The Minister for Finance is in possession and he has one minute left of the time allotted to him.
Private Members' Business. - Irish Life Furniture Contract: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion :
That Dáil Éireann deplores the failure of the Government to ensure the use of the purchasing power of State and semi-State bodies including the Irish Life Assurance Co. Ltd. to support Irish industry at this time of serious economic crisis.
It is important to remember that no State money is involved in any proposed contract by Irish Life. It is important that semi-State bodies subject to discharging their national obligations should have the fullest possible commercial freedom. In the exercise of that commercial freedom, Irish Life have generally served the national interest well. Their regrettable lapse in relation to the furniture situation highlights their success and their fine record of investment in and loyalty to Ireland. Most important now are the steps being taken by the company to redress the situation. The company are engaged in very delicate negotiations in the expectation that a substantial part of the specialised furniture sought by them will be made in Ireland under licence.
If, as we hope, these negotiations are successful, the manufacture of the furniture here will confer an added advantage of new skills and equipment and opportunity on the furniture industry. Furthermore, Irish Life are arranging for the supply by the Irish market of an additional £200,000 of conventional furniture and £170,000 worth of furnishings. These measures are to be welcomed. It is unfortunate that they were not adopted and publicly made known by the company long ago rather than at the end of three months of representations by myself and others to get the right thing done. The Government have acted correctly and will continue to act correctly at all times to secure the maximum amount of work for Irish industry, and will resist very strongly the efforts by the Opposition to denigrate all the efforts by Irish exporters to sell more goods abroad.
(Interruptions.)
(Dublin Central): You never mentioned a word about it.
Two months before you woke up we were on the job. The personal conceit of Deputy Fitzpatrick will never make up for his indifference.
The Minister need not be shouting so much. He admitted that he was wrong last night. This motion states:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the failure of the Government to ensure the use of the purchasing power of State and semi-State bodies including the Irish Life Assurance Co. Ltd. to support Irish industry at this time of serious economic crisis.
I think every Deputy should welcome the opportunity of debating this subject, particularly in view of the enormous number of people who are out of work at present and to ensure as well that they make a contribution towards keeping as many of the people who are in jobs permanently in those jobs. The terms of the motion indicate an area where something can be done by ourselves to ensure against further redundancies, lay-offs and sackings. If, as a result of this debate, even one order is kept at home, then this debate will have been justified. I want to emphasise that point because the Minister made a lot of play about the damage that may be done to Irish manufactures and so on.
The Government's failure in this direction is very obvious. The Government themselves operate and advertise a "Buy Irish" campaign; yet Ministers, by their own admission, have not advised their Departments or the State-sponsored bodies under their control to support it. On the 21st January, 1976, in Question No. 4 I asked the Taoiseach if he had advised his Department and the State bodies under his control to support this campaign, and the simple answer was "no". On 28th January, 1976, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, replying on behalf of the Minister, said he was generally satisfied that State-sponsored bodies under the aegis of his Department were observing a policy of buying Irish goods where possible, and that in these circumstances there was no need for any general instruction to State-sponsored bodies.
I think the discussion that went on here last night and that has been conducted through the media over the past few months shows the need there was for such advice from the responsible Ministers. It is a sad day that Ministers responsible for the expenditure of millions of pounds of taxpayer's money, while encouraging a "Buy Irish" campaign, at the same time will not advise people who are expending these funds to support that campaign. Again on the 29th January, 1976, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in reply to a similar question stated he did not consider it necessary to advise State-sponsored bodies under the aegis of his Department on the lines suggested.
With all that has come to light in recent months about foreign manufactured goods and contracts, when we are quite capable of having the orders fulfilled here by Irish manufacturers and producers, is it any wonder that we are forced to put down this motion and to ask the Dáil to deplore the attitude of the Government in this regard? Not only have the Taoiseach and two Ministers not advised anybody under their control to support Irish manufactured goods, but no Government Minister has so advised them. There is seemingly no intention on the part of the Government to give any special treatment to Irish manufacturers. With severe competition from all over the world, with tariff barriers coming down, should we not have ensured that every possible penny would be spent on Irish manufactured goods?
It is a pity that such information came to light here in the Dáil in recent weeks, that the Government themselves are seemingly not concerned about how the taxpayers' money is spent. The fact that statistics are available about the amount of Irish money spent abroad on goods and contracts that could have been fulfilled here is what prompted and, in fact, warranted this motion.
It has been said that our obligations as members of the EEC debarred us from giving any preferential treatment to Irish manufactured goods. That is a ridiculous suggestion. Irish producers never looked for any preferential treatment on the home market and the majority of them are competing successfully throughout Europe. All we are asking is that where Irish goods are available and where the quality and price of them is right no regulation can debar them being purchased by Government and semi-State bodies. Any Minister who states that our membership of the EEC changed our attitude towards buying Irish is introducing a red herring into the discussion.
In one way or another all the European countries have schemes similar to ours but I am sure they are given a lot more support in their efforts to encourage the purchase of home manufactured goods than we get. It was nonsense for the Minister to suggest that by having this motion discussed we were allowing some of the British Press to read into this debate the fact that there was an anti-British campaign operating in Ireland. We are seeking to protect Irish produced goods and we are not trying to downgrade goods produced in other countries. I am sure the British protect their producers and manufacturers, and rightly so.
I cannot understand why the Government made every effort during the last two weeks to stall a discussion on this motion. This motion includes not alone Irish Life but every Government Department and semi-State body. It is important that we realise that many Departments are purchasing goods abroad that are available here and that can compare in quality and price very favourably. In moving this motion we were anxious to highlight this matter and we were hopeful that the Government would ensure that as much as possible is spent on home produced goods. While the Government were stalling the discussion on this motion they were holding special meetings and issuing many Press releases. Prominent Ministers were making statements about the affair but the Government's attitude was to deprive Deputies of the opportunity of voicing their views on the matter.
Much damage was done to Irish manufacturers and to the country by statements made by Ministers during the last fortnight. Much damage was done by the attack made by the Minister for Finance on Irish Life last night. If one is to carry that attack to its logical conclusion then the Minister responsible for that company, the man who appoints the board of that company, must accept responsibility for everything done by that company. If we had serious Government the Minister for Finance should have sacked the board of Irish Life or resigned. As the Minister responsible he should accept the outcome. As far as I am aware such an attack by a Minister on a board for which he was responsible is without precedent. I thought the Minister, in the minute available to him tonight, would have apologised for his attack. I should like to quote for the record two headlines in this morning's national newspapers: "Ryan Slates Irish Life" and "Ryan Disgusted by Irish Life". It should be remembered that during the same debate the Minister accused Deputies on this side of causing damage to the Irish manufacturers trying to sell goods abroad. He also accused us of putting forward anti-British propaganda.
When one analyses the details one can find that the Minister for Finance was using Irish Life as a scapegoat because he has no alternative but to accept responsibility for the actions of that board. When one bears in mind the answers given by the Taoiseach and his Ministers when questioned about their attitude towards the "Buy Irish" campaign and the fact that they do not advise their own Departments or the semi-State bodies under their control to buy Irish, one can see why when the bubble bursts the Ministers do not accept responsibility and try to hang the coat on Irish Life. In the past when "Buy Irish" campaigns were activated a letter was sent from the Government to each Department and semi-State body advising them to support the campaign. This Government did not send such a letter.
Is it any wonder that we have such situations arising? It is not just that one contract, there have been many more. With regard to almost all Departments who have been queried in the Dáil in the last few weeks, it has been found that money was spent on foreign manufactured goods while goods similar in quality and price were available here. It is no wonder that this has happened when the men responsible have not given proper advice in the matter.
Tonight the Minister gave us a few rushed words. However, in his statement last night he did not refer at any length to the statement made by Irish Life regarding the possibility of having the goods manufactured here under licence. I do not know why he did not mention it. He said something about some other purchases that would be made in Ireland by Irish Life. I understand that the furniture manufacturers met some of the management of Irish Life last week and apparently they were left under the impression that there was a possibility that this contract might be filled in Ireland. That would be a fine solution to the whole problem. Notwithstanding the fact that considerable pressure had to be exerted to bring the matter into the open, it would be nice to find that the contract could be filled by the Irish manufacturers who tendered for the work.
I should like the Minister, or someone on his behalf, to tell the House if it is possible that the total purchase of furniture and fittings for the Irish Life building could be made in Ireland. This would be an enormous help to the furniture manufacturers and if it is possible to take this action the Government, and particularly the Minister for Finance, should direct that it be done. If the Minister does not, if he is willing to accept that the odds and ends still to be purchased will be bought in Ireland, that will be a reflection on furniture manufacturers throughout the country. It will do untold damage throughout the world and will make things more difficult for the many successful Irish manufacturers who have obtained contracts abroad. Even at this late hour we appeal to the Government, and particularly to the Minister for Finance, to take whatever steps are necessary. Even if it costs more money, they should try to have the entire furniture contract placed in Ireland.
Most Departments, when under pressure, admitted that they purchased goods from abroad which could be bought here. This is a sad situation. When I put down questions regarding support for the "Buy Irish" campaign, I omitted one important point. Possibly there will be further questions put down in order to get the information. The point concerns the amount of foreign manufactured goods purchased by State and semi-State bodies through Irish agents. I have an impression that quite an amount of foreign manufactured goods are coming in here through Irish agents as a cover to suggest that they are bought in Ireland. I have no information on this matter but perhaps in the future we might get details regarding the new office block of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Kildare Street. Where did the furniture and fittings come from?
The Deputy's party built that——
We did not buy the furniture.
The Deputy's party ordered it.
Was the furniture bought in England?
I do not know. It was the Deputy's party——
The Deputy does not know that.
Perhaps the Deputies opposite will tell us the facts. The trouble is that the Deputies over there, and the Ministers, still think we are in Government. They cannot have it both ways; they must accept the responsibility of the job. Deputy Belton is supporting the Ministers I am referring to——
That is so. I have told the Deputy that it was his party who ordered the furniture.
If the Deputy knows so much about it why does he not tell us? I should like to get the answer.
Deputy Belton does not know what he is talking about. He is chancing his arm.
We have come in for criticism by the Minister for Finance about the damage this so-called witchhunt—that was his word—might do to Irish manufacturers. That is nonsense. This House is entitled to have all the information that is available. As I said earlier, if this debate keeps one order in the country in the next 12 months it will have been worthwhile.
I appeal to the Government to accept this motion. They should not vote against it. It is a simple statement of fact and all of us—both Government and Opposition—should deplore the attitude that has prevailed up to now. We should ensure that in future such situations will not develop where millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is sent abroad to purchase goods that could be made at home to keep Irish workers in employment. I appeal to the Government to accept the motion and to ensure that its terms are implemented fully in future.
I wish to talk about three separate things. First, I will refer to the Irish Life Assurance Company and their actions—it is specifically mentioned in the motion. As the last speaker correctly pointed out, the motion is wider than simply Irish Life. I want to speak also about our Community obligations which seem to be misunderstood in the country and in this House, more understandably in the former case than in the latter because Deputies could easily find out what our obligations really were, and then I want to talk a little about the role and policy of semi-State companies because that question seems to me to arise on this motion also.
I will be offering opinions in the time available to me which are not always substantiated by detail of chapter and verse but which I believe that given more time could be so substantiated but sometimes matters, of course, of pure opinion. I think that what is appropriate for the office of an Irish company of that stature, standing and scale is a style of furniture which is elegant and beautiful and of high quality but which is also in some way an expression of our culture and our tradition and our history. I am not asking for Celtic crosses and curlicues but I cannot help noticing that where countries have built a great reputation for their furniture and built great exports they have developed a style which is their own and I think it is the duty of companies both public and private when building headquarters for themselves in this country to bear in mind not just quality and efficiency but also the expression of the whole tradition and culture of the society that supports them. Therefore, it seems to me that the basic setting out by the company to use an internationally evolved system which had no reflection of Irish culture and tradition was a mistaken one. I think that was an error of judgment and no more than that and I would accept that there could be different opinions on it but I would have wished it otherwise. I would have wished that it would have been characteristically Irish in the way that, for example, a Finnish firm has Finnish furniture and styles and fabrics and a thing that expresses, without being maudlin or sentimental, what they are. I think also we must affirm the significance of this not alone in relation to a particular order, which is important, which is money, which is jobs, but we have to say that with a tiny economy and, therefore, the individual industries making up that economy are themselves tiny, and that applies to the furniture industry, unless they get orders of this size they cannot develop the techniques of functioning on this scale because one can only learn by doing and, therefore, one cannot evolve a product line which can compete in that area of supply in other parts of the world. It would have meant and I hope will mean before it is all over the leaping over of a threshold on to a different sort of furniture fabrication in this country. Therefore, the importance goes well beyond the monetary value of the order.
I want also to refer to the effect of the row that has already taken place and of the public debate, I believe this House must be seized of things but I hope we will always be seized of things responsibly—I think we very often are—but the row has just not been here, it has been in the Press and it has been in the media of the Community and it has been in the media of the world. That is something that is true and is not capable of being escaped from. It is not, on the other hand, a sufficiently important consideration for me not to say a lot of the things I am going to say in a moment and I think Deputies must be free to exercise their freedom.
If a row had not been kicked up there would have been no hope of getting the order back here.
I do not agree with that but the point I am making is that a row like this is inevitably two-sided. We know that we export to live. There is a consensus about that. We know that the United Kingdom takes a little more than half of our exports. We know that we are, for reasons not of our making and it would seem to me bad reasons, unpopular in the United Kingdom. We know that a pretext will be sought and is being sought in the United Kingdom not just in regard to furniture but across the whole spectrum of half of all our exports. We know of activities already of one British trade union. I have had representations, and I have to say this as the Minister for Commerce as well as for Industry, from British interests in Ireland and from Irish exporting interests in Britain, both of them pointing out the potential damage that this does not for a quarter of a million pounds but for half of our exports.
(Interruptions.)
Therefore, it is essential to put this sort of conflict into context. To me the most awful thing that has happened is that because there was in my view an error of judgement and worse than that, which I will come to in a moment, we have not alone done damage to a sector of our furniture industry to the tune of some hundreds of thousands of pounds but we have put sectors of our exports at risk to the tune perhaps of tens of millions of pounds. That is much more serious and is foolish and unnecessary. I want to take this formal and public occasion to say that if we differentiate against the products of other members of the Economic Community and specifically against UK firms we do so on the basis that because of the advantages of closeness and the advantages of the home market the products can be provided better and cheaper here. We do so on no other basis. We benefit from free trade and if we are not trying to cheat and if we want some sort of stature and dignity in the world then we accept the pluses and we accept the minuses of tree trade, we accept free trade in its totality. I will only differentiate against the products of countries with which we enjoy free trade on the basis that our products are as good and as cheap. As good and as cheap then our way but not as good or dearer then not our way. There would, of course, be a certain percentage. I want to affirm that. If anyone is listening in the UK or in any other Community country or in Brussels or in the Commission I want to say that that is the policy I pursue and I pursue it because I believe it is in the best interests of Irish commerce and it seems to me a duty in the light of the departmental responsibility I hold as Minister for Commerce as well as Industry.
Surely the Minister is going beyond his international obligations when he says that?
I do not think that is so. We will talk about that in a minute. I want to say also, specifically in regard to furniture, that while we have an import excess in regard to furniture it is an import excess that is diminishing. To put it another way, our exports, and this is mostly, since furniture is so bulky, to the UK, are growing more rapidly than our imports. We do have not just in the economy as a whole but in the furniture sector specifically an interest in the continuation of free trade.
I want now to come to my real sense of outrage. Having heard Deputy MacSharry I would nonetheless express a sense of outrage and a sense of betrayal with the activities of Irish Life not because they chose to place an order in a particular place and not because they made an error of judgment but because I am satisfied from the documentation that they misled the Government. I am satisfied that representations were made and replies were received to the effect that the matter was still under consideration and was not settled when, in fact, it was settled. I think they were not frank and not open and that is a very serious thing.
Can the Minister indicate whether any Ministers other than the Minister for Finance made representations?
I cannot indicate for any Minister other than myself but I can indicate it for myself.
The Minister for Health?
I could not answer for others. I know the Minister for Finance did and I know that I did. Up to now I have been saying simply Irish Life. I do not know at this moment whether it was the board or whether the board was misled because I do know that there are people on the board who wanted another outcome and I believe that these are things that will come out in the wash.
Let us face the problem as we see it now. There are two aspects of it. One is the health of the furniture industry. I do not wish to reiterate what was said in his very brief time today by the Minister for Finance but it raises a very real hope in regard not just to the £200,000 of conventional furniture or the £170,000 of other furniture, but in regard to the system furniture. That is a very desirable outcome and for myself I am willing to let the delicate negotiations now taking place continue with the hope of success.
The other point we have to consider is the damage to our exports, which is potential. I make it clear for myself that my sense of impropriety arises from the fact that we were misled, because to have produced a set of designs that could allegedly not be fabricated satisfactorily in Ireland was a mistake, but a bona fide one. The other point seems to me to be very serious and I do not regard it as yet having been settled. If in saying that and in following the thought of Deputy MacSharry I am breaking the precedent that one must not criticise State companies, in this case I am criticising——
The Minister will be criticising the Minister who is sitting beside him.
Seriously, we will be able to read the records of the House and see whether I am doing that, whether it is a distortion of meaning or just a piece of lunacy. I now want to talk about the belief that we can direct semi-State or State bodies to buy Irish. We have a lovely circular situation that the catch after catch 22 should be called catch 23. In this matter I want to put on record the relevant part of the foundation document of the Community, the Treaty of Rome, which also goes beyond the letter of any particular change permeating the thoughts and decisions of the Community in a most extraordinary way.
Part I is a set of principles. I shall quote from Article 3 of the principles, from page 179 of the 1973 Official Edition. Paragraph (a) of that Article deals with various intentions, decisions and activities of the Community and it states that the activities of the Community "shall include, as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable set out therein":
(a) the elimination, as between Member States, of customs duties and of quantitative restrictions on the import and export of goods and of all other measures having equivalent effect.
That is in Article 3 of the main section of principles. It is the fundamental tenet of the whole Community.
It is not binding. It has been broken several times in the last 12 months.
That is nonsense.
What the Minister has said is cod.
The point is that every nation State in that Community favours its own industry and agriculture as much as it can. The moment there is a document, a decision, an instruction, it can be raised and indeed the withdrawal of it can be demanded. All of the activities have to be informal through understanding, goodwill and endeavour, but they cannot be ordered, they cannot be commanded in Community terms. People say "We know these are Community regulations" but the cheat will say "That is so but we do not have to do it", and he cheats.
I have been as critical of the Community as anybody in this House and possibly in the country but in financial terms we enjoy an extraordinarily high standing which got even higher as a result of our presidency. It does us endless good and we defend national interests to the limit of the rules of the game. But we will not cheat, get clever or doublecross. Long may that remain. To the extent that we can simply reach out and issue orders that is not possible. There is the further argument that we should give orders to semi-State bodies. I am saying it is not possible.
Advice.
There is the belief that because we have latent intentions of protection, that it is in the interest of the country to buy Irish goods in almost all circumstances. Let me try to define my understanding of the circumstances in which it is right and not right. I will give a reasoned example. I do not know if it has been mentioned already, the example of a shipping contract going to Japan. To have built them in Ireland would have been dearer and would have saddled the operating company with higher costs. It would have put the manufacturing company in Ireland out of a profit area into an area where they would have had to complete with the Japanese and that in no way could be profit making.
In my view it was in the interests of the operating company, of the Irish manufacturing company and of the Irish economy to have gone to Japan. Provided the manufacturing company had other work, it was in the interests of the whole economy and I have defended it explicitly in this House. I am completely decided that that was a correct decision that can be defended anywhere. We are entering into an area of high technology. An Irish manufacturer on a small scale could put up his hands and say "We could make that", but the economy and the State as a whole cannot take gambles involving this type of high standards. We must have products that will be safe, that will be good, that will not be dangerous, and if we do not do this the efficiency of the economy and the ability to compete in a free trade situation within the Community will be finished. If we could get something out a year ahead of the time originally thought about, that is something. If we had a year's delay the cost would be many millions of pounds. It is not £1 million. I have a figure off the top of my head which could be wrong and I do not offer it to the House as a hard figure because I do not remember but the figure that I believe one year's delay would cost is £16 million. With that £16 million we can do a whole lot of other things and can defend a whole lot of other jobs. It is not always simplistically right, even if there is a long delay, even if the thing could be made in Ireland and even if it were the same price and you say: "Ah yes, but it will be 18 months later". It may be the wrong decision to wait for that 18 months. All I am arguing for is general economic sense and balance and judgement.
Then, if you turn to the economic considerations, we must not force our manufacturers, our industry, our transport, our commerce, our service industries to take on the giants of Europe in a free trade situation with anything but the best equipment because we are trying one arm behind their backs. They are going to have a tough enough fight anyway. If you want good morale, then you have to trust the technical judgment of people who are Irish people and patriotic people. I will name the firm, NET. I know the staff of NET. I have said over and over and it does not need to be said again—because NET is a company completely imbued with patriotic sentiments both as regards the future of an Irish chemical industry, about maximum purchasing in Ireland, and about the greatest possible spin-off advantage to Ireland—that I want hard-nosed technical decisions that neither I nor any of my staff are able to make. If they say in their wisdom, also in their patriotism and in their economic seriousness, that they are sorry but that it is to our advantage to order something outside the country, then I say: "Yes, I am sorry too, but I have to trust your judgment" and I trust the judgment of patriotic and able people.
You see the nonsense it is in this resolution because it suggests first that we can issue instructions—we cannot —but secondly that the whole staffs of the semi-State companies of Ireland, the very bone of our economic development starting with the ESB and working right through, are somehow feckless and irresponsible people with so little confidence in their own skill and their own country that they only want an opportunity when a Minister is not looking to nip across to buy somebody else's product and we have to issue orders to corral them and keep them in line. That is a travesty of the way these people are. They are good patriotic people. Mistakes are made. I was severe about the mistake by Irish Life at the beginning of my speech and there will be other mistakes but to suggest that those occasional mistakes that we can find and enumerate are a general judgement of what the executive staff of Irish semi-State companies and State companies are like seems to me very unfair to them. They have a task of being efficient as well as patriotic.
Now I am coming to the third section. I want to talk about the role of the semi-State companies in the minutes remaining to me. I offer you a quotation from page 388 of the Irish Economy Since 1972 by Professor Meenan, where he says:
The constitution of the Electricity Supply Board, for example, was drafted on the principle that it should be as autonomous as possible and free from Ministerial control.
That is true of the ESB and it is true of many of the companies and I say as a Minister that by and large it is a good principle.
As I said earlier, I feel let down by Irish Life but I am not going to let that one instance, done by a company which in general has a pretty good record and one company of a whole spectrum of State or semi-State companies—I am not going to let that be the determinant factor in thinking that we have to draw in the reins suddenly and we have to start issuing orders. We have a structure which is an interesting structure, which is the State and semi-State thing, precisely because we wanted a bit of freedom from the rigorous controls and atmosphere of a Government Department but we wanted a thing that was part of the Public Service but not under the immediate control of a civil service atmosphere with people running a civil service. By and large that structure has served us well and we have the principle of having boards of companies in which we put many people from many walks of life.
But, think of the circumstances if you are exercised as we all are—I am not suggesting for a moment that Deputies on the other side are not exercised—by a concern for the morale and the wellbeing of the semi-State companies. You have to have good people to go on the board. You do not want a mickey mouse board. If you do not give them any power, if you keep pulling in the strings, if you keep giving them orders, if you keep breathing down their neck, no serious man will take it. They need some autonomy. They are entitled to it. That is the way the system works well. Then you get serious men on the board and you get good professional and expert executive staff and they develop some morale. That seriousness of the people who will take the job on the board and the excellence of the morale and the excellence of the expertise in the senior executive is one of the most important bits of capital any economy has got. In my experience of almost three years in my relations with companies I will not lightly countenance a system that says: "You have to take orders from the Minister". In this case I want to reach out and shake the guys and say: "That was a terrible thing to do" but it would be wrong for this one instance to say we must change that system.
In fact, I think that we do have some defects in our State and semi-State companies, that those defects arise not because Ministers do not have the power to reach out enough and tell them what to do but because, perhaps, they are not far enough away from Government and from Ministers and from political interests. Ideally, a second level through a holding company that was concerned with efficient management, efficient use of funds, is desirable to insulate the individual executive companies like the ESB or like CIE or something from direct departmental influence or political influences. There is a tendency here to give in in the face of what is infuriating, to give in in the face of one infuriating instance, to a desire to limit their freedom in a way that is wrong.
In regard to this particular instance we have said enough sharp things. I feel let down. I hope there will be a good outcome from it. In regard to our issuing specific decrees to State or semi-State companies that they must distort economic processes to the extent of buying Irish, that they must do more than what is economically correct in terms of price or quality, that is legally impossible. Of course, there is a great deal of exhortation and more than exhortation and these are not things that we are going to put on the record of the House and the moment we did we would be required by the Commission and competing countries to stop doing it.
But there does seem to me to be a sort of opportunist regression in some of the things that the Opposition have said because they recall the time of protectionism and there are a whole lot of regressive and chauvenistic and protectionist ideas rattling around the country and if they gain enough momentum at a time like this they can do enormous damage. I am not suggesting that this was in all of the speeches and I am not suggesting that there was not a great deal of substance in what was said but there are echoes of this protectionism which if it gets loose enough is a nice easy catchcry and it can do us terrible damage. We can have serious repercussions in regard to our competitiveness from forcing people into wrong economic decisions. We can have serious repercussions in regard to the saleability of products if we seem to be protectionist.
I do not know quite honestly in my own Department—I cannot recall at this moment and I offer this to Deputy MacSharry—whether there is an official letter from me or not but the thought that you buy Irish if you possibly can has been the assumed content of every conversation I have had with any State company related to me and it is something that did not come from just now. It is in their whole history and their whole development. To urge that that be put in a more formal way is to urge something that is illegal and damaging and bad for our economic efficiency.
If one did not know the facts one would, I think, be quite impressed by what the Minister for Industry and Commerce has been saying. Unfortunately the facts do not correspond with a great deal of what he said and in the course of what I have to say I hope to demonstrate that in regard to some matters where he departed from the facts. First, however, it is necessary to reiterate the terms of the motion: they are as follows:
That Dáil Éireann deplores the failure of the Government to ensure the use of the purchasing power of State and semi-State bodies including the Irish Life Assurance Co. Ltd. to support Irish industry at this time of serious economic crisis.
I assume there is no dispute about the fact that this is a time of serious economic crisis and I assumed, until I heard the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that there was no dispute about the fact that the purchasing power of State and semi-State bodies ought to be used to support Irish industry. I am not so sure now that the Minister for Industry and Commerce agrees with that. One part of what he said would certainly agree with it, but then he took the other road as well, which is not an unusual situation for himself and some of his colleagues in trying to have the best of both worlds. However, what should be realised in this regard is, first of all, that the purchasing power of State and semi-State companies in relation to our total economy is quite vast and can make an enormous difference to Irish industry.
Secondly, not only the effect of using that purchasing power itself but the example it gives to the private sector is vitally important. There are other aspects. One of them was touched on by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in relation to the furniture industry when he pointed out that if a particular type of process of furniture making, which is not engaged in in this country at the moment, were engaged in as a result of the Irish Life contract, it could have long-term repercussions in regard to the furniture industry and the obtaining of orders in other countries as well as at home. He was quite right in saying that. However, when one comes to apply that to the actions of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in other areas one finds he acts differently in practice from what he preaches in this House. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the purchasing power we are talking about in this motion is enormous and has tremendous potential in regard to Irish industry. What are the constraints in using this purchasing power? The first one obviously is that we should not allow a situation to develop in which, because we are buying Irish, we allow Irish firms to abuse the situation so that they charge excessive prices or produce a low quality of goods. Now in practice it has been shown that that problem is not especially difficult to overcome. That has been demonstated over quite a number of years.
The other major constraint involved is that we must act within our international obligations. Here I must say I am very concerned at the simplistic statements we have been hearing in this regard from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister primarily charged with this responsibility. He quoted the Treaty of Rome. That is the equivalent of quoting the Constitution as distinct from the statute law on a particular topic. I think it is reasonable to say that the ideal aimed at in the Treaty of Rome is one thing and the level of achievement at this point in time, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce might well have said, is something different. To establish that one looks at whatever regulations may exist, at whatever obligations we have taken on. In particular, within the EEC one looks at what the practice is in other countries. I would defy the Minister for Industry and Commerce or anybody else to say that, if we were to conform with the standard of obligation in this regard, the standard observed by Britain and the other EEC countries, we would not have any problems.
I do not want to develop this theme too much but if the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not aware, then he should make inquiries and he will find out some very interesting things about the manner in which obligations of this kind have been observed in the past by such people as the British Post Office and similar State bodies in other countries of the EEC. Article 3, which the Minister quoted, is a general proposition. Is that not one example of the inaccuracy of what the Minister was saying? It will be recalled that I intervened to point out that the Minister was going beyond his international obligations in what he was saying. Just as one example, is it not obvious that the restriction on, if you like, national purchases does not apply in regard to defence equipment? It does not apply in many countries in regard to telecommunications equipment. I just mention these as examples. There are many others. I say this because I believe it is irresponsible for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to put forward, as he did in this debate, an alleged legal position applying to this country, a legal position which, in fact, does not apply and which is being used as a cover up for the failure of the Government to carry out their duties and obligations in regard to Irish industry.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce also referred to the economic aspects of this and he gave us and example, the placing of an order for two bulk carriers in Japan. He said he would defend that decision anywhere. I do not wish to spend too much time on that but I want to put it on record that I disagree totally with the view expressed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in this regard. When we find ourselves, as we did this year, with a provision in the capital budget for the payment in 1976 of £10.14 million as instalments, just instalments, to Japanese shipyards for the provision of two bulk carriers it is time we had another look at the situation because what we are doing is buying at a dumped price and for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to tell us about the patriotism of the officials of various State bodies is simply too much to take.
The obligations of executives and members of State bodies are laid down in the relevant statutes setting up the bodies and it is not unreasonable that they would view these obligations within the confines of the body with which they are concerned and, in that context, it makes sense if you are running a business like a shipping line to buy your ships as cheaply as possible and to get the best possible terms of credit. That makes sense to someone whose job it is to run Irish Shipping. But the whole point of this motion is to bring home to the Government and to the various State and semi-State bodies that there are wider obligations and quite clearly the Minister for Industry and Commerce needs to have those obligations brought home to him because he is defending this decision to buy the ships in Japan rather than have them made in our own shipyards. The economics involved in buying dumped goods are complex but there can be no doubt and there should be no doubt, above all in the mind of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that the purchase of dumped goods, if pursued to its logical conclusion, will lead to the collapse of this economy.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The placing of that order in Japan was not, to the best of my knowledge, imposed on us by any international obligation. It was purely an assessment of the economic effect, an assessment which ignored the actual economics of the situation from the point of view of the cost to the economy. I am speaking now purely in economic terms and ignoring the social aspect of the loss of jobs involved and the cost of social welfare and redundancy pay as against the higher cost of the ships. I am merely advertising to this in outline because it is complex. It is important that we should not allow ourselves to be brainwashed into the idea that because a price quoted is cheaper on the simple comparison that it is in reality cheaper. A great deal of this debate has been directed to the Irish Life episode. As I pointed out, this motion is not by any means confined to this episode but there are a few things I must say about it. The whole business, of course, is a sorry tale. It has been disturbing to say the least to see the amount of time and effort that has been given to it by the Government to try to cover their responsibility in the matter. In my view, if the furniture which was required in that case could not be made here—a proposition which I think is doubtful and is certainly not proved—I cannot understand why a substitute of the highest standard made here would not have done Irish Life. To that extent I certainly agree with the comments of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
The Minister for Finance speaking on this debate last night said on at least two occasions that Irish Life had been less than frank in their dealings with him. The Minister for Finance was less than frank in his dealings with this House. He told us that he was in touch with Irish Life about this matter in October—I think he said first on 14th October—and that as a result he was in close touch with the IDA, IIRS and, I think he mentioned CTT. He certainly mentioned two State bodies. He then went on to allege that the actual decision to go ahead and purchase this furniture abroad had been made by Irish Life effectively on 14th October. He said that Irish Life deliberately concealed that position from him, the 90 per cent shareholder in the company, and presumably they must also have concealed it from the other State bodies with whom he was in touch and who were in touch with Irish Life about this.
I must say quite frankly that I find it incredible that the board of any State company would set out deliberately to deceive the Minister for whom they were responsible and the other State bodies with which they were working in close co-operation on a particular project. The Minister in saying these things—and they were repeated substantially tonight by the Minister for Industry and Commerce —is in my view making a very serious attack on the standing and character of the members of the board of the Irish Life Assurance Company Limited. Those attacks were made under privilege in this House. Neither Minister told us whether they had expressed to the people concerned the views they expressed in this House, nor did they tell us what was the reaction of the board of Irish Life, nor what was the story given by the board in response to these attacks. So far as we can get any information on the matter it would appear that at some stage the Minister for Finance stepped in and said: "No more public statements. Anything else that has to be said in public will be said by me".
I can understand why he might have taken that line but it is important, in the light of these vicious and unprecedented attacks on a board for which the Minister is responsible to this House—made not by the Opposition but by the Minister concerned and by one of his colleagues—that the response of the members of the board should be made known to the House and the public. There is a great deal about this matter that has been suppressed but it appears that a lengthy report, publicly referred to as a 135-page report, from Irish Life is in existence and was given to the board. In all the circumstances I would suggest that this document and any other statements the board of Irish Life wish to make in response to the attacks made on them should be made available to this House and to the public. Until they are, I have to repeat that I find the story told by the Minister for Finance in this regard lacking in credibility. There is a much more likely explanation than the one given by the Minister.
The position would seem to be that no real concern was shown by the Minister for Finance until this matter was raised in the House by Deputy Fitzpatrick. I say that because if he had shown real concern things would never have turned out the way they did. I say that with experience as a Minister. The Minister knew that some people knew he had done something about this at some date in October. Therefore, whatever he had to say in explanation of what occurred had to fit in with the fact that he had known about this matter in October. The one he produced suggests that the board of Irish Life deliberately misled him, the Government and other State bodies from the 14th October to the 18th December when the contract was signed. I must admit the possibility that that is true but I must also say that it is extremely unlikely. I, for one, cannot accept it without further evidence and without hearing the other side of the story.
The Minister for Local Government was pretty ferocious in his comments outside the House on Irish Life. One thing that intrigues me about that is that it appears the Minister for Finance at least, if not other Ministers knew about this. According to the Minister for Finance, he had been in touch with Irish Life and other State bodies about it in the middle of October and on the 21st November, more than a month later, the Minister for Local Government performed the topping out ceremony on the premises and offered his heartiest congratulations to the architects and designers. Of course, they are the people who are now being made the villains of the piece. Perhaps the Minister for Local Government would care to explain that in Navan.
We had a classic example of double think from the Minister for Finance and, to a lesser extent, from the Minister for Industry and Commerce in their approach to this. You will have noted, Sir that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Finance, and the Minister for Local Government, all feel free to attack Irish Life in terms which are quite unprecedented, but any criticism from anywhere else, be it from this side of the House or in the Press, is damaging to the national interest and endangering Irish exports. It is providing fodder for British propaganda.
We will leave that to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.
They cannot have it both ways. The Minister for Finance knows, as we do, that criticism of this matter is not anti-British—far from it. It is part of the "Buy Irish" campaign. I wonder does the Minister for Finance know there is a "Buy British" campaign, and a "Buy French" campaign, and a "Buy German" campaign? Does he know about that?
If he did not know about the buy Irish one, how would he know about the others?
There is one further aspect of the Irish Life matter to which I want to refer. The Minister for Finance is approximately a 90 per cent shareholder. There is a grave danger in all this that the Minister could end up by giving up his position, that is, giving up his right as Minister—I am not speaking of the individual—in relation to Irish Life. It is very important that that position, difficult as it is to define, should not be given up. The Minister will be aware that efforts were made in the past and might, indeed, be made in the future, to induce the Minister for Finance, as Minister, to reduce his role in relation to that company. I would hope that the Minister, in explaining away why he did not succeed in preventing from happening what did happen, does not also in the process find himself getting rid of certain power and responsibility which he has and which in my view he should retain.
This motion is not confined to Irish Life. I mentioned recently in the budget debate, and I want to mention again, the example given by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in relation to the contract for the printing of the telephone directory. It was a different situation. Two Irish firms were concerned. What worried me was that when he was questioned about it he said the employment factor was not an issue. When I referred to this the other day, the Minister for Finance intervened and, as reported at column 695 of the Official Report of 28th January, he said:
I would not press that point if I were the Deputy. If the contract had gone the other way, work would have been sent out of the country which is now being done here.
I want to tell the Minister that I had most indignant letters from people directly involved denying what the Minister said and asking where he got his false information. I am informed that there is no truth whatever in what was stated by the Minister in that regard.
I wonder would the Deputy yield for a minute. I should like to confirm that the Deputy is right in this connection. I was right to the extent of saying the firm in question were not in a position to do the work. Since then they have identified to me the firm to whom they intended to give out the work.
Which is in Dublin.
Which is in Ireland. The allocation was made on the basis of competitive tenders between two Irish firms.
I will not pursue that matter. I am glad the Minister has at least acknowledged publicly that, if the firm in question had got the contract, the work would not have gone out of the country.
We heard the Minister for Industry and Commerce talking about the furniture industry and referring to the importance of an industry getting into a new area and the implications of that. Listening to him no one would think the Minister for Industry and Commerce personally took responsibility for a decision not so very long ago which was directly contrary to what he was saying. He adverted to the difficulty which had arisen over a contract awarded by NET in relation to structural steel work. That contract was worth over £600,000 most of which would have been spent on labour.
The great bulk of the work was structural steel work of a kind which has been done for many years by the Irish firm concerned. A small portion of it was a new kind of work they had not done before. The firm consulted with their various technical advisers and specialist consultants and, as a result, they were quite satisfied they could undertake the work. If they could not, they would have been in great trouble. Against international competition they found themselves in the last four, and then in the last two, in the running for this job. Their price was right and, clearly, since this went on over a period of five months they must have been considered competent to do the job. At the last moment the job was given to a British firm, not because the Irish price was not low enough, and not because the quality of the work was not good enough, but because somebody thought there might be a little less difficulty in dealing with the British firm.
This is what this motion is all about. I do not think it is good enough for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to come in here and make the noises he did. When Deputy O'Malley raised this matter in the House on 11th December, as reported at column 1474 of the Official Report the Minister said:
The decision in regard to NET was a difficult one. I went into the matter thoroughly and I should like to state emphatically that I take full responsibility for the matter——
Later on he said:
——The firm do not employ any qualified engineer although they have a quantity surveyor on their staff——
That statement is untrue. Not alone have I been informed that it is untrue, but I happen to know personally one of the engineers concerned, though I have not spoken to him about this matter, nor he to me. Later on when questioned by Deputy O'Malley the Minister said.
——The firm were offered alternative work in the structural steel area, in their own area of acknowledged expertise, as a compensation for a kind of work they had never done before.
That statement is untrue. I wonder who was misinforming the Minister. Was it the people who are giving the hard nosed decisions he was talking about, or the patriotic decisions on which he was acting, as a result of which this Irish firm lost a contract? Jobs for 90 workers for a long period were dispensed with and given to English workers, not because the price was not good enough, but because of the hard nosed advice of people who are misinforming the Minister. The Government, not the State bodies, are the people who should give the lead. It is because we deplore the failure of the Government to use the purchasing power of State and semi-State bodies to assist Irish industry in this time of difficult economic crisis that we put down this motion and that we ask Dáil Éireann to support it.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Brosnan, Seán.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Carter, Frank.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Crowley, Flor.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Leonard, James.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Meaney, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Murphy, Ciarán.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dowling, Joe.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
- Flanagan, Seán.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Gibbons, Hugh.
- Gibbons, James.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Nolan, Thomas.
- O'Connor, Timothy.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Patrick.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Belton, Paddy.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Dick.
- Burke, Joan T.
- Burke, Liam.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Collins, Edward.
- Conlan, John F.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Coughlan, Stephen.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Desmond, Eileen.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Esmonde, John G.
- Finn, Martin.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Patrick.
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Jones, Denis F.
- Keating, Justin.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- L'Estrange, Gerald.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McLaughlin, Joseph.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Leary, Michael.
- O'Sullivan, John L.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Staunton, Myles.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Toal, Brendan.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Lalor and Andrews; Níl, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond.
Question declared lost.