Vol. 398 No. 10
23 Tomás Mac Giolla asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if, in relation to his speech at the Conferderation of Irish Industry lunch on 9 May 1990, he will indicate the areas of State grants to industry he is considering reducing; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The report on the second triennial review of national industrial performance is currently being finalised. While the report will be primarily concerned with the performance of industry over the past three years, it will specify areas where further changes in industrial policy and the availability of State supports should take place. I would prefer at this stage not to go into details until the report has been formally laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas which I expect to do shortly.
May I ask the Minister whether in making his statement he is in favour of reducing the grants support available to industry, that he is taking into account the anticipated, indeed the current new competition from eastern European countries and whether he is familiar with the statement of a leading trade union official in which the IDA acquiesced that between five and seven plants have been lost in recent months by this country to eastern European countries?
I made it clear at the time I made this speech that I was conscious of the fact that we are in competition with other countries and that whatever changes might be made could only be made in the context of the European Commission controlling very carefully the level of State aids in the Community as a whole. I drew attention to the fact that, in my view, State aids should be confined to the peripheral regions of the Community. I was somewhat startled to find in a recent Commission survey that they concluded that 43 per cent of all State aids were paid in Germany and France which are the two richest states in the Community. It does seem that the competition directorate of the Commission are anxious to tighten up on the whole State aid regime within the Community. When that is done, and I hope it will be soon, then I think we will be in a position to act in the terms I have suggested.
Does that mean that the Minister is in favour of a shift in industrial policy towards what might be termed tax driven rather than the emphasis being on grant aids and whether this is one of the reforms we can expect in the triennial report? Can he give the House any indication when the triennial report, which I understand is now overdue, will be published and laid before the House?
I anticipate it will be available in some weeks. It will go to the Government and it will be published at that stage. I have always made it clear, and the Government have always made it clear, that it is our desire to reduce the undue reliance, which has been traditional in this country, on upfront grant aid. Good progress has already been made in the past few years in pursuance of that policy and I hope that policy can be further accelerated in the years to come.
May I specifically ask the Minister about his reference to the fact that he is unhappy about a situation where member countries seem to be unnecessarily outbidding each other in a situation which he described as being manipulated by the multinationals and whether he thinks action at a European level, as distinct from at a national level, would be necessary to make any impact in tackling that phenomenon?
That is precisely what I feel. We cannot do anything at a national level, it has to be done at an international level because it is different member states and the regions in different member states who are outbidding each other at present. What I said in regard to multinationals is that they are the main beneficiaries. On some occasions there have been some instances where one might conclude that there has been a manipulation of the system as between two or more member states, where the losers are the member states concerned and the beneficiary is the company concerned. That is undesirable. I would prefer to see the Community as one and not to see either countries or regions within it contesting with one another for the benefit of third country multinationals.
That disposes of questions for today.
On a point of order, Sir, you disallowed a Private Notice Question which I had tabled. I am not disputing the ruling but I would draw your attention to the fact that I do not think your office was aware that the item to which they referred as having been addressed on 1 May is the same item on which I sought to put down a Private Notice Question. May I have the matter clarified?
I will have the matter examined again, Deputy.
Thank you.
Are you seeking to raise it on the Adjournment?
If you would be so kind as to allow me, I would like to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
I shall communicate with the Deputy.
