Despite official encouragement from the Irish government for improved trading links between north and south in the late 1970s, the Stormont department of commerce firmly believed that "political considerations" prevented northern firms securing public contracts in the Republic.
Cross-border co-operation dominated a conference in Dublin on January 24th, 1977, between the British secretary of state, Roy Mason, and Dr Garret FitzGerald (minister for foreign affairs) and Justin Keating (minister for industry and commerce).
Dr FitzGerald observed that it was difficult in the current world recession to correct the allegation that Northern Ireland was being unfairly treated economically and that a British economic withdrawal had begun.
Mr Mason replied that the region had been treated leniently in the latest expenditure cuts, yielding a nominal £5 million out of a total of £1,000 million. The pro rata share would have been £30million-£35 million.
Within the last five months, US investments of £21 million had been launched. In addition, Britain had allocated £60 million to keep Harland and Wolff going.
Dr FitzGerald said there was little that governments could do in the field of tourism except to help local initiatives.
The Electricity Supply Board kept an informal eye on whether it would be possible to reduce generating costs both North and South. He wondered whether the cross-border interconnector could be made less vulnerable by laying the power lines underground.
Mr Mason said it remained vulnerable, both for what it symbolised to loyalists and because of the Provisional IRA's campaign against economic targets. An official explained that the cost of laying underground lines would be very high.
Mr Keating said that the Irish and British governments should also consider the broader question of how the northern and southern economies might evolve to their mutual benefit.
There were barriers of "mutual paranoia" and specific progress would depend on the attitudes of those making economic and investment decisions rather than on government.
There was also competition, both for overseas investment and between northern and southern producers aiming at the same markets.
Cooperation could prosper only if the two governments could point to economic benefits great enough to overcome northern fears that they would be putting themselves into pawn with the south.
Ironically, while the possibilities for co-operation were greater than in the past, contacts were possibly fewer than in the mid-1960s. But if co-operation enabled governments to increase their GNP by a half of one per cent, they could overcome the reservation on both sides and help significantly to solve their respective political problems.
Mr Keating mentioned four areas that could provide major opportunities for co-operation in the long-term. Expectations were high that Ireland's continental shelf would yield useful supplies of gas or oil and Northern Ireland could play a role in that. Navan had important deposits of lead and zinc, and Northern Ireland could be involved in the construction of a smelting plant.
Other areas included energy consumption and sectoral rationalisation.
Mr Mason said that friendly rivalry rather than enmity should be the keynote of north-south economic competition. There might well be cases where it would be worth trying to plan investment on a cross-border basis, but any long-term arrangements for co-operation must carry conviction.
The reduction in contacts in the 1970s was perturbing, as was the imbalance of about eight- to-one between southward and northward official contacts. He asked whether the Irish government could help by placing more orders in the North for ships, generators or smelter components. It was agreed that officials from the northern and southern departments of commerce should look at the subject.
On February 24th, 1977, the North's department of trade wrote to Sir Arnold Weinstock, managing director of the General Electric Company (GEC), regarding his proposal that the Republic might be persuaded to place orders with Northern Ireland firms for electricity generating equipment. The idea had now been taken up with the Irish who had shown "a distinct interest".
A memo in the file notes that the overall balance of trade over many years had been in favour of the Republic, due largely to exports of live animals and foodstuffs from the South. These exports had risen dramatically, whereas northern exports to the Republic had increased "only marginally".
A major factor operating against northern companies in the Republic was the preference for "Irish-made goods".
"There would appear to be a fairly successful 'Buy Irish' campaign operating in the Republic in the sphere of public contracts and government departments or statutory bodies such as the Industrial Development Authority . . . Public bodies are necessarily sensitive to the political implications of contracts going to Northern Ireland or GB companies when an Irish company is in difficulty in a time of recession."
By March 1977, contacts had been established between the Belfast department of commerce and the department of industry and commerce in Dublin, and secretary of the northern department Dr George Quigley had met his opposite number in the south, JC Holloway, to discuss a role for Derry port in offshore development. On March 25th, Roy Mason returned to Dublin to discuss offshore oil opportunities.
However, relations turned sour at the end of May 1977. B Taylor, a Stormont official, reported that despite the attempt by Standard Telephones (STC) to win a contract for a telephone exchange at Dooradoyle, following prolonged contacts with the minister of posts and telegraphs, Conor Cruise O'Brien, and his officials, their tender had been rejected.
The firm, Taylor noted, had been "extremely optimistic" about getting the contract for an exchange at Dooradoyle following a positive response from Dr O'Brien's permanent secretary.
STC said it was told that its tender was cheaper than that of Ericsson, its Swedish competitor. Therefore, he went on, "STC was greatly shocked to find that the contract had been awarded to Ericsson". Moreover, he understood that 80 per cent of the added-value work in the contract would now be done in Sweden and not in the Republic. If STC had got the contract, he noted dismally, it would have provided work for a year for the firm's 600 personnel at a critical period.
"When STC subsequently protested personally to Conor Cruise O'Brien, he said he had not realised that the work content had such a substantial Northern Irish input. This statement is quite contrary to the facts which had been given to his permanent secretary and it, therefore, looks as if the decision was taken entirely on political grounds. STC had written formally to the Dublin department expressing their dismay," Taylor noted.
The observant northern eye could hardly have failed to note that Oireachtas Statutory Instrument 25 of 1977 dealt with the "assembly of telecommunications instruments at the premises of LM Ericsson Ltd at Athlone, Co Westmeath".