I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £6,332,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1975, 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 certain subsidies and sundry grants-in-aid.
This Supplementary Estimate is necessary mainly to enable payment to be made of the subsidies on bread and also on flour and wheatenmeal which the Minister for Finance announced in his financial statement on 26th June, 1975. I am also availing of this opportunity to include the provision of additional funds for some services under my Department's Vote—for the "Buy Irish" campaign, for science and technology, for the shipbuilding subsidy payable to Verolme Cork Dockyard Limited and for post office services, the excess expenditure on which it would not have been possible to have foreseen when the original estimates were in the course of preparation.
The amount needed under the heading of Post Office services is small—£12,000. The need for this increase arises because of increased telephone postal charges since the Estimate was prepared but apart from the price increases per se there was also an extension of service in relation to the priceline mechanism whereby offices were set up in a number of parts of the country as well as in Dublin where people could obtain immediate information in regard to the whole area of prices and in regard to the courses of action open to them.
Regarding the shipbuilding subsidy, the original Estimate was for £50,000 but there is an increase sought of £20,000. This is a subsidy which is payable to the Verolme Cork Dockyard. The reason for this increase is that there had been a contract at fixed charge but because of rapidly escalating costs there was a loss on this contract. The object of the subsidy is to reduce that loss. In this instance the loss on the vessel in question was greater than the subsidy but the excess of loss is being carried by the company.
Under subhead P, the original Estimate was £40,000, whereas the revised estimate is £100,000 so that an additional sum of £60,000 is required. This relates to the funding of the National Development Association in connection with the cost of the "Buy Irish" campaign. The continuing decline in the share of the Irish market which is being accounted for by Irishmade goods during the past few years has been of considerable concern to the Government. If we recall the CIO Report of 1961, we will note that it was anticipated that as we moved out of an era of protection and into an era of free trade there would be a severe threat to the share of the home market which was enjoyed by certain industries in circumstances of protection. In 1972 the COIP Report indicated that in the ensuing time there were already the beginnings of the effects of the EFTA agreement and, consequently, that there was this threat to our home market. I do not think that the "Buy Irish" campaign is more than a small contribution to the solution of the whole problem but it is, nonetheless, a useful one. We are buying too large a percentage of goods emanating from outside this economy in substitution for goods which could be produced at home. I am not suggesting that the reasons for this are simple, and I do not propose to analyse them now, but it is a trend which has increased in recent years. It is a trend which is important for some of our more traditional and labour intensive industries.
The present difficult economic circumstances indicate that the largest possible share of total consumption should be met from indigenous production. Where Irish goods are available in many sectors and where jobs are at risk from competing imports it is important that we, as the slogan says: "Put our money where our jobs are." It is important that we purchase the largest possible percentage of Irish goods. We have had a number of campaigns in the past, some of them more successful than others—I am not criticising past efforts—but none of them have had a sustained success. It is important that we get a new campaign going which would genuinely look in depth not just at consumer outlets but at other purchasing sectors and at fundamental social attitudes. It was to get that message across to our society that I decided to set up the working group for the promotion and sale of Irish goods.
I recently accepted the recommendations of that working group. Of the number of recommendations the specific symbol to identify Irish quality goods is perhaps one of the more immediate and obvious ones. The promotion of information seminars and information communication of all kinds by lectures, the use of the media and the monitoring of market trends are also recommended. This trade and consumer service is useful. It is at present being operated at a scale by the National Development Association and it is proposed to extend that. There are other lines of activity about which I will not take up the time of the House by dealing with them now. The amount provided for the National Development Association for 1975 is £40,000. It is proposed to increase this amount by a further £60,000 to cover the new and intensified activities now being promoted by the working group.
In the matter of science and technology—subhead U—the increase is from £300,000 to £400,000. This has recently become the responsibility of my Department. In addition there is an extra £100,000 which has the function of maintaining the momentum of the university research grants and also the University Industry Co-operation Schemes. I attach particular importance to the latter. It is also to initiate co-ordinated programmes in the areas of marine science, energy, environment, scientific and technological information and biology health protection. If the House wishes I can give more information on this matter. In a time of difficulty it is a limited extra expenditure in the area of science and technology; I wish it was more.
I should now like to deal with the matter of subsidies. A subsidy will be payable on bread which is controlled in price at the equivalent of 5½p per 800 gm loaf. It will absorb an increase of 1½p per 800 gm loaf which had been applied for by the bakers some time ago and was recently approved by me. The overall result will be a reduction of 4p in the current retail cost of the standard 800 gm loaf, with pro rata adjustments on the other loaf sizes. The subsidy on flour will permit a reduction of 4½p per kilo at retail level in the price of flour and wheaten meal intended for domestic use.
The decision to limit the subsidy to bread which is subject to control under Maximum Prices Order, and to flour and wheaten meal for domestic use, was made in the interests of getting the maximum possible benefit to the consumer and to help to ensure that none of the funds being provided under this are diverted away from the prime intention for the subsidisation of either non-essential or luxury products. It is hoped to have both of these subsidies in operation and to have the price of bread and flour for domestic use reduced in about two weeks' time. Those subsidies, bread and wheaten meal, are under separate subheads, subheads W1 and W2.
The total amount of the increased expenditure is £6,442,000 but there is an offset of savings of £110,000 made up as follows: £80,000 in subhead I2 —Industrial Development Authority —Capital Expenditure; £20,000 in subhead J2—Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited grants to industrialists and £10,000 on subhead I1—administrative and general expenses for the Industrial Development Authority. When that £110,000 is deducted the net Supplementary Estimate runs out at £6,332,000. I commend this Supplementary Estimate to the House.