
It is a fact.
Is the Minister aware that the public have been grossly misled by the presentation of some of the materials imported from Korea?
Does the Deputy mean in regard to mislabelling or the changing of labels or in what regard?
In their presentation to the public.
The source of the material in some instances is clear to the public and they must make their own decision as to whether they want to buy it. In some instances there has been mislabelling. This is a continuous source of worry. It is continuously being monitored and I understand that the Revenue Commissioners and the people invigilating the regulations at the point of import some time ago considerably tightened their investigations to the limit of the staff available to them. I agree that there is a problem about mislabelling.
There is a well-known trade name of an established firm in the city, whose goods were sought after on the basis of the Buy Irish campaign. A similar article with the same trade name has appeared from Korea. Of two items purchased from the same wholesaler, bearing the same trade name, one was manufactured in Ireland and the other in Korea. This is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. It is deliberate gangsterism on the part of the people who participate in it. I have the two articles here and I will give them to the Minister. If the Minister wishes to investigate them he can do so. I will not mention the name of the firm. These goods were sought after on the basis of the Buy Irish campaign and on the basis that they were manufactured in Ireland.
I recognise that this is a difficulty and I am very happy to receive the assistance of the Deputy. I assure him that I will investigate the matter to the full.
The remaining questions will appear on next Tuesday's Order Paper. Deputies requiring answers to their questions may obtain them by applying to the general office.