Vol. 410 No. 6
10 Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether the task force on unemployment, established by the Taoiseach, are part of the review of industrial policy; and when he intends to commence a review of industrial policy.
11 Mr. Taylor asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the reason his review of industrial policy announced last week is intended to exclude any contribution by public sector companies; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
12 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will outline the scope and terms of reference of the group he has appointed to review industrial policy; the basis on which the membership of the group was selected; if the group are expected to employ consultants; if any deadline has been set for the completion of the group's report; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
14 Mr. Lowry asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will outline (a) the terms of reference of the group he established to review industrial policy, (b) the time within which the group have to report and (c) when he will publish the findings of the group.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 14 together.
I announced the establishment of the Industrial Policy Review Group on 27 June 1991. The terms of reference of the review group are as follows:
to review and make recommendations on industrial policy in Ireland and on public policy generally as it affects industrial development. The review should address particularly the internationally trading indigenous industrial sector and, where possible, identify policies and measures to be adopted which would form the basis for the development of this sector over the medium to long term, with a view to increasing employment and wealth creation. For this purpose, industry includes internationally traded services.
The scope of the review will be wide-ranging as the terms of reference indicate. It is envisaged that the group will undertake their work over a six month period. The group held their first meeting yesterday, 8 July.
I would expect that the report of the group will be published soon after its completion. The group is composed of people with outstanding experience across a range of business sectors, in economic analysis and in industrial relations and development planning. The members were selected on the basis of the range of skills and experience which they can bring to the task which has been set for them and the potential which they possess to bring fresh thinking to the whole area of industrial policy.
It will be a matter for the review group to decide on their own procedures and the extent to which they wish to employ consultants. I have indicated to the group that they will have access to the resources required for this purpose.
The Task Force on Employment was established following discussions between the Government, trade unions and employers under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. The task force, who operate under the aegis of the Central Review Committee for that programme, are examining the present job situation in depth and, in particular, exploring what factors are impeding or delaying job creation. Their remit extends far beyond the industrial sector but the task force will be able to identify issues for the consideration of the Industrial Policy Review Group.
The review group do not in any way exclude contributions by public sector companies. Public sector companies will be facilitated in any submissions they wish to make to the review group and I would expect that such submissions will make a valuable contribution to the deliberations of the group.
I welcome the establishment of the group in the Minister's name. While I might disagree with some of the individuals involved, the composition of the group is right. The Minister was right to go outside of the public service to see if he could get contributions there. I approve of what the Minister has done in that area. I take it that the prime objective of this group is to review industrial policy and create more jobs. Does the Minister agree that there is now an overlap between what the Taoiseach has done under the PESP, bringing the heads of State companies together and asking them to look at job creation, and what the Minister is doing? There is an air of flap about what the Government are doing in this area. Until the figures were shown to be going wrong six weeks ago there was no apparent concern in the Government to get the Minister's committee and the other committees established to see what could be done about creating jobs. Will the Minister confirm that I am correct in saying that the objective of the Industrial Policy Review Group is to create more jobs and make bigger, more viable companies in this country?
I would have thought it was evident that at least once in ten years there should be a fundamental look at industrial policy in its broadest and medium to long term sense and not just in a short term way in response to particular problems. I formally announced that fact as far back as December last in the triennial review of industrial policy. I announced that such a group would be set up during the course of this year and that it had not been decided whether to do this by way of external consultants, as was done before, or by way of a group primarily within this country. I gave this matter some thought over a number of months and discussed it with different people. When I came to my conclusion recently I made an announcement, which is very much within the timescale I indicated at the end of last year. Obviously, employment is one of the most important factors this group will look at. As I indicated before, they will look at industrial policy in its broadest sense. A soundly based and viable industrial policy is the best guarantee of jobs in the long run and jobs should not be created in the short term if they are not entirely soundly based.
May I ask the Minister to comment on why there is no representative from the semi-State sector on the group he appointed? Having regard to the fact, as the Minister said in his reply, that the group will examine across the range of business sectors, it seems strange that the semi-State sector are not represented on this group, particularly as the Minister is concerned, or says he is concerned, about employment which is an important factor. As the Taoiseach was at pains to call in the leaders of the semi-State bodies on this issue, it seems doubly strange that the one sector visibly excluded from the review group is the semi-State sector.
The Deputy asked why there is no representative of the semi-State sector on this review group and I say to him that there is no representative of any sector on this body: nobody has been appointed in a representative capacity. It has been the downfall of many such groups and committees in the past that they saw themselves as there not to argue for the best policies which might be pursued but rather to argue for the sectional interests which they perceived themselves as representing. When I met the group yesterday at their first meeting I made it clear to them that none of them was there in a representative capacity.
So far as experience of the semi-State sector is concerned, I can identify, looking at the list, three people who have long and outstanding experience in that field. In so far as any one sector is represented, and none is, the semi-State sector is better represented than any other.
The Minister has opined that it was good that there ought to be a review of industrial policy at least every ten years. Is it not the case that there have been several reviews of industrial policy in recent years? Can the Minister say with precision how the current review differs from the reviews which were undertaken since the Telesis report?
A system of triennial reviews of industrial performance was introduced in 1986 under the Industrial Development Act, 1986. Reviews of performance are a very different matter, as the Deputy will see from reading those reviews, to reviews of policy. Reviews of performance look back over the previous three years and comment on what happened, whereas a review of policy looks forward over the next ten years, tries to shape what will happen and set out how, in the view of the members of the group, it should happen.
On that point——
I will call the Deputy again. I am now calling Deputy Lowry whose Question No. 14 refers.
I was deliberately brief in the expectation——
I appreciate that, Deputy, but the Chair feels an obligation to call Members who have tabled priority questions in the order in which these questions appear before him on the Order Paper.
One of the issues to be examined by the review group is the impact of taxation on industry. It is noticeable that the Department of Finance are not represented on the review group. Will the Minister explain this omission? Would he agree that the absence of a Department of Finance representative weakens the group and will lead to a lack of co-ordination? Has the Minister had consultations with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Reynolds, on this matter? In view of the major differences which appear to exist between the Minister and the Minister for Finance on taxation policy such consultation is particularly important. Having regard to the fact that the Fair Trade Commission report on competition law was delivered to the Minister in December 1989 but not published until five months later, in April 1990, will the Minister give an assurance to the House that there will not be a similar delay in publishing this report and that it will be published promptly?
As I have indicated, I expect the report to be published shortly after it is received. It has to be printed and so on, which may take some weeks, and obviously has to go to the Government first. With regard to a representative of the Department of Finance, there is no representative of any Department on this body.
The Minister should appoint Michael McDowell to it.
That is deliberate policy on my part and I do not see any reason to apologise to the Deputy or the House for this.
There was a three months delay——
I wish to refer to the somewhat artificial distinction drawn between performance and policy. People who are unemployed are concerned only about where performance has fallen down. If that is as a result of mistaken policy objectives, so be it. Since it is apparently the stated purpose — I quote from today's issue of The Irish Times— of the group to concentrate on the Irish indigenous sector, may I ask the Minister if that means the policy review will be largely confined to the Irish owned indigenous sector? That may be a desirable policy objective at the end of the review but if this is a policy review of the widest possible scope, as indicated by the Minister, surely it is as necessary to review the total industrial policy, for example, whether funds should be directed from one sector to another or targeted in a particular direction? Will the Minister comment on the report in today's newspaper that the group will concentrate on the Irish owned indigenous sector?
What I am reported in today's newspapers as saying reflects what I said in my statement announcing this group on 27 June. I said I had asked the group to devote particular attention to the issues facing native Irish industry and seek ways in which that industry can grow and emulate the performance of those companies which are winning profitable shares of international markets. I went on to say that the review would not be confined to indigenous industry or industrial policy per se: it was intended that it would examine all of the key factors which affect industrial development. I said the aim was to chart a course for the next decade and beyond. Clearly that is the position. The House, and many people outside, will agree that we all share a concern that indigenous Irish industry has not seen the same measure of success here as overseas industry located here. I am sure that it is a cause of regret to all of us. Because of their membership, this group are particularly well fitted to try to come to grips with why this should be so, especially given the notable success of several members of the group.
I wish to return to the question asked by Deputy Lowry. The aim of our industrial policy for the past 30 years has been to attract, by way of tax incentives, foreign industries into this country. If the group recommend that the incentives should be increased that obviously will be matter for the Department of Finance and the Minister will have something to say about it. Deputy Lowry's question is relevant in that regard. The Minister should be more precise in stating what he means by indigenous Irish industry. For example, P J Carroll and Company, an example I have given already, are no longer Irish owned but as far as I am concerned they are an Irish industry employing Irish people. We should be more precise in defining these terms. That is but one example and there are many others. Having said that, one of the comments made in the Telesis report was that some "indigenous Irish industries" should be picked out by the Industrial Development Authority and puffed up to allow them compete in international markets and that special attention should be given to them rather than to the wide range of industries who happen to apply for a grant. Does the Minister agree with that assessment and is he guiding the review committee in that regard?
I have not sought to provide in the terms of reference any definition of "indigenous". Definitions vary slightly. Some would regard something as indigenous only if it is Irish owned in the sense of Irish control through the ownership of 51 per cent or more of the shares while others would regard a company as indigenous if they have been long established here and if control is exercised from within Ireland in policy terms. That is true in the case of some companies who are foreign owned but because circumstances vary from company to company I did not seek to lay down any particular definition. It is a matter that is best left to the group. There are many matters relating to Departments other than my own which will have to be considered by the group but this does not justify having representatives from every one of those Departments on the group. The group has to be kept to a reasonable number of people if they are to work effectively. The number and type of people we have come up with are ideal in this respect. There will be a substantial input from eight or nine Departments, an input they would wish to give themselves — their views and any information they may have which might be requested from them by the group.
Deputy Rabbitte rose.
The time available to us for dealing with Priority Questions is well nigh exhausted. If we are to deal with the remaining Priority Question, Question No. 13 in the name of Deputy Lowry, it must be answered now.
