I had suggested that perhaps the Estimates debate starting tomorrow morning is the more appropriate place for a major review of industrial performance and of budgetary performance over the last six months rather than focusing on this Bill. Nonetheless, I can understand how other Deputies could use the opportunity of the debate on this Bill to comment on the worsening unemployment and on the deterioration in the public finances.
Any industrial legislation brought before the House cannot be enacted without focusing attention on drastic unemployment. In a recent reply to the Leader of The Workers Party, the Minister for Labour pointed out that from 1987 to 1990 40 per cent of all school leavers had either emigrated or had not found work. If that does not constitute a crisis, I do not know what does. I can understand Deputies asking what contribution to tackling the unemployment crisis will this Bill make. Will it change anything significantly?
Having for some considerable time sought in this House time for a major comprehensive debate on industrial performance to discuss where we have gone wrong and where we are manifestly not getting value for money and why we are spending so much money without jobs coming on stream, I am disappointed that we failed to get such a debate; but yet from time to time we are asked to consider on an ad hoc basis legislation which is only a dimension of the total problem. We had the Companies Bill, the Competition Bill and the rationalisation of some of the agencies. There is not an overall plan.
Here again we are asked to look at a Bill, the purpose of which is to merge the functions of two disparate agencies. The Workers Party acknowledge that, as part of the overdue review of industrial performance, rationalisation of some of the State agencies in the area of industrial supports is perhaps inevitable and may even be desirable in some cases. Institutional reform offers some part of the answer to why we have performed so badly as a country since independence and, more drastically, since the end of the fifties when the outlook on industrial strategy changed so dramatically. I regret that this rationalisation is proceeding on an ad hoc basis when what is required is an overall planned comprehensive reform of industrial strategy.
In the case of this Bill I am not satisfied that what is taking place is a merger of the functions of the Irish Goods Council and CTT, nor am I convinced that in any event these are the two most compatible agencies to seek to merge. The remit of the Irish Goods Council is completely to the remit of CTT. They have separate and distinct functions. I am not convinced about this. What appears to be happening here is that we are enacting legislation for the abolition of the Irish Goods Council but not necessarily to merge the functions of the Irish Goods Council with CTT.
The Minister in his Second Stage speech drew our attention to the fact that the function of CTT is to promote, assist and develop the exportation of goods and services. The Minister in his speech gave us an interesting lesson in industrial and economic history, albeit a fairly partisan assessment. The Minister also said that the purpose of the Irish Goods Council was primarly to assist the sale and marketing of Irish goods and services in Ireland. It is patently obvious that they are two completely different functions. Indeed, the Minister's statement that the primary function of the Irish Goods Council is to assist in the sale and marketing of Irish goods and services in Ireland is slightly different to the Irish Goods Council's understanding of what they are about. If my memory serves me correctly, they promote themselves as being the body responsible "for market development of small and medium-sized enterprises in the home market". That is not quite the same as the Minister's assessment. I would argue that the Irish Goods Council have performed relatively well in carrying out a function which is very badly needed in the case of small and medium-sized indigenous Irish companies.
With regard to the history of industrial development which the Minister has given us, if I had written his script I would have put it slightly differently. Nevertheless I think we would all agree that when the traditional, largely Britishbased old-fashioned companies collapsed at the end of the period of protectionism which had started in the thirties and gradually went out of business when their Irish plants closed down here for various reasons which we all know about, the big problem was that Irish companies did not step in to fill the gap. Indigenous Irish industry was not capable of filling the gap created when the old traditional companies pulled out and the Irish-based plants of largely British, as they were then, companies closed down. This led to large-scale unemployment and the Government changed their approach towards enticing multi-nationals into this country to provide badly needed employment for our people. However, they never managed to tackle adequately the question of import substitution. That focus of import substitution was good and was correctly identified in a number of reports at the time. It is regrettable that Irish business was not able to fill the gap.
The Irish Goods Council performed a useful role in identifying that gap in our industrial strategy and the necessity for import subsitution. While there are many examples which show how they helped in doing something about this — Fiacla toothpaste, Irish cereals, etc., domestic products which are now available on the shelves of Irish shops—generally speaking, we performed lamentably. That need is more glaringly evident than it ever was and there is now an even greater necessity for us to develop and improve the assistance offered to small and medium-sized enterprises by the Irish Goods Council. I am greatly concerned that that strategy will be lost in the focus of the new Irish marketing board which, correctly, will be on winning new markets abroad for Irish companies and non-Irish companies which have roots in our economy. This will mean that the focus of import substitution about which I have spoken will be lost.
Why should our starry-eyed welcome of the brave new world of the Single Market and free market conditions in that market involve the surrender of the home market to imports? The theme running through the speeches of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in regard to the Competition Bill and so on was compete or die, the implication being that somewhere out there there is an ideal pure form of competition and if we all engaged in pure competition we would inevitably have economic growth and, therefore, jobs. I do not believe there is any such thing as pure competition in that form. I believe competition is interfered with not only in Ireland but also in the new market which constitutes the trading entity of the European Community. Why should we lie back and enjoy it when jobs are being lost on the domestic front, when Irish markets are being eaten into by greater and greater imports, and we have proven our inability to replace those imports through import substitution. That is a major area of concern to me and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to my points.
In so far as I can read the Bill — as in the case of all Bills introduced this term, one would need to have an array of civil servants to advise one in terms of reading and studying it — section 6 seems to be the section which deals with the functions of the board. I cannot find in section 6 any reference which satisfies me that the functions of the Irish Goods Council are being retained, nurtured and developed by the new Irish trade board. Presumably the Minister will draw my attention to subsection (7) which provides that: "An order under section 4 (1) (a) of the Export Promotion Act, 1959, as amended, by the Export Promotion (Amendment) Act, 1983, in force immediately before the commencement of this section shall continue in force and shall be deemed to be an order made under this section". This seems to relate to Córas Tráchtála and not to the Irish Goods Council. In regard to the other subsections of section 6, I am not clear where expressly it is provided that the functions of the Irish Goods Council will be retained and developed. This may well be provided for in a different section of the Bill and I would appreciate if the Minister would take time out to reassure me on this point.
My party are not taking up the position of opposing the Bill for the sake of opposition. As I said, some element of rationalisation of agencies is both inevitable and desirable. While they may not have been at the sexy end of industrial promotion, the Irish Goods Council, in a modest way, have made a contribution. Their purpose was to bring to a certain level of competence small and medium-sized Irish businesses, and that necessity is as glaring now as it ever was.
I cannot understand how anyone can argue, as apparently the Minister for Industry and Commerce does, that in this brave new world of the Single Market anyone who cannot succeed on the domestic market should be able to do so in Germany, France or Italy. To lie back and to accept in a missionary position the ravages of companies originating in other parts of the European Community who gradually penetrate our domestic market is not a useful way in which to move forward. It would seem that the more logical approach to adopt in tackling this phenomenon of indigenous companies progressively losing their share of the domestic market would be to focus on import substitution. The functions of the Irish Goods Council could be best retained and developed in an arrangement with the small enterprises sector of the Industrial Development Authority. The argument that because the Irish Goods Council and Córas Tráchtála happen to be housed in the one building a good case can be made for integrating them is hardly good enough. It would seem that the purposes of the small enterprises sector of the Industrial Development Authority are closely allied to the purposes and main functions of the Irish Goods Council and that we should consider this possibility in examining the question of rationalisation.
There is a definite need to continue and improve the assistance given by the Irish Goods Council to small and medium-sized indigenous enterprises. In this respect I would like to refer briefly to an article by Clare Cronin in the Evening Press of 28 May 1990 in which she reported the comments of the president of the Irish institute of Purchasing and Materials Management, Mr. Ryan. She informed us that he had assured a group of small and medium-sized enterprise representatives that “Major contracts are flowing out of this country daily”, that his intention was constructive and that he had stressed that these were contracts which could be filled at home and filled by small and medium-sized enterprises. He was quoted as saying:
Small and medium-sized enterprises must come together to form integrated and interactive production units capable of taking major contracts from international suppliers. I am not suggesting the abandonment of one's individuality, but the need for "turn-key" supply is becoming more fashionable and economical to customers who wish to buy from the "one-stop supplier" or group of suppliers. Some of the world's largest supply groups are formed through the co-operation of many small independent companies who believe that strength is in numbers.
He based his talk on his belief that "nothing should be imported into this country", which is an interesting notion and which, perhaps, is not very practical in absolute terms but nevertheless a good starting point. He said:
Our level of industrial imports is probably one of our greatest national scandals. For every one manufacturing plant that is established in Ireland, there are five non-manufacturing units created. Of that five, four are set up for the principal purpose of importing goods and services into this country. I am also amazed at the cost and volume of components that are imported into this country, especially as the resources are available to manufacture many of them here, at a lower cost and indeed at a much higher quality.
Those comments should not cause the Minister for Industry and Commerce to have any sleepless nights, given that they were not made by any hardline ideological Worker's Party economist but rather by someone who comes from the Minister's end of the political spectrum. They amount to a savage indictment of our performance in that area and they are comments with which I agree. Given that the Irish Goods Council are very much concerned about the matter, far from being abolished they ought to be developed and nurtured.
The genral criticism which is common to all the reports we have seen during the past ten years, at least since the presentation of the Telesis report, is that our industrial policy has failed. They identified the necessity to develop a strong indigenous sector. As I said in another debate yesterday, I can never understand the reason, if a multinational company sneezes in Tokyo or New York and one of their Irish plants in one of our major provincial towns is shut down, the entire town catches a cold. The reason is there is no alternative manufacturing base there. There is no significant indigenous sector because it has never been built up. The multinationals for all their faults — and they have many, repatriation of profits being the major one — provide badly needed and well paid employment for more than 80,000 people. When a Nixdorf pull out of Bray, a Travenol out of Castlebar or a Kingdom Tubes out of Tralee an employment backspot is created. It is a sorrowful comment on our performance during the past 60 years that we have not managed to provide any alternative indigenous industry worth talking about.
It is fair to say that in more recent times the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Industrial Development Authority have taken on board some of the recommendations made in the Telesis report and so on. The days when a Minister could manipulate the Industrial Development Authority and cause them to make announcements that an outlandish number of jobs would be created, jobs which were never realised, are finished. Only during an election campaign is there the prospect, as one trade union leader put it, of a couple of hundred civil servants being handed out around the country like smarties, but this is small fry when compared to the manipulation which took place. Therefore it is fair to say that there has been concentration on some of the weaknesses highlighted in recent times. However, we ought to be careful, in seeking to become good Europeans and in rushing to embrace the Single Market, that we do not abandon entirely the home market.
Let me refer in conclusion, as I am aware that Deputy Lowry wishes to contribute to the debate, to the 1988 report of the Irish Goods Council in which they outline their own view which, as I said, is slightly different to the view portrayed by the Minister. I do not know what discussions have taken place behind the scenes but I notice that jobs will be protected.
Indeed, I wish the Minister would tell us how many jobs are involved in the Irish Goods Council. I do not know what the view of the chairman and board of the Irish Goods Council is but it is somewhat different, I would suggest, to the view advanced by the Minister. I am talking here about a difference in emphasis rather than any misrepresentation of the situation. In commenting on the Single European Market the Irish Goods Council had this to say:
The challenge of 1992 must be met initially in the Irish market. Ireland is the one European marketplace which can provide the base for carefully planned sales strategies aimed at the rest of Europe in the 1990s.
In terms of a Europe of over 320 million consumers, the Irish market is a very small one and sustained growth can only be achieved in the long term by companies with an export orientation. But, for the immediate future, Ireland cannot be regarded as small
when Irish industry still supplies only 43 per cent of industrial and consumer requirements.
The Irish market can realistically take up over £1.10 billion per annum in additional sales by Irish enterprise in industrial components and sub-supply, in food, groceries, clothing, furniture and household goods with minimum additional capital investment.
That comment is as apposite today as when it was first put together in the 1988 report. The position remains the same. It is important that we have regard to that comment and not lose sight of it in seeking industrial recovery.
Quite frankly, the Government have been let off very lightly by the Opposition on the question of unemployment. It is a crisis. We are hastening towards the recess once again and we still have an unemployment crisis. The Government may believe correctly that the Opposition do not have the answer, but it is patently clear that the Government do not have the answer either. Over the past three years 40 per cent of all school leavers have either emigrated or are unemployed. That is a terrible indictment of our inability as a small population to get our economic act together and to create sustainable jobs. Many of the social problems we face and many of the problems we, the politicians, encountered at the doors during the recent local elections come back to the evil of unemployment. There are large areas in my own constituency where the level of unemployment is well in excess of 60 per cent. I do not think it is within the capacity of either Dublin County Council or Dublin Corporation, who try less hard for reasons that are not pertinent to this debate, to lift those areas and to provide hope for the people in those areas unless we can provide employment.
First, we must provide employment and we are not doing that. We have a lamentable record and the situation is as bad as back in the bad old days of the fifties. That is why we should focus the concerted energies of this House on the question of our industrial performance and where we can make improvements.
