Private Members' Business: Digital Plant, Galway.

Mr. R. Bruton

I move:

That Dáil Éireann expresses its grave concern at the threat to the Digital plant in Galway, condemns the delay in effective political action to head off this threat, demands an urgent assessment of the capacity of the Irish electronics sector to survive the radical change occurring in the industry; and in the light of the steady deterioration in unemployment, demands a radical change in existing economic policy.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Enda Kenny and a member of the Progressive Democrats.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. R. Bruton

I hope we will have an opportunity to make a real contribution towards helping to save this plant and that we have not reached a stage where hope is lost. I am convinced that there is still an opportunity to save it.

The threat to Galway resulting from Digital's rationalisation plans was not sprung on us suddenly. We received ample warning of this threat when the Clonmel plant was closed. In October the situation warranted a ministerial visit by the then Minister, Deputy O'Malley. It was known that the new chief executive of Digital was entering a concentrated brain-storming session about his future rationalisation plans. It was also known that the Galway and Ayr plants would be vying with one another to become the main site for Digital's equipment manufacturing activities. The extremely uncertain future of Digital was known. Against that background, it must be asked why the matter was put on the back burner by the subsequent Ministers for Industry and Commerce, and later the Minister for Enterprise and Employment in the critical weeks leading up to the decisionmaking process that is now in its final phase. Why was the Government unaware, until the very last minute, of the tactics used by the British Government to secure the plant in Ayr? Why did the Taoiseach and Tánaiste not launch a sustained campaign to mobilise influential Irish-American opinion in support of the Galway plant?

Several weeks ago, the Minister of State informed us of the establishment of a job protection unit within the Department of Enterprise and Employment. Its explicit purpose was to co-ordinate the early warning systems of the IDA and the Department of Labour as it then was, to enable timely intervention when companies were in difficulties. How did this unit miss out on Digital? It is sadly obvious that the Government was caught napping when the threat loomed at Digital and their response since then has been flatfooted. Over the weekend there seemed to be bewilderment in Government circles. They spoke optimistically in the public arena about the future of Digital, but, in private briefings to the media, they indicated their despair of saving anything but the software component of Digital's business in Galway. Deputy Kemmy was the only Member who saw events as they were when he described the fire-brigade action embarked upon by the Government to save a plant when it seemed too late. We must all hope that it is not too late.

The Galway plant is more efficient and more adaptable than the plant at Ayr with which it is competing. In the Galway plant, the full spectrum of manufacturing activities is available. It has developed the knowledge-based software segment of the industry and could more easily become the consolidated base for a manufacturing plant for the company. Over the weekend, the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht claimed that the Cabinet knew of unfair inducements being offered by Britain. Why did the Minister not raise that issue with Digital when he was in Boston? Surely, if EC rules regarding public procurement were being breached — a Member of the Cabinet indicated that that was the case — the company should have been told that there was a great cloud hanging over the procurement of contracts.

If this company is lost, the potential catastrophe for Galway cannot be underestimated. Direct and indirect employment accounts for 2,500 people. This figure combines those working part-time and full-time and those employed in sub-contracting firms. There are also at least 1,000 jobs dependent on the spending power of Digital employees. What happened in Digital indicates the failure to create an effective regional policy. A region can be potentially devastated by a decision taken thousands of miles away. There is enormous scepticism about this Government's commitment to a regional policy. Equally, there is scepticism about the ability of the EC regional policy to operate effectively. A superior plant located in Ireland in a peripheral disadvantaged region is being gazumped by the muscle power of market forces in a stronger economy using their potential to offer the inducement of high contracts. There can be no regional policy if that is permitted.

The promise of £8 billion from EC funds will not mean anything if strong viable companies like Digital can be grabbed by stronger economies in the EC. There is no future in building myriad interpretative centres if they are only to show tourists the wilderness created by the absence of an effective regional policy. The bishops are correct in calling for effective regional government where entrepreneurs and people in the villages and towns can have a real say in their future. The Minister's proposal for a regional arm within the indigenous industry sector will not provide that sort of a forum. As he said, he will split indigenous industry into industrial sectors and a layer of regions thereby imposing a complicated structure on economic development in the regions. There should be a willingness to delegate money, decisionmaking and economic power to regional authorities so that those regions can become less dependent. Centralised decision-making, a feature of this Government's approach to economic policy, will not work.

We are facing serious problems in Galway, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's proposals. We, on this side of the House, are anxious and eager to support constructive moves to win Digital and save those jobs. We are also determined that if jobs are lost in Digital, the Minister will use the might of the IDA to produce for those workers the type of employment opportunities that will not see their skills dissipated and lost to the Galway region.

It is well known that the IDA have identified sub-supply in the electronic sectors as an industry capable of creating £300 million of Irish business. There is a very skilled workforce in Galway, large enough to overcome the deficiencies in the normal Irish sub-supply segments of the electronic sector. I demand a real programme to save those jobs, to make sure that the talents so painfully built up in this region are not lost, and that the families who depend on those incomes will not face life on the dole. That would mean catastrophe for Galway and a very serious blow to the Exchequer. If you look even at crude Exchequer returns, every job lost in a company like Digital is £6,000 per year lost to the Exchequer.

We cannot afford to lose these jobs and we must not leave any stone unturned in our efforts to retain them. I am disappointed that we appear to be moving slowly in the effort to save these jobs. The fact that we were not alerted to the danger of losing the Digital plant must mean that something has broken down badly in Government circles. I look forward to hearing the Minister's proposals for the future to make sure that we do not lose this industry.

Mr. E. Kenny

I am happy to support the motion in the names of Deputies Richard Bruton and Padraig McCormack. As politicians we sympathise with the people affected by this impending tragedy, the people of the west, and those in Scotland who are faced with a similar situation. This motion is fundamental to the economy of Galway and the west. Deputies from the constituency directly affected and from surrounding areas understand how the Digital Corporation has become synonymous with Galway and the economic development of the west. A substantial number of workers travel to Galway every day from County Mayo to work in Digital at both management and worker level. It is important to note that many firms in the supply service area from County Mayo and other surrounding counties have supplied services to the Digital Corporation for a number of years.

If a decision is taken to close this plant or to substantially reduce the numbers employed there, it will be a stake through the heart of the west. It will be a crisis of unprecedented proportions in terms of the numbers involved and in a general economic sense, taking into account American and other foreign investment in Ireland in the last number of years. Multinational corporation are big ships. They are very difficult to turn around. They are difficult to steer through shallow waters and they are very difficult to deal with when one considers the vested interests involved in multi-national corporations of this magnitude. Digital is a fine company with a highly skilled workforce which has grown steadily over the years. One wonders how such a successful corporation could get into a situation where it was faced with hard decisions which will have disastrous consequences for many families. It calls into question the economic strategy being followed here.

In the computer business the percentage of profits on the product in terms of the cost of labour was very substantial in the early days. The bigger the number of units to build on, the bigger the budget and the better the results. While a small number of technical people would build up any company, they require huge numbers behind them in order to keep that company afloat. It is obvious that there must be radical change in the computer business and the electronics industry.

I hope the Minister will give details of his meeting with the chief executive of Digital in Boston and that on his return we will also hear of the other issues and incentives to which he referred. The Japanese Government spends billions of dollars every year lobbying for its continued economic involvement in the United States. The opinions of the political parties and our Government do not count for much in the boardrooms of Chicago, Texas or Boston when it comes to the reality of profit. The key word is profit and profit is the bottom line. Reality dawns and a decision is made by technocrats far from here.

It is critical that anything we say here be constructive in terms of Digital and that we are seen to exert the Irish-American influence. People have called for the involvement of Senator Kennedy and Congressman Kennedy, the Mayor of Boston, Ray Flynn and former Congressman Brian Donnelly and other Irish Americans with influence. If multi-national corporations and Governments are not speaking to each other, disastrous economic consequences can follow.

In the early 1980s, the Travenol plant, which manufactured a health care product, was threatened with closure and the loss of 1,400 jobs. Those people cashed their cheques on a Friday, reared their families, built their houses, paid their mortgages and sent their children to school. They had become part and parcel of the weave of the economic and social fabric of that part of the country. While numbers were reduced the plant remained open and has flourished because of three critical factors.

The first factor was the commitment of management to their location and a commitment to the tradition which they had built over the years. The same applies in Digital. There was a willingness to change direction in terms of research and development and the workforce were quite willing to achieve set targets. They themselves had renewed motivation in terms of increased targets and guaranteed extra productivity. The excellent workforce in Digital can also achieve that. Most importantly, Government assistance was also made available. Every facility to save that plant and allow it prosper was made available. I hope the Minister in his contribution spells out exactly what is involved in this.

Digital is more than just a single plant. It is unprecedented in this country, in terms of its size, and threatened job losses. If the Government cannot secure its future either now or by changing direction in the future it spells very serious consequences for the country in terms of international economic investment in all kinds of industry. I support the efforts by the Mayor of Galway and other politicians in their attempts to exert as much influence as possible on the Digital Corporation headquarters so that the plant will continue and prosper in Galway. I am sceptical of the allegations made concerning the retention of the Scottish plant. It appears economic muscle may have been exerted by political forces in Britain at a high level. With a major recession worldwide, with many redundancies, political people will play the game as they see it. It is up to this Government to do the same. We have always played within the rules.

I trust the Minister and the Government will ensure that every ounce of pressure and influence is exerted on our Irish-American contacts. I hope that the historical links between Galway and Boston will ensure that the plant is kept intact and is given the opportunity to expand and change direction. This will secure the livelihoods of thousands, not alone in Galway city, but throughout the west. If it collapses, it will represent a stake through the heart of the region and neither the Minister nor Deputies would like to see this happen. I hope we can secure its future together.

Mr. Molloy

I move amendment No. 2:

To delete all words after "Galway" and to substitute the following:

"which is so crucial to the economic welfare of the west; and urges a sustained and united national effort to ensure the retention of the company's full operations in Galway".

I was proud to be a member of the 1969-73 Government which approved the first grant for Digital, and which brought this computer manufacturing industry into my constituency. Subsequently, I was present at the signing of the contract, when there were only four individuals locally employed by Digital in the Galway Industrial Estate. In the intervening 22 years, I have seen this factory grow to enormous proportions. It now has a major influence on the economics of my native city, Galway, and its surrounding regions.

I am aware of the changes in the computer industry over the past year and of the threat posed to our computer factory in Galway. I was in close contact with the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, who went to Boston to discuss this threat with the chief executive of Digital but, as the House knows, the Progressive Democrats left office in November.

Because the situation facing Digital is so serious, not only for its 1,200 direct employees and the 1,300 in the sub-supply sector, but for the economy of both Galway and the west, we undertake this debate in a sombre and fearful mood. Nor would the disastrous social and economic consequences stop there if the plant were to close or have its workforce drastically reduced. Digital is a flagship of the Irish electronics industry, and our status as a viable location for this industry would be adversely affected.

The atmosphere in Galway is currently one of grim foreboding, with fearing the worst, while praying for a reprieve.

The tragedy of what is, and what could happen, is almost too awful to contemplate. Digital is a model company and employer, who have grown with, and generated much of the increased prosperity of Galway over the past 20 years.

Digital has been good to Galway, but Galway has also been good to the company. It has made good profits there down the years, based on the commitment and skill of a dedicated and hard-working staff who exude a pride in their work and are the face of the new resilient, self-confident, and well-educated Ireland.

It would be heartbreaking if all this was to disintegrate now, especially when it may arise for no factor for which the workforce could be held responsible.

If Digital-Galway is to be decimated, it will be due to factors beyond the control of the staff there. For that reason, it simply cannot be allowed to happen.

The staff of Digital-Galway and all those in the immediate area, including public representatives of all parties, are united in seeking to ensure the survival of the entire operation. Moreover, they are determined not to do anything that may stop this from happening.

That is why the Progressive Democrats and I cannot, at this juncture, support the full terms of the Fine Gael motion. This would divide and dissipate the united effort, at both a national and a local level, which is essential in the battle to save the factory.

There will be plenty of time for political recriminations and they will be justified, if this awful event comes to pass. But, in the meantime, the Progressive Democrats strongly believe that all parties should maintain a united national front so as to optimise the pressure on Digital headquarters in Boston, for retaining their full operations in Galway.

For that reason, my party colleagues, Deputies O'Malley and Cullen and I, tabled the amendment which expresses grave concern at the threat to the Digital plant in Galway.

Digital is not considering pulling out of Galway because of the performance levels there. Galway has, and is represented as the model plant in the corporation worldwide. The complexity of product set and the quality levels made it the number one choice for supply managers. It is these managers who have responsibility for deciding what plants build specific modules or products.

Galway is currently responsible for manufacturing Digital's most complex and progressive product, the Turbo Laser. This is regarded by the Digital Corporation as a prime revenue generator and should help secure their future. Galway was chosen because of its capability in manufacturing quality and complex products. Galway engineers have, and are, playing a major part in the development of this and other products.

The plant also has the capacity — and is currently performing at this level — to place 200 million components per annum, whereas the Ayr facility in Scotland has only got the annual capability to place 64 million components. The Galway product set is also in the higher edge of the technology scale, whereas Ayr operates mostly on lower technology products.

It also supplies the Stowage module set to its sister plant in Germany. The Ayr plant does not have the capability to do this. Galway beat competition for this set from the Far East — renowned for its cost effectiveness — when the key metrics were quality and cost.

Last week, Digital-Galway was commended for its excellent performance in its supply of network and communication products. It outperformed the Digital-Augusta plant in Maine, USA in the key areas — its delivery, cost and quality.

It also took on the work of plants that have closed, such as the Puerto Rican plant in 1992 and the Clonmel plant in 1991. It got this business because the corporation had confidence in Galway.

During the last quarter, the plant has reduced its manufacturing cost by 40 per cent in cost per placement, and is well positioned to strongly challenge the Far-Eastern plants by July 1993.

A compatible product set produced by the Ayr plant, shows that Galway is outperforming them by 200 per cent in cost terms.

The supply manager for the Corporation visited Galway two weeks ago to meet plant staff and review its capability. She made it known that she was exceptionally pleased with its current efforts and future expansion capability. She did not even visit the Ayr plant. She saw Galway as the European plant.

Galway has a totally integrated manufacturing system. It has the ability to design, build, test modules and put them into a system under one roof and provide the software neccesary. No other Digital site in the corporation has this capability.

Up to last week, expectations from within the plant, and communications from outside, including Digital Corporate headquarters, was strongly in favour of Galway as opposed to the Ayr plant. Some employees even suggested today that they would be willing to take a cut in wages to save their jobs. They could not have done much more than this to survive. Political action, including inducements over and above what is morally acceptable, have intervened to change the agreement in favour of the Ayr plant. I hope the Minister had the authority yesterday when he travelled to the United States to change this situation which should never have been allowed to develop. I wish to share my time with Deputies O'Malley and Cullen.

Mr. O'Malley

Because of my concern, and that of the officials in the Department of Industry and Commerce, and senior officials in the Industrial Development Authority, I travelled to Boston last October to meet the senior management of Digital to try to ensure as far as I could that the future of the Galway plant would be safeguarded. That trip afforded me the second opportunity within a year to meet the new Digital president and chief executive, Mr. Palmer. When I met him the previous year he was vice-President of Digital's manufacturing division. The meeting lasted about two and a half hours, was conducted in a social ambience and was very satisfactory.

I returned to Ireland satisfied that there was no great threat to the Galway plant at the time but, being aware that the company was continuing global cost-cutting measures, I strongly felt that the matter needed to be carefully monitored on an ongoing basis. I was told by Mr. Palmer, who had only taken up the office of president and chief executive a few days before I met him, that he would be looking carefully at every plant throughout the world and that Digital had already closed plants which they regarded as excellent in every way but which they could not avoid closing because the company was losing such large sums of money.

I had no guarantee, therefore, that Galway would remain open but, equally, I had no reason to fear that its closure was imminent within the next number of weeks. I have no doubt that the IDA, and the relevant personnel in the Department, fully realised the necessity for this careful monitoring because it was obvious that a decision could be arrived at within a month or two which might be unfavourable if the proper contact were not maintained. Unfortunately, my enforced departure, and that of my party, from Government at the instance of the Taoiseach happened within two weeks or so of my return from my trip to Boston and I was no longer in a position to directly monitor the ongoing developments.

For that reason the political onus for keeping the Digital situation under scrutiny lay first with the minority Fianna Fáil Government after 4 November 1992 and, in particular, with the then acting Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr. Flynn. This House is entitled to know what action that Government took in regard to Digital given that direct and immediate information would have been available on an ongoing basis from the IDA and the relevant departmental officials.

It is worth recalling also the political situation that prevailed in the aftermath of the general election on November 25th and the appalling time wasting which was indulged in by the Labour Party first and later by that party and Fianna Fáil from-the time they commenced discussions on the formation of a government at the beginning of December. Deputies will recall my pleadings with them before Christmas to get on with the job as there were serious economic problems besetting the country, not least the currency crisis, and they did not have the luxury of proceeding at such a leisurely pace. At that time I was upbraided by both Fianna Fáil and Labour for being too harsh in my criticism.

When Deputies and the general public now survey the economic wreckage of the enforced devaluation and the terrible vista of the possibility that faces us regarding Digital, they will see plainly that the urgency I sought to engender in the process of forming a Government at that time was correct and that it was vital there be a full-time Government in place all of whose members were concentrating on their jobs rather than on the various political activities that went on for some months. Clearly the Government did not keep their eye on the ball and we are now counting the cost in so many ways.

The early days of this Government were dominated by largely peripheral issues. They may have been important in themselves but in relative terms, compared to this difficulty and the devaluation debacle, it is hard to say that issues such as Mullaghmore or ethics in Government were matters which should have had the prime attention of Government. Rather than concentrating on matters of that kind, and on the appointment of party officials and personal relatives to various positions in Departments, it is time we had an exhibition of competence from the Government rather than what we have seen to date.

Why did we have to wait until I called publicly last Friday for a senior Government Minister to travel to Boston for the Minister for Enterprise and Employment to decide to make the trip? When I raised this matter in the House last Friday morning there was no response. The Minister acknowledges in today's newspapers that the trip was vital, which I am quite sure it was, but I wonder if it would have been more productive if it had happened a week or a month earlier.

I hope we are not going to see the unfortunate result that all of us have feared over the past number of days.

It would be an appalling tragedy for Galway and for Ireland. I know of few, if any, multinational companies that were more successfully integrated into our economy and community than Digital in Galway and, therefore, their loss would be all the greater. I cannot imagine any company in the country whose departure or partial closure would have a greater and more deleterious effect. I hope that even at this late hour every possible effort will be made to try to avoid this tragedy.

Mr. Cullen

There have been three Ministers for Industry and Commerce since my colleague, Deputy O'Malley, resigned from that portfolio when our party was forced out of Government. The first was Deputy Flynn, who is now a member of the European Commission. The second was Deputy Ahern and the present incumbent is Deputy Quinn.

I have no doubt that officials in the Department, and those at the very senior levels within the IDA, were fully involved and capable of doing their jobs. The Taoiseach, in his response yesterday, seemed to distance himself from the important role he should have been playing in addition to that played by the officials. I have no doubt those people were fully on top of their briefs and adequately carried out their functions but it is clear to me that there was insufficient political attention paid to the issue over the past months since my colleague, Deputy O'Malley, in his role as Minister for Industry and Commerce, visited the company and met its senior executives. This lack of political involvement has contributed in a major way to the situation in the Digital plant in Galway. It was a reneging of duty in some respects in that it was not until this party, through the former Minister, suggested in no uncertain terms that the Minister should be in the United States meeting with Digital's executives that action was taken. If it was clear that there was political intervention, and we have yet to see precisely what was occurring on the British side, then why did it take us precious days and hours to react and get involved politically? There are serious questions on the Government's proiorities which have to be answered.

I would like to comment further on the Government amendment which lays emphasis on the implementation of the Culliton report. No report, Culliton or any other, could do for this country and its employees what this company has been doing. I see Digital as a flagship embodying all Culliton was speaking about. It is wrong for the Government to suggest that therein lies the answer. What this company has been doing over the last three years — the growth to 1,100 permanent jobs, 200 temporary jobs and 1,500 subsidiary jobs — has made it the flagship of what Culliton was talking about. The sooner the Minister, his Department and the Government understand that and begin to realise that there are companies that are implementing what should be happening in this country today, the better. I fear that the political will, understanding and ability have been clearly lacking in this Government over the last three to four months. I hope that the Minister will have some definitive information to impart on his leadership in this crisis and what he has contributed on behalf of the workforce in Galway bearing in mind the importance of this plant to the economy.

Minister for Enterprise and Employment (Mr. Quinn)

I will move my amendment.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Browne,

Carlow-Kilkenny): Technically the Minister cannot move this amendment because there is an amendment already before the House. You can speak to your amendment which will be moved and voted on when the PD amendment is dealt with.

Mr. Quinn

If I was in a position to move the amendment I would move it. The text of my amendment is on the supplementary Order Paper.

We will deal with these matters procedurally when it comes to a vote. I am taken by the constructive tone adopted by Fine Gael speakers. I would like to acknowledge the support I received from the Mayor of Galway, all the parties elected to Galway Corporation and for their constructive comments and good wishes which were conveyed to the Mayor of Galway who was accompanied by the City and County Manager of Galway, Seamus Keating, on our visit to the headquarters of Digital International in Maynard, Massachusetts. I am surprised that, notwithstanding the constructive tone of the Progressive Democrat amendment, their contributions have not been in the same spirit.

This problem did not arise today or yesterday. Over the last couple of years Digital lost in the region of $2 billion and continues to lose large sums of money. The number of employees has been reduced from approximately 130,000 in 1989 to a current figure of 100,000. The company's shareholders believe that figure will have to be reduced to 85,000 before it can become viable. It is a company in crisis, and that crisis has to be responded to by the corporate management as they are currently attempting to do.

If I may make one point of relevance to Deputy Cullen; the focus of the Culliton report is that we will be dealing with people whose headquarters are not in Maynard, Massachusetts but on this island and who would have a sense of commitment to this country that, unfortunately, a multinational cannot have. It is for that reason that the reference to the implementation of the Culliton report is the most relevant point which can be made from the point of view of the future.

I want to deal with the thrust of some of the comments made to date, to the effect that this Government did too little too late. That is simply not the case. From the first day I was appointed, technically and legally, as Minister for Industry and Commerce and a week later as Minister for Enterprise and Employment — and that is the official title, not the other way around — it was brought to my attention that there was a problem with Digital Galway. That problem had been tracked constantly and with considerable professional commitment by the IDA, and is a commitment with which Deputy O'Malley is more than familiar. A briefing note was made available to me and I got a phone call from the chief executive of the IDA to update me on the position and to assure me that the IDA had been dealing with this matter on an ongoing basis for the previous nine months. It was a matter of public record in the financial journals in Europe and the United States that Digital was going through massive restructuring problems.

The Taoiseach spoke directly to Mr. Palmer by telephone and, following that conversation, Mr. Kieran McGowan the chief executive of the IDA visited Mr. Palmer last week. When the Taoiseach was in contact with Mr. Palmer I asked if he thought it was necessary for me to travel at that stage — we sought advice from the IDA about that matter. The answer was no, it was not necessary. The moment I was advised by the IDA that it was appropriate for me to go, I went, and not a moment sooner. I received a request at 1.30 p.m. on Friday from the Mayor of Galway indicating that he was available to be of whatever help and assistance the Government thought was appropriate. Within two hours of that telephone conversation I called him back to indicate that I would like him to accompany me on the visit. At that stage, because Mr. Palmer was away for the weekend, we were not sure when the meeting would take place. We were so determined in our efforts to ensure that the management of Digital International would be made fully aware of the dramatic importance of the Digital plant to the city and county of Galway, and indeed to the western region to which Deputy Kenny refers, we were prepared to travel anyway. When we arrived on Sunday evening we met and had discussions with people from the IDA who were based locally, and with people in the Digital Corporation. The following morning we met senior executives of Digital who have a key role in the decision-making process over the future of all Digital's plants to get the company back into profitability.

I want to assure the House without prejudice to anything that might occur, and I am very conscious of the sensitivity of all that is transpiring at present, that, as the Minister responsible, everything that could be done has been done to date. At the meeting on Monday trenchant points in favour of Digital locating in Ireland and consolidating its overall plant for Europe in Ireland, particularly in the areas of software and manufacturing that are currently carried out in Galway, were made by myself, the Mayor of Galway and the IDA representative. Those points were listened to, we were assured that no decision about the future of the Galway plant had been made and that no decisions would be made until the people in Digital headquarters had evaluated the new points and the new, hopefully persuasive, arguments we put to them.

That is the factual position as of now. I hope that we were persuasive and that they listened carefully to what we had to say.

They had no doubt about the quality of the workforce and the management in Galway, or about the commitment of the Irish Government to ensuring that the framework within which Digital could function on this island would be the most competitive from their point of view. I further made the point in no uncertain terms that of Digital's $13 billion sales, $4 billion are in the European Community and $1 billion in the UK, and it would be in Digital's interest to ensure that it was seen to be a company committed to European Political Union and the Single Market, and to all the values which underpin that, including the Social Charter and the social chapter. I suggested that it would not be in Digital's interest to be mistakenly or wrongly associated with what has been referred to elsewhere as social dumping. In today's Financial Times there is a banner headline story about Chancellor Kohl and the UK in relation to the future of Maastricht and the need for the pursuit of European Union, including the social chapter and the Social Charter.

They are the points which have been made to date and the points I wish to stress. The reality is that Digital, in common with IBM, is going through a massive transformation. We cannot prevent this but hopefully we can assist in ensuring that it decides to consolidate its Galway manufacturing and software functions in a productive and profitable manner. A series of points and arguments have been put to them as to why that should be the case and Digital is examining them at present.

It was pointed out that Digital's contribution to the Irish economy, which is on the periphery of Europe and has unemployment at the level of 20 per cent, is enormous and that the consequences in the national sense for a serious reduction in output or closure of the company would be catastrophic. I made this very clear in case anybody thinks otherwise. Deputies perhaps already know that the company's expenditure in wages in 1991 amounted to £43 million. In addition to expenditure on wages, Digital's sourcing of Irish raw materials and services contributed on average £25 million annually to the Irish economy over the last number of years. Ireland's exports are significantly boosted by Digital's manufacturing operations here with the vast bulk of their products being exported. Their average annual exports over the last five years were to the value of £900 million. As a result of that volume of activity, Digital contributes massively to the Irish economy through tax payments.

I stressed, as the chief executive of the IDA stressed, to Digital the importance to Ireland not just of Digital per se but of the electronics industry generally and how Ireland has been extremely successful in attracting and retaining state of the art, modern electronics companies. We also stressed to them that companies such as Apple and others found no difficulty in exporting to the rest of the European market from their Irish base.

We sought to reassure them that the location of Digital plants in other parts of the European Community and in the UK in particular was not necessarily a guarantee of market share and that the consolidation of Digital's Galway plant was no impediment to ensuring that they could maintain and expand their market share within the European Community. Indeed, Mr. Palmer recognised that the probable enlargement in formal terms of the European Community to take in the former EFTA countries would consequentially increase the total population of the Single Market to approximately 370 million people and that the probable growth potential for Digital's market within Europe lay in that direction. These points were all cogently and consistently made in a manner which left no stone unturned. In relation to that, I make no apology to anybody in this House or elsewhere.

We indicated that the Government was prepared to assist Digital in its difficult efforts to try to restructure the company on an international basis and that, if that involved additional assistance for the plant in Galway in some shape or form, the Government was prepared to give it the most positive and sympathetic consideration when Digital come back to us. The management in Digital are very clearly aware that the people of Galway and the workforce are committed to assisting a difficult decision-making process in Maynard so that the company will come down heavily in favour of Galway. They will facilitate in whatever way is necessary, whether it be the restructuring, the readaptation or the reorientation of the entire plant in Galway. This message was conveyed forcibly by me and very trenchantly and strongly by the Mayor of Galway and the city and county Manager.

The management are aware that we understand the difficulties of restructuring for the electronics industry in general because of the rapid development of technology in the computer industry but we have argued with them cogently that Ireland is a good location and a sound European base from which to penetrate other European markets and that major electronics companies like Intel, Dell and Apple export 90 per cent of their product to the EC market without hindrance or disability.

I am sorry the Deputy feels he was forced out of Government. I want to assure the Deputy——

Let us use the time to the best advantage.

Mr. Quinn

I am happy to stick to the subject. We are frequently accused in this House of coming in and reading scripts. I have come in and listened to what Deputies are saying and I am now responding.

Let me turn to the last point I want to make. Whatever the decision made by Digital, be it the one we all hope for, which is the consolidation of the plant in Galway, or the one we all dread, which is the closing of Digital Galway as Digital Clonmel, Mosteck and many other companies were closed, there is a lesson for us to learn. Until we start to take control and ownership of the economy for ourselves, and until such time as headquarters are rooted on this island and in this State, we will not have the sort of influence everybody in this House desires.

Deputy Cullen inquired as to the relevance of our motion to the Culliton report.

Mr. Cullen

In the context of a global market.

Mr. Quinn

In the context of a global market. We are concerned with multinational companies making strategic decisions about locating plants on this island, in this economy or elsewhere. The essence of Culliton and Telesis is that until such time as we have strong, indigenous Irish owned companies, irrespective of the nature of that ownership, we will always be subject to the last minute visits to headquarters in Tokyo, Chicago or in Massachusetts pleading to hold on to jobs that might remain here or go somewhere else. That is why Culliton is so important and why it is so important to have learned the lessons from what may be a very difficult decision by Digital.

The tone of the Fine Gael amendment and the tone of the contributions before the leader of the Fine Gael Party joined us were very constructive and supportive on these issues. How can we go into a Single Market when international competition is loosely regulated because of the difficulty of enforcement of competition law in a number of areas? How can we ensure that mobile investment is headquartered in this country, has a loyalty to this country and will make strategic decisions that are to our benefit?

The people of Galway in particular, and of the west of Ireland in general, have made a fantastic contribution to building up Digital. This was admitted repeatedly by the people in Maynard, Massachusetts. However, one thing we have learned is that notwithstanding that commitment, notwithstanding the £900 million of exports on average, over the last five years, and the profits they have made legitimately as a consequence of that, when it comes to major stategic decisions we are not in control. If the sovereignty of this Republic means anything, it is about regaining control over some of those key decisions. That is why the implementation of Culliton is worth doing.

This story is not over. The decision has not been made. There is an air of resignation in some quarters which I condemn. The Mayor of Galway, myself and others went to Digital headquarters in Massachusetts convinced that we could persuade them that on balance and notwithstanding all the arguments that appeared to be coming from the other side about the presence of Digital in Ayr and in Edinburgh, Galway in particular and Ireland in general was the best location for the future of Digital and for its return to profitability, which is ultimately the bottom line for that company. I am convinced that we made the best case possible on the day. I am assured that that case was consistently presented by Minister O'Malley last October, by his predecessors and by the IDA. There is nothing I have come across since Sunday, 4 October 1992, or since the election and during the formation of the Government, that would lead me to think that, because of changes that were taking place in this House, the presentation of the best argument to Digital was not made. For that reason I commend the amendment in my name and on behalf of the Government to the House.

Mr. J. Bruton

I wish to share my time with Deputies Connaughton and McCormack.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

Mr. J. Bruton

I compliment the Mayor of Galway because it would appear that within two hours of his contacting the Minister the Minister decided to visit Digital. Having heard the Minister's report, this was a good decision on the Minister's part and the meeting was useful.

It is obvious that this was a foreseeable event. The type of manufacture in which Digital is engaged in Galway, namely, main frame computers, increasingly has been supplanted by the fact that people are now available to do more of this work on personal computers linked into a network. That technological trend has been hanging over the Digital corporation and similar corporations for some time. As I said, these events were foreseeable.

Watching the Government's behaviour in this matter, it would appear that it was caught unaware by this development. It is clear that the then Minister was involved in discussions with Digital last October, but the Government's eye has not been on the ball in the meantime. There is no evidence that the Government was anything other than taken completely by surprise last Thursday when this matter developed so rapidly. It would appear also, although this is hard to confirm, that the British authorities were involved more intimately in the thought processes of the company. It would appear that up to two weeks ago or more, the British Prime Minister, or others on his behalf, made attractive offers to Digital which may have swayed them from their original decision to maintain the full operations in Galway and to close the operation in Ayr.

The Government's failure to keep its eye on the ball is a legitimate matter for public debate. I hope the situation has been retrieved by the initiative of the Minister and the Mayor of Galway. However, we must learn from the experience.

There are 30,000 people engaged in the computer related industry in this country, almost all of them in firms not Irish owned. There is approximately 30 per cent over-capacity in the computer industry worldwide. In some cases the market has been saturated and is not growing. Furthermore, the area of growth is in software. Given the very large commitment that Ireland has made to the electronics industry over the last 20 years, we are more vulnerable than most other European countries to any downturn or major structural change in this area. Therefore, more than any other country we should devote massive amounts of official time and policy time to understanding the forces at work in electronics and in the electronics industry. For example, we have in agriculture an industry which, in terms of its output, is not much more important. However, there are massive research and advisory resources devoted to monitoring trends in this industry. It would appear that we should be devoting as much attention to monitoring trends in electronics because we are as sensitive to losses in this area as to losses in agriculture.

It seems the Minister is unclear about what he will be able to do about what would appear to be unfair competitive intervention by the British Prime Minister. The Minister spoke in a resigned way about the difficulties of enforcing European Community law. Given the importance of this matter he should tell us exactly what he is going to do rather than talk about the difficulties involved. He is the Minister responsible for this area; he is not a commentator or observer. He is responsible for competition policy. At the Council of Ministers he is responsible for making Ireland's case on competition and on industrial policies. If he believes, as I think he does, that there is unfair competition from the British he should tell the House what he will do about it rather than helplessly wringing his hands.

He also spoke about the Culliton report in a fashion that suggested he did not understand it. For example, he said that part of the Culliton report would involve regaining national control of industry. However, if one wishes to survive in the electronics sector, one must export. The company, whether Irish or foreign owned, is not in control as the market determines its fate. The same forces affect Irish and American owned mainframe computer manufacturers and the Minister does not seem to understand that.

Both foreign and Irish owned companies require a strategic vision of how the Irish electronics industry should develop and that was absent from the Minister's speech. He did not suggest how that industry should develop; he did not identify growth areas — apart from software — where Ireland has competitive strengths, and he did not present an analysis of the development of the European electronics industry. It is the responsibility of the Department to have the capacity to think strategically and the lack of that capacity is one of the great defects in the formulation of this country's industrial policy. The Department has become a downtown office for the IDA rather than a body which is formulating a strategic plan for major sectors like electronics or pharmaceuticals in which we have a major investment.

I am disappointed that the Minister did not have a view of the future of electronics and could not reassure Members who are conscious of how many jobs are committed to that sector. The Minister did not refer to the much famed job protection unit proposed in the Programme for a Partnership Government. There is no indication of how it will be funded or of it would have any role in the Digital case. If the unit was a serious initiative — and it was presented as such — the Minister should have been able to tell us about its resources and role in relation to Digital. He did not mention it, thereby indicating his lack of seriousness in that matter.

We are told, every St. Patrick's Day, of Irish influence in the US Congress. However, one of the factors adversely affecting US investment in Ireland at present is the change in American economic policy initiated by a Democratic President and supported by a Democratic majority in Congress. Irish influence should be used to ensure that we do not suffer from protectionist trends that may develop in American economic policy. The Minister did not discuss this issue. It was a casual speech delivered in the Minister's relaxed style. In some senses it was an informative speech, but it did not demonstrate, either politically or technologically, a strategic plan to deal with the situation. Although he spoke of regaining control of the issue, he did not seem to be in control of it.

There has been some controversy about the Taoiseach involving Dr. Tony O'Reilly in this matter. I have no criticism to make of that decision and I do not believe it is a reflection on the Minister that Dr. O'Reilly should have been asked to use his influence. That being the case, why does the Taoiseach not consider intervening? One of the strongest cases the Minister could make — I compliment him on not having made it — is that, by locating in Ireland, an American electronics company is locating within Europe. Over recent days it has become clear that Britain has become semi-detached from Europe. It is not sure if it will ratify the Maastricht Treaty, it has already negotiated major exemptions from the Treaty and it is not certain that Britain will be one of the European team. The best person to make that case in the board rooms of America is not the Minister for Enterprise and Employment but the Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach spent a week in the United States during September but apparently did not meet Digital representatives during his visit. As a former Minister for Industry and Commerce and a former Minister for Finance, the Taoiseach, rather than immuring himself in Government Buildings, should visit America to impress on the US authorities and on the authorities in Digital the importance of this plant to Ireland. More importantly, he should emphasise to Digital the potential for profit in Ireland because of the standard of our infrastructure and education, the 10 per cent corporation tax relief which is not available in Britain and the fact that we are part of Europe whereas Britain is detaching itself from Europe.

These valid arguments should have been advanced in a more planned way by the Government and not in the haphazard way they seem to have been advanced. The Mayor of Galway had the initiative to ring the Minister who then decided he would travel to the US. The person who deserves most of the credit for this visit is the Mayor of Galway who took the initiative and asked the Minister to travel. Why give the Minister credit for having responded quickly when the ititiative was suggested to him? What would have happened if the Mayor of Galway had not made that phone call? Would there have been a visit? The Minister should be politically accountable for his lack of planning.

Politics makes a difference in this issue. It is not just an issue of commerce and technology. The intervention of the British Prime Minister would appear to have made a difference; the changes in economic policy in the United States would appear to be making a difference, therefore it is legitimate that this House should discuss the issue. It would have been foolish if the Government had got its way, as suggested by the Taoiseach, and had the debate postponed until a decision was made. Could anything be more foolish or be a greater indication of the irrelevance of this House than debating this issue after the decision was made? We did not agree and thus our party indicated that this House is still relevant to examining policy making. I hope this debate will serve a useful purpose.

Mr. McCormack

There is a serious situation in Galway due to the threatened closure of the Digital plant. I hope it does not happen but the signs are not good. The workers in Digital and their families have been through a very tense time over the last four days. I appeal to Members to concentrate on the issue rather than any other aspect of the debate.

The speculation was so intense in Galway on Thursday and Friday that, as the Minister acknowledged, I took the initiative and contacted both the Minister's office and the Digital plant in Galway. I was available, as Mayor of Galway, to do anything in my power to resolve the situation. I was pleased to accept an offer to travel to Digital headquarters on Sunday with the Minister, Deputy Quinn, Kieran McGowan of the IDA and the Galway City and County Manager, Seamus Keating.

The reports in the evening papers before we left for America were devastating and, if we had not been strong willed people, we might have been inclined to turn back. I will quote from one of the headlines: "Digital to close; 3,000 jobs lost, decision has already been made". That article quoted high Government sources, not me or anybody in Galway. However, determined to approach this matter in a positive manner, we ignored media speculation. At the international headquarters of Digital in Massachusetts we met Bob Palmer, the manager, and four high ranking officials of Digital who listened to our case. We presented a solid case for the retention of the Digital plant in Galway. I put some proposals on behalf of Galway to the management and was assured that they would be considered. I was also assured that a decision would not be made until we had been in touch with Digital again. I was able to go to Galway early this morning to make other contacts in this regard. I am not without hope that this matter can be resolved because I was able to make the point that Digital is now part of Galway.

Digital arrived in Galway 22 years ago when the city had a population of 25,000. It was then estimated it would employ 180 people; now it employs 1,300 people directly and many more indirectly. The population of Galway has increased in those 22 years from 25,000 to 52,000. Digital has grown with Galway and is now part of Galway. Our deputation was able to make that case.

We were also able to say that Digital was good to Galway but Galway was also good to Digital. In the mid-1970s and early 1980s the profits of Digital's Galway plant was in millions. Digital was catered for in every way. The Galway site is bigger than any unit outside Digital headquarters. Galway provided the infrastructure, the site and other services for Digital. The airport was built almost wholly to facilitate Digital. We were proud of Digital. People visiting Galway with the intention of setting up business there were shown the successful Digital plant and told how happy management were with the plant. I was able to point out that after 22 years in Galway, Digital now had a more skilled workforce than any other plant. The management acknowledged to the deputation that they were very satisfied and happy with the plant and the workforce in Galway. Our approach was very positive and acknowledged the serious contribution of the Minister and the other people who attended. My only regret was that the visit did not take place a month ago. I regret to have to say that because we were assured that no decision had been taken, and I accept that, but Mr. Palmer pointed out that a decision was imminent. It is our visit that is now stalling the decision for a few days and I hope it will be in our favour. However, the fact that we were not there in time may prove costly in the end but I hope it does not.

There was a breakdown in communications, not anybody's fault but solely because of the situation in this country since mid-October when Deputy O'Malley visited the plant. We were told on our visit that for eight months Digital had been considering rationalisation worldwide.

Deputy O'Malley acknowledges that he was there at that time but since then, there has been an uncertain political climate in this country. We were in the middle of the beef tribunal, which eventually led to an election, Deputy O'Malley left Government and Deputy Flynn was appointed Minister for Industry and Commerce. I suspect Deputy Flynn had a lot on his mind during that time.

Deputy Bertie Ahern became Minister for Industry and Commerce for a short time but I suspect he did not concentrate all his efforts on the future of Digital either, not because he was not interested but because of the high level talks about the formation of a Government which lasted seven weeks. This is something we must look at. People thought the situation was not serious but it may now prove to have been very serious. We must look back and ensure that this does not happen again in the life of this Parliament because we are supposed to be looking after the interests of the State.

During that period our competitors saw the gap and negotiated while we were in turmoil and did not know from day to day if we were going to have a Government or another election. Those are the factors which affected our case. During a general election everybody, including myself is more concerned with getting re-elected, that is our job. After an election, Members are concerned with negotiations to form a Government. Normally that is not a major event but, on this occasion, it took seven weeks negotiations, or pretence at negotiations. For the good of the country this must not happen again because now Galway is going to pay a price.

I hope that because of our mission to Boston we can reverse some of the perceived damage done at that time. I am only going by press reports as I have no further knowledge of the situation. We received a hearing from Mr. Palmer. He is no softy and I do not think he would have met with us for over an hour — he might not mind wasting the Minister's and my time but he would not waste his own time — unless he was going to take account of what we were saying. I was delighted to have had the opportunity, on behalf of the people of Galway, to present in the strongest language the damage the closure of this plant could do to Galway. Losing Digital would tear Galway asunder, it would be like a person losing two arms because Galway is part of Digital and Digital is part of Galway.

Three weeks ago, as Mayor of Galway, I had the privilege to attend a party where up to 500 senior citizens from Galway sat down to a dinner courtesy of Digital, Galway. During the Galway races there is a sponsored Galway Digital plate. Those are only two examples of how much Digital is involved in Galway.

I want to thank the people of Galway for the support they have given me in the mission I undertook with the Minister, Deputy Quinn, Mr. McGowan and the City and County Manager, Seamus Keating. I thank them for their good wishes, prayers and masses. If we have been negligent in any way since October I hope the faith of the people may save Digital and I will be glad if I have played some part in that.

Mr. Connaughton

I am amazed that the Taoiseach proposed that this debate should not take place this evening. More than 2,000 families are directly affected by the greatest upheaval they are ever likely to experience. There would be little point in holding this debate this day week should the decision go the wrong way for us. I am amazed at the Taoiseach's political judgment on this issue.

Like Deputies McCormack and Molloy, I feel the heat in the kitchen. Digital is not just another factory in Galway; Digital means 1,200 jobs with another 2,000 ancillary jobs. We and the IDA have always regarded Digital as the flagship of the west. It was used by the IDA as a symbol of excellence when negotiating multinational contracts. We were extremely proud of Digital Galway who for the past 22 years have been excellent employers.

Digital provided excellent job opportunities for the best and brightest young men and women leaving our universities and regional technical colleges. Digital in Galway must have the best trained workforce in Ireland. Should the company have to leave Galway, I would consider it the mother of all closures in modern times. It would have an enormous impact on the society I have come to know so well in the west and on the workers and their families. The Minister, Deputy Quinn, did not avert tonight to the effect it will have on the suppliers of goods and services of the company. They will be absolutely devastated.

I must now deal with some of the questions left unanswered by the Minister's contribution tonight. Why was there such a lapse between last October, when Deputy O'Malley visited the Digital plant in America, and the present Minister's visit? The Government and the nation must have been aware that everyone working in Digital, particularly since last Christmas, was very vocal about their anxiety for their jobs in Galway. That has been the position for the last six weeks. If workers were anxious Ministers must have known about it. I acknowledge the great work done by the IDA but they would find it difficult to compete against a phone call from John Major. That is the problem. If that actually happened the IDA should not have been the people to speak to the company.

I am appalled no ministerial visit was planned last Friday and Saturday. The Minister can shake his head but that is the way it is. Whoever else was planning to go, or whenever it was planned, it was not decided before this weekend. When Deputy McCormack, the Mayor of Galway, rang on Friday morning he was told the Minister would be contacted but he was left in no doubt there was nothing planned by the Minister at that time. The initiative was taken after that. I understood both Minister Quinn and Deputy McCormack put up a wonderful show when they got there but for the 2,000 people affected, it was too little too late. The Minister said nothing tonight that would lead me to believe otherwise.

Why did the Taoiseach not adopt a higher profile? Where was the Minister for Foreign Affairs? This company is very important to this country. If we are to lose an industry as influential as this, it would affect everyone in this State, not just in Galway and the west. I cannot understand why the Minister for Foreign Affairs did not use our embassies and other contacts on this occasion. I believe he made no effort to save this plant.

It is said the English Government exerted pressure or gave inducements to Digital. I cannot blame them for doing that. I understood there was a strict EC competition policy and I would like the Minister to explain to this House if there is one and who polices it. Commissioner Flynn was on television last night and he did everything but answer what 2,000 people in Galway wanted to know.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but the time available to him is nearly exhausted.

Mr. Connaughton

There were many other matters I wanted to mention. It does not matter what the Minister, Deputy Quinn, has to say about the former Minister, Deputy O'Malley's enforced departure from the Government. The 2,000 enforced redundancies in Galway, will weigh heavily on whoever caused them.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise and Employment (Mrs. O'Rourke)

With your permission and that of the House, I wish to share my time with Deputies Michael Kitt and Noel Treacy.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am glad to speak on the Government amendment to this motion and to support the consensus approach adopted by the Lord Mayor of Galway. He found it difficult to restrain himself in the debate but I appreciate his patriotism and his fine display of citizenship in serving the people of Galway as Lord Mayor in travelling with the Minister, Deputy Quinn, to Boston to put the country's case. Both he and the Minister said the meeting was fruitful and productive and that is what we should emphasise.

I see no reason we should divide on a vote. In this debate we can show all of us in this Chamber are united in the task before us, that is, the task of persuasion which has already borne fruit in Boston and the continuing of that process. It would be of no avail to have either an acrimonous debate or a division on a vote. It is only semantics about the words on the Order Paper which divide us. The purpose and the objective of all of us, in our professional duties, our constituency duties or our political parties, is to keep the fine Digital plant in Galway.

It was for that purpose that the Lord Mayor, the Minister, the IDA and Government officials went to Boston to put our case. Nothing can take from that or from the fine case put forward. In those discussions, the capabilities and the adaptability of the workforce in Galway through every level of the operation was discussed. In particular mention was made of the great education given to the many fine workers in Digital. The educational attainment would give them a degree of flexiblity which we all agree would not be found in any other Digital operation, particularly the Ayr branch.

There was a sustained effort by past Governments, interim Governments and this Government to keep a watchful eye on Digital. Former Ministers and others have said that because Governments negotiated eveything stood still. I am getting tired of that being said in every debate. We are told our eyes were off the ball. Our eyes were on the ball. Elected persons, those still in their stations, the Departments and the IDA were all clearly attending to their duties. It is erroneous to say there was any misplacement of duties during any period. From perusal of the files and talking to officials and political figures, I know the whole matter of Digital was addressed in a comprehensive fashion. For a long time, the future of the company was being comprehensively addressed and the case for Ireland was being put forward.

The Progressive Democrats have now brought in their own amendment which is a slightly toned down version, for which they are commended, but I ask this question: if the other political parties believe that the voice of this Dáil will be heard in Boston, why not let it be a united voice. Why not continue the spirit which prevailed on the cross-party trip taken in the last few days, the very clear case they put and what I believe will be a fruitful outcome. Why not let one voice go from this Dáil that we are all encouraged and remain committed to the Digital operation in Galway, to its very fine workforce and to a continuation of its viability in that fine city? I ask the Opposition to consider that seriously. Do not divide this House when we all seek the one objective.

Éamon Ó Cuív

Tá áthas orm deis a fháil labhairt ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo. For anybody living in Galway the possible consequences of a closure or a scaling down of Digital are horrific. We must all pull together. It is not a time for recriminations or about who did what and when. That would be equivalent to a football team arguing among themselves with five minutes to go and one point down. Our obligation is to fight this united, to the line. As someone who has spent 20 years creating employment, I know the effect the creation of employment can have on a community and I also know the effects of the loss of employment. In the last 25 years Galway city has changed dramatically in its prosperity and development. A large part of that on the industrial front was played by Digital. It gave many young people in the area a chance to be involved in the modern technological industries that were coming on stream. Therefore, it is of tremendous importance that we all stand together to ensure the retention of Digital in Galway.

A factor often overlooked in job loss is the knock-on effect in the community. It is estimated that for every direct job lost, three to four jobs are lost in spin-off services, supplies and in general loss of money to the economy. That certainly would be the case with Digital because the various services supplied to them had a huge spin-off effect, and a much greater one that many other multinational companies in different areas. What is at stake here is not 1,100 jobs but 3,000 or 4,000 jobs. We must stick together, work right to the line and until decisions are made to ensure that this factory is saved. We must also think of the individuals. Sometimes we get caught up with numbers and forget that each worker represents a family, that for each person laid off there is an individual trauma and whether the number laid off is on a small or large scale, many individuals will suffer great hardship. This applies in all cases.

It is very important to put structures in place to support individuals, in post lay-off situations, because often one of the tragedies is that everybody thinks, works and talks about what is happening until the decision is made but then forgets that the people laid off have to live with that situation, often in the long term. Therefore, the people in Galway will need support on an ongoing basis if this happens. However, our first effort must be to ensure, if possible, that there are no lay-offs.

The point has been made again and again regarding what Galway has to offer Digital. I do not need to repeat them but it is fair to say that for everything that Digital gave Galway, Galway gave something back to Digital — the dedication of the workforce, the loyalty of the city, etc.

There is always the problem with multinationals that decisions are going to be made not only on the basis of the bottom line but on what they term a global strategy. We must ensure as far as possible that the global strategy will favour Galway as the European location.

The best efforts have been made by the Government. The divisive talk I have heard in the last few days adds nothing to the debate. I commend the Minister, the Taoiseach and Mayor McCormack and the many others who are endeavouring to sustain this industry in Galway. I hope for a united effort between now and whenever a decision is made to ensure that this industry which is vital to Galway is maintained. When the crisis passes, the time would then be right to examine the seeds of the recurring crises occurring in this type of industry and to examine other strategies that could be applied in the future; reference has been made to Telesis and Culliton. The short term aim must be to ensure that Digital remains in Galway.

Ceist rí-thábhachtach í seo do chathair na Gaillimhe go príomha agus do chontae na Gaillimhe go hiomlán. Geallaim go dtabharfaidh mé pé tacaíocht is féidir liom don Rialtas agus do dhuine ar bith éile a dhéanfaidh iarracht an mhonarcha seo a choimeád i nGailleamh. Tá tábhacht thar cuimse ag baint leis ó thaobh rath an phobail. Níl aon amhras ann, má dhúnann Digital, ní hamháin go gcaillfear uimhir suntasach jobanna ach go mbrisfear ar mhisneach an phobail. Ba thubaisteach dá mbuailfí a leithéid de bhuille ar cheantar inar cothaíodh an oiread sin misnigh le 20 bliain anuas.

Mr. M. Kitt

Tá áthas orm deis a fháil labhairt ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo.

I congratulate the Minister and the Minister of State and thank them and the Mayor of Galway, Deputy McCormack, Mr. Seamus Keating, City and County Manager, Mr. Kieran McGowan and his officials in the IDA for their visit which was very helpful to the Digital company and the people of Galway. We may be arguing here tonight about whether we kept our eye on the ball but we all agree that we should work together to save these jobs.

As a Deputy from east Galway, I would love to have a flag ship company like Digital located there. While that is not possible a large number of people from north Galway in particular travel to Galway to work in Digital. Transporting people to Digital in Galway city is almost an industry in itself. To put the record straight, if we are arguing about a lack of ministerial involvement, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn made it clear in his contribution, and I quote:

In recent months my predecessor visited Boston on two occasions with the express purpose of advancing the case of Digital, Galway and to meet the President of Digital.

It is clear that his predecessor visited Boston on two occasions and that has been endorsed by various Ministers. I am glad that has been highlighted by the Minister this evening because the impression may be given that nothing happened since Deputy O'Malley last visited Massachusetts.

Many small firms supply Digital, many of them in my own constituency, and people working in these firms will suffer if Digital is to close. That must be borne in mind. Furthermore, services such as security, canteen facilities and cleaning services are provided by contractors who might go out of business if Digital closed.

Every step must be taken to save this company. In my own constituency multinationals have been in difficulty and people have been laid off. Some companies have put workers on a three day week in order to stabilise the situation and then return to a five day week. I hope these steps will be taken. Digital has been committed to the arts in Galway, to the Galway Races and the rugby internationals and has provided many services for the elderly in the form of entertainments and a park in Galway. That is a testament to the company's commitment to Galway and I hope our debate will unanimously send out the message that we want to preserve these jobs for the people of Galway.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. N. Treacy)

It gives me no pleasure to intervene in this debate on the future of one of the most important companies in our country. For 22 years Digital has been the most important employer in the city and county of Galway. Its annual financial value to Galway was £100 million. This consists of approximately £40 million in wages, PAYE and State taxes, £20 million on sub-assembly and component manufacture and a further £40 million in supply and ancillary services and consumer demand.

Last year Digital International lost $2.8 billion on its worldwide operations. Since then the company has been restructured into nine divisions, each of which reports to the new chief executive, Mr. Robert Palmer. It is now clear that the board of Digital have decided to downsize their entire operation and when they announced in April 1992 a plan to shed 30,000 jobs we all felt that as 6,000 of their staff were involved in the United Kingdom sales the quality of the Galway workforce would ensure their survival as an integral, permanent part of the entire Digital operation.

As a Member representing East Galway I am fully aware of the key economic importance of Digital to our area. Many of my friends, neighbours and constituents work in Digital. Members of families work there, in some cases up to five family members, many of whom married, work in the same Ballybrit plant. People from Tuam, Athenry, Loughrea and Ballinasloe and from the many adjoining rural parishes are all employed in this excellent company. Digital Galway is still operating and performing as efficiently as ever. The staff of the company are absolutely positive in their attitude to the future of the company.

Digital is a market leader. It is a flagship Irish company both nationally and internationally. Digital has been an exemplary corporate entity in the opportunities it has provided by way of employment for the people of the western region and the support it has given to many voluntary bodies and organisations in Galway and throughout the country.

In addition to its importance as a major employer in the area, Digital has financially supported the establishment of the Galway Regional Airport, the Western Cardiac Foundation and the National Breast Cancer Research Institute in University College Hospital. It sponsors the annual old folks' party in Merlin Park Regional Hospital and the Digital Galway Plate in the historic racecourse situated beside its Galway operation. It provided the funds for the establishment of an old folks' park in Salthill and maintains it annually. In the past it has sponsored County Galway GAA hurling and football teams and at present sponsors our international rugby team.

I put these facts on the record of this House to show clearly the involvement in and importance of Digital to the economic, commercial and cultural life of the west, in particular, and the nation in general. It is a truly humane and outstanding organisation. Today there are 1,250 people employed directly by Digital in Galway. Of these 1,100 are permanent and 150 are temporary. There are a further 2,000 jobs which depend on the orders for supplies and services required by and for Digital. We cannot contemplate the catastrosphic effect and diminution of service or reduction in the Digital workforce on our region, the most peripheral in Europe.

I have listened to all speakers in this debate here this evening. There is no point trying to pretend that the international recession has not had effect on mobile business. For the past number of months rumours have been going around concerning Digital. Listening to some speakers this evening one would think that Digital held a large invisible umbrella between Ireland and the international recession. The facts suggest otherwise.

During past months I have had discussions regarding Digital with the Taoiseach, with former Minister Flynn and ministerial colleagues, Minister Geoghegan-Quinn, Minister O'Rourke and Minister Quinn. I have had several discussions with senior executives in the IDA. I am absolutely satisfied that the Taoiseach and members of the Government have kept and are continuing to keep the maximum pressure on the parent company.

Minister Quinn and his colleagues are doing their utmost to save this huge employer. I commend both him and Mayor McCormack for the political unity of purpose in their approach to this serious matter. I know the Government, in conjunction with the IDA, has ensured that the most responsible and flexible attitude of support is available to Digital. On behalf of 2,000 families in Galway and the west in general, I appeal to everybody here and throughout the country to work together, as my colleague Minister O'Rourke said, to ensure that we can save Digital, one of our country's premier employers.

Acting Chairman (Ms F. Fitzgerald)

I call on Deputy De Rossa. I understand the final 20 minutes is to be shared.

Proinsias De Rossa

I propose to share my time with Deputy Gilmore.

There have been a number of calls from the Government side for a reasoned and non-acrimonious debate this evening and there is little doubt there is widespread agreement that that should be the case. However, not only have some of the contributions from the Government side tended towards the acrimonious and nit-picking, but the efforts by the Taoiseach today to have this debate stopped and, failing that, to ensure that the debate took place just tonight and not tomorrow also, seems to indicate that for some reason the Government is not at all anxious to air the issues tomorrow. What is the Government afraid may develop over the next 24 hours?

The Taoiseach's remarks today in the House which imputed some lack of national concern on the part of Opposition parties were unworthy of him. The implication that we have to stand up, beat our breasts and claim to be as concerned as the Government about the national interest or jobs is unworthy of the Taoiseach. The arrogance with which the Taoiseach has sought to dictate the terms in which Private Members' Business should take place indicates that he considers the only valid viewpoint to be that of the Government side and that alternative views are not to be heard.

It seems to me that while there is obviously a case to be made to retain Digital in this country and to maintain the jobs involved, I do not believe that lets the Government off the hook in relation to how they handled this matter. It cannot have come as a surprise that Digital was in trouble. There were press reports about proposed lay-offs in Digital as early as last July. There were reports of Digital making decisions to reduce their workforce by up to 30,000 as early as last April. The panic over the past week, when it became known publicly that this was the case, indicates that the Government took its eye off the ball. There is no imputation in what I am saying in relation to the IDA, the Departments concerned, or any of the other agencies whose responsibility it is to monitor these matters.

The fact that the IDA or the Department monitors and tracks what is occurring on any particular issue does not automatically mean that the Minister of the day is actually pursuing the objectives which it is indicated to him or her should be pursued. On the basis of the evidence available to us, and nothing the Minister, Deputy Quinn said in the House today indicates anything to the contrary, certainly before the general election, precious little had been done at political level as distinct from official level, to guarantee the jobs at Digital.

There have been demands and exhortations that we should not have an acrimonious debate, that this House should not divide on this issue by way of a vote tonight. I agree with that view. There should not be a vote if at all possible. Before 8.40 p.m. efforts should be made by the various parties to reach an agreement on a motion of this House. My party has put down an amendment which is an addendum to the Fine Gael motion, but I am quite prepared to look at alternative wordings to avoid this House dividing on the issue.

I received an invitation this morning from the Taoiseach to meet him along with the Leader of the Progressive Democrats, Deputy O'Malley, and the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy J. Bruton. I assumed the purpose of that meeting was to discuss a joint approach to this debate. Instead we were met with a request, if not a demand, that the debate not take place at all. We were told it would not be in the national interest and if we were not agreeable to that, the Taoiseach would insist that the debate be concluded tonight. There was no request that we try to reach an agreed position here tonight. That is surprising, to say the least. It is surprising in view of the claims from the Government benches that what is being sought is a united approach to the problem at Digital in Galway. I am certain this side of the house will co-operate if the Government is serious about seeking such an agreed position.

If the Digital plant should close or shed the number of jobs being talked about, there is no doubt it would be a tragedy for the workers of that factory who stand to lose relatively well paid jobs which they — and most of us up to about a year ago — thought were quite secure. It would be a body blow to the city and county of Galway which already has 15,600 people on the live register. The loss of such a huge number of jobs would send economic and social shock waves throughout the community. When one considers the spin-off jobs which would also be lost in Galway in supplier companies, in the retail and leisure areas, in the motor industry, in the transport and construction sectors, the potential economic damage is incalculable. On a pro rata basis, it would be equivalent to the loss of about 5,000 jobs in the Dublin area.

Digital is highly thought of in Galway. I hope the management will recognise the efforts put into the company by the workforce and the generous support they have received from the Irish taxpayers. I hope Digital will show that it is not just another company in the computer and electronics areas which is prepared to take the money and run. Some companies accept lavish grants and generous tax breaks when times are good but are quick to pull out or substantially scale down their operations at the first sign of difficulty. There are many examples of companies which have done just that in the Irish industrial area. Companies like Nixdorf, Prime Computers, Maxtor, Seagate, Apple and Wang are all firms in this sector which either failed to deliver on their job creation promises, pulled out altogether, or substantially reduced their operations in this country. Unfortunately, there is nothing new about the Digital crisis; only the potential scale of the job losses makes it unique.

A further point needs to be made in this regard. There have been reports of substantial inducements being offered by the British authorities to Digital to retain the Ayr factory rather than the Galway plant. That emphasises yet again a point I have made consistently in this House, namely, the need for a common industrial policy at European level. There is increasing evidence of multinationals engaging in Dutch auctions over grants and being prepared to switch production from one country to another, without any consideration for the social consequences. There is a need for urgent action to deal with that approach by multinationals.

Irish plants of multinational companies are all too vulnerable to decisions which take no account of the social consequences of the job losses. When a multinational sneezes, it is an Irish plant that catches cold. Decisions are being made in boardrooms in Boston, Bonn and Tokyo that can result in thousands of Irish workers being dumped out of work, and entire communities being plunged into economic crisis.

I ask the Minister to consider the points made earlier. It is possible to get an agreed position here tonight.

Mr. Gilmore

I come from Galway and share the views expressed here this evening by Deputies, particularly those who represent the two Galway constituencies and adjoining constituencies, regarding the devastation which the closure of Digital, or a serious reduction in the numbers employed there, will mean for the Galway area and the west. I know of neighbours and friends who will be devastated by the loss of this employment.

I also speak as one of a series of trade union officials who attempted, unsuccessfully, to encourage employees at the Digital plant to become members of a trade union. I share the generous comments made by the General Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Mr. Peter Cassells, on Friday evening last when he said that Digital was one of the best employers in this country. It had one of the highest levels of pay and one of the highest standards of employment conditions of any company of its kind in this country. I wonder, however, if the eleventh hour crisis which we now find ourselves in might have been averted if the employees in Digital had been plugged into the wider family of the trade union movement with all its research facilities, resources and understanding of the international forces that can cause a decision like this to be made. I do not believe any decision of this kind is necessarily sudden. One sees the writing on the wall and there are signals that one can read. Some reflection should be given to why we find ourselves in this situation.

Like Deputy De Rossa, I do not believe this is an occasion for recrimination. If Digital closes and there is a serious loss of employment, there will be plenty of time to attribute political blame. At this crucial stage, our objective should be to see how we can contribute positively towards ensuring that Digital and its employment remains in Galway and continues to contribute to the economic life of Galway, the region and this country.

The Digital affair raises two issues about industrial strategy. The first concerns what Deputy De Rossa referred to as our over-reliance on multinational companies as part of our industrial strategy. None of us will refuse the employment a multinational company will bring to this country. However, there have been reports going back to Telesis and more recently the Culliton report, that have identified the weakness in our industrial strategy regarding over-reliance on multinational companies. There are too many cities and towns in this country too heavily dependent on a handful of multinational companies for their employment and economic life.

A decision made in a boardroom in the United States or in Germany can have the effect of creating economic and social devastation in too many towns in this country. Often we find ourselves having to compete against — as we know in this particular case — unfavourable and unfair competition in order to retain employment. There is something pathetic about a Minister, a Mayor of a city and a head of our Industrial Development Authority having to rush across the Atlantic to plead for employment to be retained. It damages our pride as a people.

The effect of a closure at Digital is not just confined to Galway and to the western region; the ramifications of the Digital affair are reverberating across the country. No matter how secure the jobs of employees in multinational companies may appear on the surface, they are asking themselves if a good long-standing, apparently secure employment like Digital can pull up and leave, or be about to do so, where does it leave them in relation to their own employment? In turn, that raises a question referred to by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment which relates to the European Community dimension.

It has been mentioned that, in a way, we are being outbid by the United Kingdom Government in some kind of economic auction for the location of the Digital plant. The question of EC competition law and whether it can be invoked has been raised. The Minister for Enterprise and Employment referred to the case he made about the concerns Digital should have about staying onside in terms of its relationship with the European Community and the importance for it as a company not to engage in some kind of social dumping.

The affair also raises a question about the absense of an industrial policy in the European Community. Many of us wonder where is all the fine talk now about cohesion and European solidarity when we find ourselves in a situation in which there is no industrial strategy in the European Community regarding investment and the location of plants and, at the same time, when our neighbouring state can effectively flout the competition laws of the European Community in order to outbid this State for the location of the Digital plant.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

I wish to share my time with Deputies Higgins and Bruton.

I come from Clonmel and it is for that reason I join in this debate. I am sure Members of the House realise that, above anybody else, I can understand the dismay and apprehension of the Galway community with the bombshell news of the threat to the Digital plant. Unfortunately, it is too similar to what happened in Clonmel.

In April 1991, Clonmel had bombshell news; the threat to 350 jobs at the Clonmel plant. In our situation, as in Galway, the same hopes were raised, the same missions were undertaken and the same commitments were given; unfortunately, the outcome was total closure. I join here tonight to plead that everything possible be done to ensure that Galway does not have to experience what my home town experienced because of the closure of its main employer, the Digital plant with the loss of 350 jobs.

On that occasion in April 1991, we sent a delegation to Geneva to meet with Mr. Palmer and to put the Clonmel case before him. We returned with promises that some jobs would be retained but the outcome was a delayed closure. Today, that plant is closed and 350 jobs have been lost in Clonmel. It has been said that the warning signals of the threat to the Digital plant in Galway were there since last October. I disagree; the warnings about the future of the Digital plant in Galway have been there since spring 1991 when the Digital plant closed in Clonmel.

The Clonmel plant closed because of the downturn in the electronics industry and because many of the components that Digital were producing had become obsolete. Anybody involved in employment and the protection of industry in our country should have foreseen that what happened in Clonmel, at a later date, could happen in Galway. Even at a that stage it was widely known that Digital would have to shed more of its workforce but we did not know where.

The Government has been too lax. I would like to know what communication and dialogue was maintained with the management of Digital to ensure that when further closures had to be made it would not be a plant in Ireland that would be affected. That opportunity was not used to maximum effect. The Government owed it to the workers in Digital; we should have known it was an industry that would come under further threat and it was very remiss of us to allow any other country to get in before us to make a better case.

I feel sad for the workers in Galway. I feel sad for the Galway community because I know what the effects have been on the community in Clonmel following the closure of its major employer. It has had a devastating effect on the entire economy and on the commercial, social and cultural life of the town. The market for houses has absolutely ceased and we even lost teachers in our schools because of the movement of the workforce and their families away from Clonmel. I extend my sympathies to people from Clonmel, some 100 families who, on the closure of Digital, moved to Galway. They uprooted their families, changed schools, gave up their homes and now find themselves faced with redundancy.

I do not want to see happening to Galway what happened to Clonmel. I regret that no lessons were learned from the Clonmel experience. The warning signals were there since 1991. We have not been faithful to the Digital workforce and the community in Galway by not recognising the danger signals and not taking action when it should have been taken.

Mr. J. Higgins

I do not want to be fatalistic but the harsh reality is that the west is dying on its feet. That is not hyperbole, rhetoric or sensationalism; it is a fact. Our population is scattered throughout the building yards of Boston, Brisbane and Birmingham. Instead of being arrested, the rot continues. The closure of Digital in Galway, if it happens, will be well and truly a king-size nail in the coffin of the west. I can well appreciate the feeling of bewilderment now being experienced in Galway. This week last year the United Meat Packers crisis broke in my native home town and in the neighbouring town of Ballaghaderreen when 600 workers faced a similarly bleak future. Thankfully, the plants were taken over, they are up and running again and the workers are back at their jobs.

As has been so eloquently said here, this is not simply a case of 1,100 jobs being lost; we are talking about 1,100 families being affected. We are talking about the additional spin-off jobs. We are talking about the loss of the flagship industry in the region, a region which has been a hard sell to foreign industrialists, but which, on the other hand, has proved very profitable as a base once those industrialists were convinced to come there. While foreign industry has given much needed employment in the regions, such foreign investment has been handsomely repaid in terms of billions of pounds of repatriated profits.

We are talking about the economic, social and human devastation of a region. If these jobs go we will be talking, as and from next month, about unpaid mortgages and house repossessions. We will be talking about the loss of the family car. We will be talking about how it will affect parents' choice of schools for their children. We will be talking about whether people can pay for their medical care or have to take their place in the already too long queues at the Regional Hospital in Merlin Park and we will be talking about people's existence and their standard of living. We will be talking about bread on the table. There is an imminent human tragedy which must be headed off. I do not care what means the Government has to use, political or economic, or a combination of both. I do not care what ingenuity or effort the Government has to resort to, or what steps have to be taken. Digital must be saved.

I do not know if this closure can be averted. I honestly believe it could have been averted and that the previous Government more so than the present one was asleep when this was happening.

As Deputy Ahearn said, the writing was on the wall with the closure of the Clonmel plant. That should have alerted the Government to the fact that major rationalisation plans were afoot. As Deputy Bruton said, the Taoiseach was in the United States last September for a very high profile meeting with 50 American industrialists. Even though the Digital rationalisation plans were well under way and well known at international level, the company does not seem to have been included on the list of invitees to meet the Taoiseach. I doubt if a single job has emerged from the Taoiseach's high profile and much-vaunted visit. Yet 2,200 jobs at a minimum are in real danger of going to the wall because we were outflanked and out-manoeuvred by the British Government who knew exactly what was happening, who read the imminent danger signals and relentlessly pushed Scotland's case at the highest possible level. Fairly or otherwise effective political interventions were made by the British Government, apart altogether from distortions or possible breaches of competition rules and regulations. Perhaps we are too good Europeans in this country with layers of bureaucracy brought into play to introduce many of the regulations, structures and guidelines that we take upon ourselves as part of being proud to be in Europe.

The signals were there. The then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy O'Malley, saw the danger signals last October but, because the Coalition broke up, responsibility fell to the then Fianna Fáil appointee as Minister for Industry and Commerce, the former Deputy Flynn. He already had more than enough ministerial baggage. It is quite evident that the Fianna Fáil Government, the caretaker or interim Government, took its eye off the ball. Eventually when it became known, it would seem that Digital had been allowed to slip through the Government's fingers. I hope it is not too late to save Digital.

I do not want to disparage the efforts of the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn. I believe that he genuinely made every effort to save the plant once the crisis came to his attention. I listened to the Minister and was somewhat taken aback by his off-the-cuff remarks and expert treatment without having recourse to his script. I note the following sentence in the Minister's script:

In recent months my predecessor visited Boston on two occasions with the express purpose of advancing the case for Digital Galway and to meet the President of Digital.

This is the first time Members of the-House have heard that a predecessor, Minister Ahern or Minister Flynn, visited Boston on two occasions with the express purpose of advancing the case of Digital Galway. I would like to know who was this Minister.

In view of the fact that Fianna Fáil were in Government in a caretaker or interim capacity it must take the blame for this blatant negligence. I believe it should have been the Taoiseach, not the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, who was dispatched to the United States. If we are to have any hope whatever of thwarthing or neutralising the British intrigue, then political intervention at the highest level is required. This is power politics, tough economics, ruthless rationalisation, and every political contact at the top level should have been used.

I listened yesterday to the Taoiseach on RTE's 1 o'clock news, when he finally came out of hiding. His attitute showed a lack of concern, a coldness and a certain detachment. Mr. Kieran McGowan should not have been sent on his own to the United States two weeks ago; it should have been Mr. McGowan and the Taoiseach. It is not Deputy Quinn, as Minister for Enterprise and Employment, who should have gone to the United States this week, it should have been the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach should be attending this debate here this evening, not the Minister for Enterprise and Employment.

I sincerely hope that I am wrong and that Digital will be saved in its entirety. The top-class skills and productivity levels, the superb commitment of the Galway workforce and the capacity of the Galway plant to change and adapt provided they are given the necessary time to do so, are known to the Digital management. Above all else, I hope that the salutary lessons of this experience will not be lost.

Mr. R. Bruton

I am disappointed with the approach the Government has taken in this debate. First, to suggest that it is not in the national interest to discuss what every newspaper and radio is devoting huge amounts of time to, is naive at best. There is no issue more important for debate in this House than the threatened closure of a company that has 1,100 full-time and 200 part-time employees, and at least 1,000 sub-contractors. In addition, there are at least 1,000 more depending for their living on the wages and the household spending of those families in Galway. If the Dáil is to be relevant, we must debate these issues and critically analyse what the Government is doing.

However, I cannot say we should pretend that everything is rosy and that no mistakes were made. I cannot endorse a motion commending the Government's policy on reform of industrial policy along the lines of the Culliton report. Culliton is being used by this Government as a thin fig leaf to cover its present policies. It has rejected many critical areas where Culliton made controversial and serious recommendations. It has rejected its tax and training proposals, its recommendations on industrial reorganisation of our agencies and those governing regional devolution. It has also rejected the proposals made about how we should develop the spending and administration of the Structural Funds we receive from the EC and has rejected the energy proposals of Culliton. If you strip the Culliton report of all of those proposals you have very little left. Even with this, it is impossible to assess if the Government is doing anything. It is then reduced to vague elements of policy, which could have been said to have been in gestation.

I do not believe the Government is on top of industrial policy and we have heard no evidence from Minister Quinn to support this view. As other speakers have said, we have not heard any strategic plans that the Minister and his Department have for the electronics sector, which is a very important industry. In it, we have 28,000 or more employees in the hardware production of computer equipment and 5,000 or more in software production. The reality is that we are facing dramatic changes in this sector. We have to design a new policy to deal with the weaknesses and threats that confront it.

We face threats at every turn. The tax incentives that have proved successful in attracting electronic industries to Ireland are under scrutiny and others may be reforming their tax regimes to compete with ours. Those incentives have, quite consciously, brought into Ireland those components of the electronics sector that have lower value added and do not have the high brain power elements. Our sector of the industry is unique in a lack of key business functions. Only three overseas companies that do business in this area in Ireland have conducted any primary research here. This is the seabed upon which future jobs can grow here.

The multinational electronic companies have not set down roots, because they have not been capable of generating entrepreneurial start-ups within their own numbers to set up new businesses. Only five entrepreneurial start-ups have come from overseas electronics firms. Most of those electronics companies do not have integrated products. They are producing an element of another product. They are producing components and do not have ongoing research. That makes them extremely vulnerable to the changes and rationalisation taking place in the electronics sector today. The Minister has said nothing about the threats facing this sector and about how we can overcome the barriers preventing our indigenous companies from growing.

It is a sad fact that indigenous companies have not made the progress expected. They have had problems with size, with their ability to deliver a quality product on time, in the volume needed and with diversifying their range. As a result, they have not taken up the opportunities of subsupply that might have existed. We must devise a strategy to strengthen the domestic electronics sector and part of that is to work on a recommendation in the Culliton report. We must recognise that some foreign companies that make the effort to put down roots in Ireland, as Digital did, are effectively indigenous companies. We should give them the same support, company development plans and hands-on effort that we give to native companies. Digital in my view was and is an indigenous company and to see it lost because of a decision made in Boston is a tragedy for Ireland. It is unfortunate that we did not devise policies that could have prevented this from happening.

I cannot support this amendment by the Government tonight. It asks us to acknowledge the strenuous efforts made by the Government. Despite Deputy Molloy's plea for a united front, it was his party who gave the most eloquent descriptions of how political manoeuvring and lack of attention were partly to blame for these problems. The former Minister, Deputy O'Malley, said tonight that the Government and a successive range of Ministers took their eye off the ball and Deputy Cullen stated that the latter had effectively reneged on their duty.

I cannot say that we can endorse the statement that the Government made strenuous efforts to save the company. I have seen no evidence of hands-on ministerial activity, either during the inter-regnum when former Minister Flynn and Minister Ahern were looking after the shop, nor by the incoming Minister, despite the fact that we were told he learned of this problem on his first day in office. We did not hear any initiatives from him until last Friday when, at the suggestion of the Lord Mayor of Galway and others, he decided to go to Boston.

The Whips do not accept the terms of the amendment proposed by the Government. We are not sure what we are being asked to consider. I emphasise that our party's approach to this debate has been to seek national unity in the efforts to save the Digital plant in County Galway. We do not want political divisiveness.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Dempsey)

In an effort to meet the requirements of the Opposition parties the Government proposes to move the following amendment:

To delete the words after "that" and substitute:

"Dáil Éireann while expressing its grave concern at the threat to employment at the Digital plant in Galway, reaffirms its confidence in the efficient and competitive nature of the Irish electronics sector and private industry in general and calls upon the Government and the social partners to work towards policies which will serve in the first and most fundamental sense to underline the basic competitive nature of Irish industry which is the only way that lasting and permanent jobs can be provided within Ireland.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will Deputy De Rossa withdraw his amendment on that basis?

Proinsias De Rossa

I am happy to withdraw the amendment in the light of the possibility that we will reach agreement on this matter. This amendment is not one I would draft but I am prepared to accept it in the interests of ensuring that a single voice goes from this House to Digital in the United States and to the workers in Digital.

Mr. E. Kenny

I made it clear that points raised by speakers from the Fine Gael Party in relation to Digital would be constructive because of the seriousness of this matter. When one looks for agreement in respect of a motion as serious as this, it would be preferable if amendments from the Minister were made available earlier.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will Deputy Molloy withdraw his amendment?

Mr. Molloy

Yes. The amendment read by the Government Chief Whip is acceptable to this party. It is an amendment to what he originally proposed and in view of that and in order to achieve our objective at the outset that there should be unanimity across the political divide on this issue, we will accept this amendment.

Mr. J. Bruton

I believe the House could act as a persuasive force if agreement could be reached on all sides. It is important that we reach agreement. There is no reference in this motion to approval of the Government's activities. Therefore, it is a statement to which all sides can agree. We have agreed to an amended version which will command wide support. However, it would be preferable if the Government supplied its proposed compromise a little earlier than five minutes before the vote. It is a tribute to the speed at which the House can act that we have reached agreement, notwithstanding the fact that the debate was continuing while papers were crossing the floor.

Mr. Quinn

I appreciate the constructive spirit and speed with which the Opposition parties have responded to the proposal. I can assure the House the text of this motion will be conveyed to the relevant decision-makers in Maynard, Massachusetts. I appreciate the combined efforts of this House in that regard.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Mr. Dempsey

I move the following amendment:

To delete the words after "that" and substitute:

Amendment agreed to.

Question, "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to", put and declared carried.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 23 Feb 1993

Private Members' Business: Digital Plant, Galway.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 23 Feb 1993