Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 30 Jun 1927

Vol. 20 No. 3

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 56—OFFICE OF THE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £83,009 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1928, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.

That a sum not exceeding £83,009 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1928, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

MINISTER for INDUSTRY and COMMERCE (Mr. McGilligan)

The amount of the Vote which the Minister for Finance has moved, added to the amount taken in the Vote on Account earlier, makes up the full total of £124,009, which is the net sum required under Vote 56 for this year. The sub-heads are set out in the ordinary way, and the explanation, as is usual, given. I wish to call attention to three points, as to which I presume my attention will be directed if I fail to notice them—that is to say, the three sub-divisions of the items which show the greatest increase. The greatest increase is shown in heading A—Salaries, Wages, and Allowances—there being shown there a net increase of £13,233. That is set out in the details of the sub-head later, which will show on examination that that increase is to be accounted for by three sums: a sum of about £2,100, increase in the Secretariat; a sum of about £2,100 odd in the Commerce and Technical Branch, and a sum of about £11,845 in the Statistics side. The explanation of these items is simple.

With regard to the amount of £2,100 for the Secretariat, the explanation is that if certain proposals which are at the moment under consideration go through, a Directorate will disappear from the Industries side and the post of Assistant-Secretary will be created. The new post of Assistant-Secretary is given in the details of sub-head A, page 221. There has now been added to this Vote for the first time the salary of a legal adviser to the Department. This is not a new appointment—neither of the two is a new appointment in the sense of an increase of personnel. It is simply a transfer of officers from one end to another. The salary of the legal adviser was heretofore borne on the Supreme Court Vote, but that officer had been pretty definitely attached to my Department and had been giving full-time work there, and he now appears definitely on the expenditure side of my Department. That item of £2,100 is made up of the post of Assistant-Secretary, who possibly will be a transferred Director from the other side, and, secondly the transfer of the legal adviser's salary from the Supreme Court Vote to this Vote.

On the Commerce and Technical side, there has been an increase of £2,106. That is expenditure incurred, in connection with the payment of staff for preliminary work in respect to the setting-up of the Patent Comptroller's Office, which was established under the Industrial and Commercial Property Act. Deputies will remember that under the terms of that Act there was what amounted to an appointed day for the opening of the office, but certain preliminary work had to be done beforehand, so that the office would be able to deal with the arrears of applications for patents, trade marks and designs when it is actually and officially opened. Certain staff had to be allocated to the office therefore before it was formally opened and an expenditure is set down for the staff at the moment of £2,106.

The largest increase in expenditure has been on the Statistics side, which shows an increase of £11,845. There is at present work proceeding on three different types of census—the census of population, the census of agricultural production, and the census of industrial production. The provision now being made for the census of population amounts to £10,242 out of the increase of £11,845, and the provision made for the other types of census —agricultural production and industrial production—amount to about £1,600.

Deputies will probably be anxious to know what is the actual state of things with regard to the census of population, and what are the prospects with regard to the other two. The census of population was taken in April, 1926. The papers were all returned by the middle of July of that year, and a preliminary report was published in August. The compilation of the detailed figures is now being proceeded with. The work in connection with the compilation of the final figures is very heavy, and has involved in the past year a big increase in, the clerical staff. As their work has been completed, the staff that was engaged on the preliminary work of punching cards with regard to the final figures, with the exception of two who have been retained for certain work which still hangs over, have been disbanded. By means of sorting and counting machines, by which the main bulk of the work of the future will be done, the work of classifying these figures is proceeding, and the classification is done under a varied group of headings. The actual population has to be classified by age, a rough classification for the smallest unit of area—the district electoral division—with a more precise calculation by unit of age for each county. The younger people will have to be then classified with regard to orphanhood conditions, and others by marriageable conditions. There has then to be a classification with regard to Irish, religion, housing conditions, birth-place, occupation, industries, industrial status (employer and employee, and so on), unemployment, size of farm worked by the family, the question as to whether people are married, or widows, or widowers with dependents, and certain family statistics got out with regard to the number of children in each family. Then, of course, these classifications have to be crossed one with the other. The results will be published by subjects. It is proposed to publish different volumes upon each subject, and it is expected that about four or five of these volumes will be published before the end of the year, but the earliest of them need not be expected before the autumn.

The census of industrial production was founded upon the Census Production Order, and in accordance with that all people in the Free State who are carrying on any of the industries, trades or businesses specified in that Order were supplied with questionnaires upon which they were required to furnish certain detailed particulars relating to production during the year 1926. That Order was issued in June to industries classified in about 40 groups. The Schedules upon the questions that had to be replied to were issued in January of this year. Fifteen thousand odd persons, firms, or authorities received these, and the returns were requested to be furnished by 1st March of this year. But a very small proportion of the returns had come in by that time, and reminders have since been issued from time to time, with the result that returns have been received to date from about 11,000 of the 15,000 people or firms. The number outstanding, notwithstanding the reminders sent out, is very large—disappointingly large, even allowing for the fact that it is the first time that a census of production has been taken under the authority of the Oireachtas, and for inexperience in filling returns, and allowing even for mistakes in sending out papers improperly addressed to certain firms and people. Of course, more drastic action will have to be taken if the returns are not furnished by the 4,000 odd firms which still have to supply the returns. However, certain further reminders will be sent out previous to any action of a drastic type being taken.

A scrutiny has already been commenced on the returns received, but no publication of the figures can be thought of until the full returns are received, because until that time the compilation of the final figures cannot be properly approached. The output of agricultural production is also being determined. Inquiries were made from about 30,000 farmers. Special inquiries were addressed to them on the 30th April last. Inquiries of a similar type will be made at the end of August and December, so as to get data to estimate particularly the output of live stock products. That is simply proceeding at the moment. Further similar inquiries will be made from time to time.

The other items that show an increase are smallish items. There is an increase under sub-head F—Fees and Expenses of Medical Referees—which is further defined in the sub-head as fees and expenses payable under the particular section of the Workmen's Compensation Act, to the medical practitioners appointed for the purposes of the Act. It is quite clear that at the best this estimate can only be a conjectural one. One does not know what accidents might occur requiring greater attention and a greater number of visits, much more inspection and much more attention from these people. It varies from year to year, and no precise calculation can be made as to it. It is founded upon the best view that can be taken from the expenditure in past years, taking into consideration the increased number of cases on which these people might be called.

The only other item on the list on. which there has been an increase is in the last sub-head—the Gift from the Free State to the International Labour Office in Geneva. It shows an increase of £150, but, of course, it does not mean that the £450 now being voted is supplementing, and in addition to the £300 voted last year. A sum of £300 was put down last year as the best possible estimate that could be found. It was then conjectural. The sum of £450 is now based on a report that a decision had been come to as to the type of gift, and after an expert in the particular work had been to Geneva and had given his best estimate of what the precise gift would cost. There may have to be further additions made to it later for the cost of sending the gift actually to the office—the transport and the setting up of it—but it will be a very small item. The other items are as they have been explained in previous years, but I would prefer to reply to questions raised later on, rather than enter into an exposition of the details now.

Mr. O'GORMAN

I would like an explanation from the Minister of some items which occur in the Vote. On page 223 I see a sum for bonus. Last year it amounted to £8,806 and this year it amounts to £10,955. On page 222, we see that the bonus paid last year was £2,624 and this year it is £4,230. On almost every page we find a very large increase under that heading. For instance, on page 221, we find that last year the bonus was £743 and this year it is £1,175. In one or two items there is a very slight decrease. I have read from time to time statements made here that this bonus is protected by the Treaty, but the overwhelming majority of the people object strongly to its continuance. It was a war measure and the war has long since passed, and this bonus should have been abolished. It has been abolished by all private firms and the ordinary people of the country see no reason why a certain favoured class should be protected from the vicissitudes which all the rest of the public have had to submit to.

We find through the country in various counties a very extraordinary state of affairs in connection with this bonus. We find in one county a bonus is paid to a certain class of official, whereas in an adjoining county precisely the same class of official, with the same salary, performing the same duties, does not receive bonus. I would point out to the Minister that this increase—in one item on this page alone it amounts to over £2,000—may be described as the straw which indicates the way the wind is blowing. He will pardon me for doubting the sincerity of the election promises made by him and his party that they would have due regard to economy. An opportunity will, I believe, arise of questioning the estimates again but meanwhile I would like to have not only an explanation but an assurance from the Minister that the question of this bonus which has agitated the whole country and which in some of the Departments amounts to very nearly a quarter of a million, will have the full attention of the Minister and the Government. I am not pressing the matter further but I would like to hear the Minister's explanation.

MINISTER for FINANCE (Mr. Blythe)

Perhaps I might say a word on the question of bonus. The position is that whereas in occupations generally, there has been an increase in basic wages, or basic salaries owing to the fall in the value of money which has occurred as a result of the European War, in the Civil Service basic salaries have not been increased. What has happened is that to salary has been added a variable bonus. That bonus has fallen very substantially from the height at which it one time was. It has even fallen somewhat in recent years. It depends entirely on the cost of living figure or on what we might regard as the value of money. If Deputies would look to the second page of the Estimates marked IV they will see what the amount of the bonus is. On a salary of £50: where the cost of living figure is £90, which is the figure in these estimates, the bonus is £45. In the case of the higher salaries the amount of the bonus represents a great deal less. The position therefore is that so far as the lower paid officials of the State are concerned they get an amount of bonus which is calculated to bring the purchasing power of their salaries up to what it was pre-war and no more. It is to enable an official of a certain grade, to purchase in the matter of the ordinary necessities of life, the same amount that his basic salary would have purchased pre-war. So far as the higher officials are concerned the amount of the bonus has been cut and their salaries have nothing like the purchasing power they had pre-war. It is impossible—this may as well be accepted—to interfere with the bonus. The great majority of the civil servants are transferred officers and they have rights which we give them by the Treaty. If these conditions of employment or the rumunerations of any transferred officer are interfered with to his prejudice, he is entitled to retire with added years, which added years reach in certain cases up to seventeen.

I have mentioned a case in this House which indicates the interpretation which has been placed on those rights of the transferred civil servants. There was the case of one individual whose pay was not interfered with who was discharging certain work which gave him a position of having nobody over him but the permanent Secretary of his Department. He was transferred at the same rate of pay to other work, but on that other work there were several officers between him and the Secretary of his Department. It was held by Mr. Justice Wylie that his position had been interfered with, and that particular individual was able to go out with 17 years added for the purpose of calculating pension, and is now drawing a pension and discharging no duty for the State, so that any attempt to interfere with the Treaty rights of civil servants is not going to produce economy. It is going to have an entirely opposite effect. It is impossible to have one body of civil servants who have the Treaty protection on basic salary with bonus, and to have another body of civil servants on, say, the same basic salary without bonus. In any case, of course, it would be impossible to procure people for the great majority of Civil Service posts at the present basic salary if bonus were not added. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in replying generally, can deal with the question of the increased bonus in this particular vote, but I want to say at this point that the bonus is a thing that we cannot get rid of. It is a thing which takes the place of an increase on basic salaries, and if there were not bonuses the great majority in numbers of basic salaries would have to be increased by something like the amount of the bonus. In any case that is a matter which will not repay exploration, because we are bound by the terms of the Treaty, and we are obliged to continue this system of bonuses or to face as the alternative an enormous increase in the pension charges and of having a great number of people who are now giving service and giving good service to the State going about drawing pension and returning no service for it.

Mr. O'GORMAN

I must say that I think the Minister's answer is unsatisfactory.

Mr. BAXTER

The point raised by Deputy O'German is only one of very many points which must inevitably come up in the course of the discussion on the Estimates. Those of us who have been members of the House for three or four years, and who made an effort time after time to reduce the various estimates, met with very little success. The efforts that we made in that direction forced us to the conclusion long ago that this question of reducing expenditure in this country is one that will have to be tackled in some other fashion. Recently, in the Dáil, we gave Deputies an opportunity of expressing their opinions as to the method that should be adopted to bring about reductions in expenditure to a figure that would be nearer to what the people are able to bear than what is expected from them at present. We put that question to the test when we asked the House to agree to the setting up of an independent Commission which would investigate our whole financial policy. That motion was moved by a member of our Party, and was, one might say, countered by the Government Party with an alternative suggestion that they were prepared to go a certain distance to meet us and to set up a Committee to do this investigation. We expressed ourselves dissatisfied with what the Government offered us at that time. We are not a bit more satisfied with it to-day. I am intimating now that, at an early date, we intend to give the Dáil an opportunity of expressing its opinion as to whether or not another type of committee or Commission is not essential if we are to have a reduction in expenditure: if we are to have an independent investigation of our whole financial policy which will bring about the reductions that the country wants. I do not propose, nor do the members of my Party propose, to go presently into an examination of the Estimates; into an examination of each of them, such as we made on former occasions in this House, but I am indicating that at the earliest date possible we shall ask the House to agree with us, that the Government proposal is not satisfactory, and that something better must be given to the country. If those who have talked about economy for a number of years in this House, and very vigorously for a few weeks outside of it, will give us their support, then we will get a body of men set up on the authority of this Dáil that will make such an investigation of our financial position, policy and administration, that will bring the demands of the Minister for Finance upon the taxpayers of this State down to a figure more commensurate with the ability of the taxpayers to bear.

Mr. McMENAMIN

I understood that Deputy O'Gorman wished to know from the Minister for Finance what was his general policy on the question of bonuses. If that is so I did not understand the Minister for Finance to give any reply to that question. I do not rise to deal with the question of bonuses or the question of high salaries in general, but I rise to get a statement from the Minister, if possible, as to what his policy is with regard to the question of bonus, because in my opinion this question of added bonus to salary in order to provide that the person or persons who draw those salaries will be on the same footing with regard to purchasing power as they were pre-war is fallacious, erroneous, and has led to our present economic and financial position. What is the result of it? If you take one of the officials set forth in this volume of estimates who draws, for example, a salary of £1,000 and you take that he draws a sum of £200 or any other sum as bonus on that salary, what is the effect of that on the general community? What is the effect of it on the workman whose wage has been reduced from £2 10s. to 25/-? There was a question here this afternoon about men drawing 25/- a week. What is the effect of it on workmen in that position? It is this. The workman's wage has been reduced from the war figure of £2 10s. to 25/-. That man has to go into a shop, whether it be a grocer's shop, a draper's shop or a boot shop and there compete on his wage of 25/- with the official who is paid a salary of £1,000, plus bonus, in order that he should buy at the pre-war figure. Hence you have got this position: you have got men, that is to say the tax-paying community—I do not mind whether they are labourers, farmers, shopkeepers or professional men—on reduced incomes in every strata and walk of life living on enormously reduced incomes who have to go into the purchasing market and buy in competition with men who have these, in comparison with them, inflated salaries. Hence you have got this fictitious market and this fictitious economic position driving down the entire community by this impossible burden placed on it. Hence we are drifting down day by day by adopting and maintaining and, as it were, recommending this fictitious position until ultimately we come to the intolerable position when the general community will be economically put down altogether, in my judgment.

Mr. O'HANLON

I shall be very brief in my criticism of this estimate; in fact I shall not criticise it at all, because, so far as I can see in the matter of criticism of the administration of the State, everybody has been attacking salaries and bonus and, in my opinion, salaries and bonus are the least necessary things to be criticised. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has mentioned in this House the difficulty he has had in getting a census of production throughout the country. The returns are not made. I think one of the first census of production that we, as representatives of the people, must have, is a census of production in the Government offices by the officials engaged in them, not so much as to their salaries and bonus but as to how much production is given in the offices and whether the salaries paid there are earned. I belong to the cult that believes in high salaries and wages, always provided the service is satisfactory. I do not care whether a man is paid £5,000 a year or £500. He can earn the £5,000 as readily as the £500 if you get the right man for the job.

The kernel of the whole thing is that setting up a Commission of civil servants to examine their own consciences and to lay them bare before us is not the way to get at the expenditure in Government offices but rather to set up an independent Commission such as Deputy Baxter outlined, composed of men who are sent here to economise and whose duty it will be, to see that every servant of the State, no matter in what department, is earning the money he is paid. If any department is not doing that, its personnel should be cut down and those doing half a day's work should be let go so that one man at least in every case should do a full day's work. I do not understand the case as to how we can halve the cost of administration, but I do say it is commonly spoken of. In the interests of administration and those who are heads of departments, I think it would be very wise to allow an independent Commission to be set up to safeguard themselves and in order that the public may know whether there is overstaffing in offices, and whether the different staffs in the different offices are earning their salaries or not. If such an independent Commission were set up we would get a proper census of production in Government offices, and we would know whether the administration of the State was cheap or dear.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

We are now discussing a motion for a vote of money to defray the expenditure incurred by the office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. One question raised was that of bonus and salaries of civil servants, and that is a general question that might be raised on the vote for the office of the Minister for Finance. But seeing that this is the first vote, I think it is not unreasonable to allow that particular matter to be discussed on this Vote. Deputy Baxter raised the question of an Economy Committee. He only spoke for three minutes, and he indicated that by way of notice of motion he would give the Dáil an opportunity at an early date of discussing the matter. But Deputies will realise that we cannot now discuss the merits of the different kinds of Economy Committees. There may be a tendency to do that, but we cannot do it now, particularly in view of the fact that we are promised on behalf of one of the parties a debate on that particular subject. We will have to leave that particular matter over.

Mr. QUILL

I wish to speak on the question of the bonus, as raised by Deputy O'Gorman. I look upon the matter of bonuses in a different light to that of Deputy O'Gorman, because I look upon the question as a matter of increase on the salaries of persons in proportion to the increase in the cost of living. It comes very strange to some of us to hear the question of bonus raised once again here, because, if I remember rightly, the issue of the bonus was the gist of the issue which Deputy O'Gorman and some others raised at the elections, and they got their answer.

Mr. BAXTER

Not at all.

Mr. QUILL

Viewing the bonus in the proper light, I look upon it as an increase in proportion to the increase in the cost of living. Yesterday, when the question of unemployment was discussed here, we heard from the Minister for Industry and Commerce that we, on this side, were doing nothing to relieve the position. If I had an opportunity of speaking then, I would have said that those who had were making no attempt to settle the question, because these people were banded together in the forms of rings, competing against those who looked for an increase in the standard of living, and, if I remember rightly, the people who now ask for the abolition of the bonus are people who themselves believe in the formation of rings.

Deputy O'Gorman and others of his party have now found that they have to meet an increased scale because of the fact that the produce which Deputy O'Gorman and others offer for sale has increased in price, and salaries had to be increased to meet that. If Deputy O'Gorman and others are able to sell some of their produce at 200 per cent. increase, compared with 1914, the only possible answer is that salaries have to be increased to meet that proportionate increase.

Mr. FALVEY

On a point of order, I would ask the Deputy in what particular portion of agricultural produce is there an increase in price? And, rather, is it not a fact that in every portion of agricultural produce there has been a decrease, and are we not now down to pre-war level?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

A point of order, for the information of Deputies, generally, is a point to be settled by the Chair, and the Chair confesses its complete inability to settle Deputy Falvey's point.

Mr. QUILL

One of the items which has increased is milk, the price of which has risen 200 per cent. as compared with pre-war.

Mr. FALVEY

What is the price of butter?

Mr. QUILL

Deputy O'Gorman referred to the bonus, and looked at the matter from the point of view of the bigger salaries. But the abolition of the bonus on the bigger salaries would mean the abolition of the bonus for people with smaller salaries as well. We have people working in the Department of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, some of whom have a lesser wage than is paid to people working under the Shannon scheme, and if the bonus was abolished in their case many of these people would be working for 15s. or 16s. a week. We have to look at this matter and recognise that if there is an attempt to abolish the bonus and to save expenditure to the State in that way, some alternative will have to be found to make up for the cut brought about in that way.

Mr. O'GORMAN

I feel justified in asking the Minister to tell us what is the cost of living this year as compared with last year, and also to state, for the information of Deputy Quill, what the increase, if any, is in agricultural produce. I know what it is, but he may not accept my statements.

Mr. W. O'BRIEN

The Minister explained that the return of the census would be issued in a different form this time, not on a county basis, but according to subjects, and I would ask him to give a return of the number of unemployed. If not, will he issue instructions that will include that return?

Mr. MORRISSEY

I want to take a different line on this from what has been taken up to the present.

Mr. BAXTER

Spend more.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Yes, but give a good return. I may as well confess at the beginning, to set Deputy Baxter's mind at rest, that I cannot subscribe to the policy of his party, which is that the only way to improve your own position is to worsen everyone else's. I want to find out from the Minister what is being done by his Department to try to develop and extend industries in the country. So far as the ordinary man in the street can see, there is very little being done. Useful work in that direction may be in hands by his Department, but the ordinary man in the street cannot see it. I am prepared to agree with the President that the proper and most effective way of remedying the unemployment problem is to get our own industries on their feet and to try and get our own people to support home industries and to buy the product of their own country. I want to suggest that the Government might consider having a publicity campaign in favour of Irish industries. There is no doubt that this is, as we are told, the age of publicity, and there is no doubt that advertising pays, but the trouble in this country, so far as I can see, is that the Irish manufacturers, such as they are, do not advertise. If they do, it is only in a haphazard and slip-shod manner. There is no combined advertising such as we have in other countries, and it seems to me that it would pay the people of this country to have a systematic and well-thought out plan of publicity in order to try and encourage the people to purchase articles produced in their own country, to keep the money at home, and to try and absorb some of the unemployed. I think any money that would be spent by the Government on a publicity campaign to try and induce the people of this country to purchase their own goods would be money well spent and would repay the people many times over. I commend that to the Minister for what it is worth. What I stood up principally for was to find out from the Minister exactly what his Department is doing to help Irish manufacturers and to encourage the opening up of new industries and the extension and development of existing ones.

Mr. JOHNSON

I want to follow on the suggestion of Deputy Morrissey in this matter. I think it is pretty well recognised that one of the difficulties of Irish manufacturers is to compete in the market with the imported competitive articles and that the greatest difficulty arises from the fact that the public demand the imported articles because they are more familiar with the name of them and perhaps also to a great measure with the method of presentation, packing, and so on. We are all familiar with, shall I say, the publicity agitation of the publicity agents. There has been an immense amount of advertisement, naturally supported to a great degree by the newspapers, in favour of publicity and of more expenditure on advertising. The advertisers help the advertisers and the advertising agents promote a campaign for publicity. Undoubtedly there is a great epidemic of advertising with the consequent effect upon the public mind. The effect upon the Irish manufacturer is that the greatest advertisers are able to do the greatest amount of business in this country and that Irish traders who are dealing in Irish manufactured articles are not able to create demand because of the competition of more effectively advertised competitive articles which are imported. The fact that, let us say, a British manufacturer or American manufacturer, turns out one hundred or one thousand times the quantity that a competitive Irish manufacturer will turn out makes it possible for that mass-producer to advertise very largely and widely at a low cost per article and the Irish manufacturer is left very much in the dark.

I want to supplement Deputy Morrissey's suggestion to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and to the Minister for Finance by saying that we should do in this country what is being done in some other countries and tax advertising. Tax the advertisements which advertise imported articles and use the revenue from those advertisements as funds to advertise Irish-made articles. That would, I think, go a long way to assist the Irish manufacturer to push his goods in the Irish market and to accustom the Irish consumer to the name, style, and pattern of the Irish products.

The Irish producer will inevitably, in my opinion, be forced to think more and more of the Irish market. In so far as he is looking abroad, until he is well-established in the Irish market, he is not going to have much chance of success. I think, with Deputy Morrissey, that one of the great needs is to advertise, in Ireland, the produce of Irish manufacturers and that Irish manufacturers ought to be assisted by the State for the purpose of combining the efforts of manufacturers and again I think they ought to be assisted by a fund raised to a great degree out of the revenue produced by a tax on the advertiser of imported and non-Irish manufactured goods.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Legislation would, of course, be required for that.

Mr. JOHNSON

Certainly, but it is a proposal that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should examine the situation and consider whether some change should not take place in the policy of his Ministry, and this suggestion is made as one method whereby the change may be brought about.

There is a paragraph, sub-head H of this Vote, which refers to prizes to be paid by the Departmental Committee on crude alcohol. There is a reduction in the Estimate. I think it would be well if we were informed whether there has been any prize given so far, and what are the prospects of any information being given to the public in this matter. I am not, as is queried, referring to the production of poteen, and I do not think it is the policy of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to frustrate the efforts of the Minister for Finance in this matter and to give prizes for poteen-making.

Mr. T. MURPHY

There is one matter to which I would like to call the Minister's attention. He has given us some information with regard to the demand for statistics. He spoke generally about the query form sent out to firms on which they were to furnish certain statistics. I have in mind a number of people to whom queries of that kind have been addressed. In no circumstances could they be described as firms. I am thinking of small business people—a cooper who employs nobody but who works in his own little shop, and a carpenter who is in a small way of business. I have seen some of these query forms, and, to my mind, it is too much to expect people of that kind to give the information asked for. It is impossible for them to fill the formidable documents sent to them. One person whom I have in mind, buys timber in small quantities and pays cash for it, as he represents a type that do not get credit. It is impossible to expect persons of that kind to give information as to the amount of timber they purchase in twelve months. They purchase very little, only buying as they require it. The Minister hopes to get information to aid the census production, but his hopes in that direction are rather unlikely to be fulfilled. Perhaps when replying he would give information as to how that, situation could be got over.

Major COOPER

The Minister spoke about the demand for statistics, but it is a demand which is not met very largely. Year after year in the last Dáil the Minister was always saying that he hoped to make more statistics available, but we did not get them. Government departments may get them but the ordinary man does not. I would not object to a vote for statistics if such statistics were made available to the people in regard to population, trade, and so on. We have, so far, got only the first report of the census which was taken a year ago. We are, I think, the only Dominion in the British Commonwealth of Nations which does not produce an annual year-book giving facts and figures as to production, industry, taxation and so on. They find in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada that these yearbooks are very good propaganda and good advertisement. It is a great convenience to those who write for the Press to have a book of that character, summing up all information with regard to a particular State, available on their bookshelves.

Many misstatements are made about, this country which would be corrected if there was some volume of that character available. In Australia it has been found desirable not only to have a year-book, but also a summarised book which you can carry in your waistcoat pocket, giving all information concerning wages, production and so forth. I have one of these books and I find it most valuable. We should do something to get our statistics into the hands and heads of people whose opinions may be of use. I agree with Deputy Johnson and Deputy Morrissey about the value of advertising and publicity. There is a form of free publicity which we might get but we are not getting our share of it. In the morning papers we see large advertisements about South African oranges and grape-fruit issued by the Empire Marketing Board. We do not produce oranges or grape-fruit. I have no doubt that the South African products are good and I have no objection to them being advertised in the Dublin and Belfast papers. We are represented on that Board and we should be getting our share of the advertisements. I am not sure whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for External Affairs is responsible. We should take advantage of every form of publicity. Australia offers an excellent market for our produce, especially whiskey. They import a considerable quantity of whiskey annually. We do not send them whiskey, but we send them a certain amount of Guinness. Biscuits are another product which we produce well and we should push them and take advantage of every opportunity of advertising them—free, if possible, but if not we should pay for it. The Empire Marketing Board is one way of getting that publicity. I hope the Executive Council as well as the Minister will be alive to its importance.

Mr. HORGAN

We are asked to vote here a sum to cover the expenses of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, a good deal of which, I understand, has already been spent. If one is genuinely to criticise the items set out in the Estimate he would have to be fully acquainted with the work of the different departments. In my opinion it would be next to impossible for any Deputy who is interested in the wellbeing and welfare of the country to say that he would reduce the Estimate by a certain amount because, so far as I can judge, outside this department and, possibly, the Executive Council, nobody has any opportunity of knowing whether they are giving full value for the money voted to them. I think until the Committee of Investigation, as suggested by Deputy Baxter, is brought into existence and the House and the country made acquainted with the value given for this money by the different departments, you will not be in a position genuinely to analyse these items and say whether good value has been given.

I think it is at the root of our position in analysing these Estimates to ascertain whether such value is being given. If it is, it is money well spent; but if not, it ought to be checked. That matter can only be settled through an independent investigation and the sooner such committee is brought into existence the better. I can honestly say that I cannot conscientiously state that the amounts set out are too great, but I know that the country cannot bear the amount of taxation imposed upon it and that full investigation into Government expenditure is necessary in order that we may start from that bedrock upon which the country can increase and prosper. I will content myself at present with these few remarks and will await another opportunity to further illustrate my point of view.

Mr. T. FALVEY

While I agree with Deputy Morrissey that a man should do a good day's work for a good day's wage, still I think that the wages of those who sent me here, owing to the economic state of the country at present, are practically incomparable with those of other classes. I am referring to the small farmers who produce the greater part of the wealth of the country. Deputy Quill has advocated a policy which practically means that no matter what salary a man earns, he should get that, or perhaps, more. I sympathise with that view, and with the Labour Party, if it applies to the man with the shovel or to the man with the pick-axe. I cannot see what sympathy there is between a man earning £1,200 a year and the unfortunate man who works with a shovel on the Clare roads at 35/- a week. If the people who now have salaries of £1,200 a year or £1,000 a year were brought down to £600 or £800, at which they were glad to get the positions, and if the differences were given in the, reduction of taxation, or in reproductive work, we would be the most happy and prosperous country in Europe. Deputy Quill talks about 6d. a quart for milk, while 8d. per lb. is being paid for butter in Clare for the last eight years. In the rural districts the people see very few sixpences for a quart of milk. Deputy Quill gave the House to understand that the farmers were getting the same price now as they got in war days for their produce. As a matter of fact, prices for produce are as low now as they were in 1910. If a farmer takes a bullock worth £12 to the fair, no matter how that man tries to improve the animal, he cannot make it worth £13.

In County Clare we have resorts such as Kilkee, Lisdoonvarna, and Mount shannon. These places are an asset not only to Clare but to Ireland. Improvements have been made in the different resorts, and the rates of the county have benefited as a result. However, Clare has been deprived by the Minister of the rates on the Shannon works, although the land on which the works are being erected and on which rates were paid, is being taken from the county. It is unfair to Clare to deprive the county of the rates on the works when the land on which rates were previously paid has been acquired for the Shannon scheme.

Captain REDMOND

In view of the fact that it will be necessary to have the Appropriation Bill passed by the 1st of August, and as a considerable amount of the money that is being asked for in the Vote must have been spent, we, on these benches, do not intend at this stage to go into as minute or detailed examination of the Estimates as if they were being introduced at the commencement of a financial year. There are one or two items in this Vote, some of which have already been mentioned, to which I would like to refer. On the question of bonus I am necessarily in entire agreement with the Minister for Finance. It would be, first of all, practically impossible to do away with the bonus, and to reduce it would induce those now in the employment of the Civil Service to take advantage of Article 10 of the Treaty. That being the case. I think it is almost waste of time to mention the matter at all, except that in most of the items in this Vote the bonus has been increased. I am not objecting to the bonus, but I would like to know the reason for the increase. How is it that the figure in most of the items is higher than it was during the preceding year? Has the cost of living gone up to the same extent? That seems to be the basis, according to the Minister, upon which the bonus is assessed.

There is one item under the Statistics Branch, Number Two, Page 223, under the heading "Census of Population," where there is a sum of £4,227 allotted for bonus. This, I understand, was an entirely new branch of the Minister's Department, and I do not know whether these civil servants are temporary or permanent. If they are merely temporary, I would like to know what is the object of having a bonus at all, and why they are not employed upon a properly established rate of remuneration commensurate with the increased cost of living? As the Minister for Finance has said, civil servants are different from other classes of employees in that their basic rate of salary has not been increased. But if the employees I have referred to under this sub-head are merely temporary, why was not a proper basis of wage or salary arrived at, and why was it thought necessary to put down a sum by way of bonus? Many statements have been made which I think one might admit are slightly outside the range of the discussion.

It has been stated that nothing can be done by way of proper investigation with a view to reduction of expenditure until an independent inquiry has been made into the whole field of Governmental expenditure. With the proposals to set up this inquiry I need hardly say I am in complete accord, but at the same time I think it is possible, even during the short time at our disposal before the Appropriation Bill must be sent to the Seanad, at least to draw attention to some of these items and to ask the Minister in charge for an explanation, if he has any to offer, regarding them. I would like particularly to supplement the question asked by Deputy Morrissey regarding the steps, if any, the Minister has taken towards the encouragement of home industry. There is no doubt that in certain respects steps have not been taken in that direction. On the contrary, industries which at one time were thriving and of great value to the country from the point of view of employment, both direct and indirect, have been allowed to reach a stage almost bordering upon destruction. I refer especially to the brewing and distilling industries. Though new industries may have been started and encouraged, the Government, to my mind, have by their fiscal policy not only neglected but actually assisted in the rapid despoliation of these once thriving industries. The Minister for Finance has refused again this year to reduce the excise duty upon beer and spirits, and he knows as well as everyone else that this policy will inevitably bring about the destruction of these industries.

I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is in total agreement with the Minister for Finance in this financial policy, and if he is not, then. what has he done or what does he intend to do as Minister for Industry and Commerce to preserve the existing industries or encourage new ones? In my opinion, it is far better to endeavour to preserve industries that have been tried and proved to be successful in the past than to embark upon new, untried and possibly adventurous schemes the result of which noone can foretell. I think it is only fair that the Minister should give the House some declaration of policy on behalf of the Government as to their intention in regard to the future. Do they intend as in the past not only to permit but actually assist the destruction of existing industries, and if so, do they intend in any way, and how, to replace them by new ones? That, I think, is a broad question which certainly arises directly upon the consideration of the Estimates of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is a question of policy, and it is a question we are entitled to hear something about from the Minister. It affects very large numbers of the community. Certainly the brewing and distilling industries not only affect those immediately employed as workmen but affect a very large number of farmers through a very wide area in portions of the country.

I think it would be well if the Minister could give us some indication as to how he intends through his Department to remedy the conditions of unemployment. The remedy proposed yesterday by the Labour Party he has absolutely declined. The proper remedy we all must know and admit for unemployment is nothing in the nature of the dole but the provision of work, and it is surely primarily the business of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and his Department to endeavour to do something to provide that work. It is, of course, the business of the whole Ministry, but I submit that it is particularly the business of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Having refused, as he and his Government did yesterday, to do anything on the lines suggested by Deputy Johnson and others as a temporary expedient, what alternative proposal is he going to make, if any, to meet this problem of unemployment in the way of preserving existing industries or encouraging and creating new ones?

Mr. P. HOGAN (Clare)

I think it will be taken more or less as a truism that if one is to set oneself to deal with disease in any way efficaciously, one must be well informed as to the extent of the disease. When one finds the Minister for Industry and Commerce approaching a certain problem in what one must describe as a very ill-informed fashion, one cannot come to any other conclusion than that the disease is not going to be dealt with efficaciously or properly, and is not likely to be cured. If the administration of the Minister's Department were to be taken as typical of parliamentary institutions, one would be almost inclined to despair of the utility of these institutions. The attitude of mind that the Minister has exhibited on many occasions towards various problems makes one almost despair of criticising on the Estimates any portion of his administration.

On more than one occasion in connection with this matter of statistics relative to the extent of unemployment, he has said, "Why do they not register?" It is on that phrase alone that I want to say whatever little I have to say. The Minister's attitude of mind when approaching this problem will show in what fashion the Department he controls will collect the information. Why do they not register? Whenever he approached this problem the Minister dealt with figures as mere symbols completely removed from any connection with human happiness, or any connection with human life. He gave us dissertations on percentages and graphs and decimals and other such things, just as if these things were to be taken apart from the human problem that faces the country.

I will give the Minister one or two reasons why people do not register, and they are reasons that ought to be self-evident to any Minister who takes a real interest in the work of the Department he controls. Let us take the case of a road-worker who is lucky or unlucky enough, just as the case presents itself, to have two or three acres of land. He works on the road for five or six weeks, or perhaps three months of the year, and gets unemployment insurance stamps. The amount of money allocated for the portion of the road he works runs out, and he is unemployed. He hands in his card at the Labour Exchange, and proceeds to sign the prescribed number of times. At the end of three or four weeks he is told he does not fulfil the statutory conditions. Generally such a man does not know what is meant by statutory conditions; he is not quite sure whether it means he is short in chest measurement, in his height, or what. He goes home and makes an appeal, and he has, perhaps, to be taken over such a distance as from Ennis to Limerick. Probably he foots that journey. Is that man likely to register again, or are any men in a similar position likely to register again? They find they are put to more expense by having to register, and it might be just as well if they were not insured at all.

Such cases as I have referred to are semi-urban or semi-rural cases. Has the Minister taken into account the cases that arise in towns? Does he know the conditions that exist in towns? Is he aware, as I am, that people steal out to early Mass so that the condition of their clothing may not be discernible to their neighbours? Does the Minister know that poverty, naked and unabashed, runs through the land, and is he aware that there are many people who have no desire to remain barefooted and almost naked in a queue for the purpose of signing their names? Is this the fashion in which the Minister proposes to collect unemployment statistics?

The Minister asks why they do not register, at the same time knowing nothing about them. Furniture and clothing for men of the Minister's type have only one duty to perform. Furniture and clothing for people of the kind I refer to have several functions to perform. Very often the furniture has to perform the function of being the barricade against utter starvation for men and their wives and children. I hope that the Minister will consider that human factor, and change his attitude of mind when he next approaches this problem. I hope he will endeavour to procure proper statistics to present to the Dáil and the country in regard to the unemployment problem. That is the only matter I desire to refer to at the moment.

I want to find out the Minister's attitude of mind—and that is very important—towards collecting these statistics. I am anxious to know whether he is going to introduce any other machinery in order to get these statistics. If a man is unemployed why not get him to post a card to the Labour Exchange and have it marked up there, and why not arrange that the officials would make surprise calls in order to ascertain if the man is or is not employed? Surely the Minister has a sufficient number of officials for this purpose, and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the Minister could fashion some scheme under which all unemployed people could register in a simpler fashion. The present system is preventing a lot of people from registering, and I ask the Minister in future not to exhibit an attitude displaying such an evident divorce from the realities of the situation. He should approach this subject in a fashion entirely different from that in which he approaches it at present.

Mr. GOREY

I rise merely to put right a matter raised by Deputy Redmond. The Deputy referred to bonuses connected with the Statistics Branch (Census of Population). It is quite apparent that a new branch has been set up to deal with that matter, and a number of officers have been allocated to it. There were 38 clerical officers appointed and 26 writing assistants. The total of the salaries is small and the bonus is set out at £4,227.

Mr. HORGAN

On a point of order, considering that Deputy Gorey has undertaken to answer official matters raised by Deputy Redmond, has he any information of an official kind to give in reply to the Deputy?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy must allow Deputy Gorey to continue.

Mr. GOREY

I do not know what was the point of order the Deputy raised. Perhaps he is new to all this matter, as is also Deputy Redmond, inasmuch as since he took his seat in 1923, Deputy Redmond has never questioned an estimate. This is the first time he has done so, and of course we will forgive him for not knowing all about it. Some twelve months or two years ago I was informed that portion of those bonuses is made up of a gratuity to the Civic Guard for their assistance in compiling statistics. I am not now speaking for the department; the department can speak for itself. I recognise that this is not the time for criticising and questioning as to whether one class of committee or another is the best to deal with this. The question of a Committee of Investigation will, I think, come up in some form. I think the proper form will be on the Minister's personal vote. I think that is the proper place to discuss this. I shall leave it at that. I have not altered my view-point with regard to the bonus. I still hold the view-point that I held three or four years ago. Whatever influence I have I will exercise it in that direction. I do not agree with the bonus. I also notice here that a few sub-heads are being decreased and a few sub-heads increased. I think the one more or less explains the other. I do not know that I should occupy more of the time of the Dáil than I have occupied.

Mr. BECKETT

My first attempt to address the Dáil is quite a new experience to me, and I must ask you, Sir, kindly to pull me up if at any moment I overstep the rules of order or decorum. I say that because, while I have listened with great interest to the discussions and debates in the House so far, you will perhaps have some patience with me if, in the very short time I have been here, I have not been able to absorb all the rules and regulations of the House.

As regards this question which is before the Dáil at the moment, I must say that I have the greatest sympathy with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is asked to carry on his own shoulders, as it were, the greatest load that this old country of ours at the moment has to bear. It seems to me that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is being asked to work miracles. I would suggest to every member of the Dáil that he should put his back into this question of unemployment. We want a new view-point. We want to learn what are the fundamentals governing this question of unemployment. I would suggest to the House that the fundamentals or the foundations of our social life are the ability or the inability of this country to pay wages. In making that statement I would like to give a definition of what I mean by the word "wage." I mean the payment to our fellowman in whatever department of life he is for the work he gives to us. I have the honour of earning my wage in the payment of wages to a considerable extent for a number of years in this old city of ours. I contend that that is the only thing that I or any other member of the community can beneficially spend money on. You cannot pay nature for what she gives us. We can pay our fellowman. We can pay the farmer. We can pay the farm labourers for taking from nature and saving for us the blessings of nature. I am glad to feel that I am in very great sympathy with the Deputies on the other side of the House in this matter, but I would like to go very much deeper into the subject than, so far as I have been able to follow the debate, they have gone. We have got to go right down to the foundations of things.

This House has been appointed by the country to look after its greatest interests. The biggest interest at the moment is to find out how the country can give employment, not only to all our workers, but how we can create a future for the employment of our lads and lasses who are growing up. We have in this State an asset. Every pound we pay in wages is an asset to this State. Every pound we pay outside the State is an asset to those to whom we pay it. I often think it is like dropping a stone into a pool. I pay a wage to one of my workmen. I am paid my own wage for the purpose of paying that wage to the workers. When I pay that wage it is as if I dropped a stone into a pool. Every part of that pool is affected by the stone that has been thrown in. It is just the same with the nation. That illustration is the best I can give.

I say the rate that I pay to my workmen benefits every member of the community. I say the greatest need that we have at the moment is to bring the industries of the country into closer touch with the Government. By industries I mean every activity in the country in which wages are paid. We have had suggestions here to-day that committees will be suggested and appointed to inquire into economies in expenditure. I suggest to this House that the biggest job and the most whole-hearted job for every member of this House, is a committee to inquire into the industries of the country. The industries seem to have waned. Some of them are dead, or almost dead. These are the greatest asset to the country, and they can be made to live again, granted the absence of antagonisms.

Suggestions have been made that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is in a position in which he can wave a magic wand and bring these industries to life. I should be very sorry if that were the outlook. We want to look at the matter from a different aspect. We want to have a different outlook from that. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is anxious, I am sure, to do the very best for his country, but he must do what this House instructs him to do. In these discussions, as regards the employment of our fellow-workers in this country, I would like to identify myself with the workers of this country. I feel I am myself a worker. I have been a hard worker all my life. I feel somewhat strange sitting here on these benches away from my work, but, inasmuch as I intend to put in good work here, which I hope will be successful in doing something for my fellow-workers, I am glad to be here. If I find after a due trial that it is impossible for me to do something in this new office in which I have been placed by the electors of South Dublin, I will retire and do my best again in my natural sphere. You will, perhaps, excuse my hesitating utterances, and the Deputies of the House will, perhaps, excuse them. It has never been my privilege to speak before in an assembly of this kind. I feel it a great honour. I can assure the Deputies of this House that my heart is in this matter, and I wish to say that I want to see, more than anything else at the moment, unemployment reduced in our country.

Mr. LAWLOR

I would like to take this opportunity of drawing the Minister's attention to something affecting his own Department. I trust that the Minister will be sympathetic towards those who are amongst the unemployed, as sympathetic as the Deputy who has just sat down. Some few months ago the Minister found it necessary to issue an order to the Commissioners of the Dublin Corporation, intimating to them that they were precluded from carrying out any further extensions or any other works in connection with the electricity undertaking, unless they had first received the authority of his Department. So definite was that order from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that the Commissioners, in consultation with the heads of the Electricity Department, were compelled to close down certain works which were proceeding at the time. The result was that 150 men were immediately thrown out of employment.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It was quite unnecessary.

Mr. LAWLOR

Does the Minister say that that was necessary?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I say it was quite unnecessary to throw those men out of work, as the Commissioners did.

Mr. LAWLOR

What are the facts? To be fair to the Minister, I should say that prior to to-day he said it was unnecessary that these 150 men should be unemployed. But what were the statements made to the representatives of these 150 men by those who are, if not under the control of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, under the control of the Minister for Local Government? Their statement was that, because of the adamant attitude of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, if they permitted the carrying on of another piece of work, no matter how small, the expense would be surcharged against them.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Has the Deputy the letter? He will not find that in it.

Mr. LAWLOR

I assume the letter went to the Commissioners or to the head of the department.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy is proceeding on a lot of assumptions.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy Lawlor should be allowed to continue his speech.

Mr. LAWLOR

I am not proceeding on any assumption. I am making a definite statement of fact. Even the Minister has admitted that my statement, up to the present, has been in accord with fact, because he admits that 150 men were thrown out of employment and he says it was unnecessary that they should be. My point is that these men would not have been thrown out of employment if the Minister for Industry and Commerce was more sympathetically disposed towards members of the working class and towards the employees in this case. If the Minister had been more sympathetic, he would have secured that several weeks would not have elapsed before those 150 men were reinstated. If that had been done, necessary work would not have cost more than it should have cost. Owing to the suspension, additional expenditure was incurred which could have been obviated. If the Commissioners or the heads of the Electricity Department were responsible, there was still a duty on the Minister. If the persons responsible had misrepresented the Minister's intentions, and if he had put his intentions clearly before them, it should not have been the 150 unfortunate workmen, who had nothing to say to the quarrel as between the Minister and the Commissioners, who should have suffered. I mention the matter so that if there is a difference between the Minister and the Commissioners or the heads of the Department on another occasion, there may not be a repetition of what occurred in this case. It was a callous thing to throw 150 men out of employment and to permit them to remain on the streets for several weeks because somebody else had blundered.

Mr. JOHNSON

I rose a few minutes ago to express my pleasure at hearing Deputy Beckett's speech and to express my relief to find that the views of the new Deputies of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party are not all like those of Deputy McDonogh, as regards this question of unemployment. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, presumably, has a duty to keep, so far as he can, employment fairly regular throughout the year and to promote it to the highest degree possible. I want to draw attention as a matter, shall I say, of warning, to the procedure within Government Departments last year, in the hope that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will use his in fluence to avoid a repetition this year. Yesterday the Minister for Finance replied to a question of mine regarding the amount of money, out of the voted sums and the Central Fund grant which had not been spent, though authorised to be spent last year. In December the Minister for Finance, replying to questions, quoted from the Estimates certain items, the total of which was £3,185,000, to which were added £1,150,000, in respect of road grants, and £1,675,000 in respect of Shannon scheme expenditure. The total was £6,000,000 odd, which were asserted to be moneys likely to promote employment in the Saorstát. That figure of £6,000,000 was quoted as a defence of Government policy in regard to this general problem of unemployment. It was made the basis, more or less, of propaganda on the part of the Government as to what had been done by the Government for the promotion of employment in the country. In December, when quoting that figure of £6,000,000 odd, the Minister said: "As far as we can, we will speed up the spending of the money." In December, we were told that there had been a sum of £2,217,000 spent up to that date and that there would probably be expended in the remaining portion of the year £2,364,000, making a total of £4,582,000 out of the £6,000,000 which had been announced as made available for expenditure during the year. That was leaving a sum of £1,200,000 which it was unlikely would be spent, according to the Minister for Finance in December. But in reply to urgings from these benches, the Minister for Finance promised that every effort would be made to speed up the expenditure of any sum that could be spent in the remaining three months of the year. Yesterday, the Minister told us that out of £4,800,000—which included a certain additional sum which he hoped might have been spent on road grants out of money saved in previous years—which he anticipated would be spent after his efforts in speeding up, there was actually only spent £4,015,000, so that, in fact, we had practically £2,000,000 not spent last year on undertakings likely to promote employment in the Saorstát, notwithstanding that the House had given permission to spend that £2,000,000.

We have a large number of estimates before us to-day. These estimates do not amount to the sum voted last year in this connection. As a matter of fact, on the voted moneys I make the calculation that there is very nearly one million pounds less to be spent on services likely to promote employment than there was last year. But I want to press upon the Minister for Industry and Commerce the view that it should be part of his function in the coming months to urge on other Ministers that all moneys voted for the promotion of employment should be spent, so long as they can be spent economically, that it is not right that Ministers should come to the House for six million pounds and proclaim to the country that so much is to be spent at their instigation on services likely to promote employment, and then, six months afterwards, to say that they spent only two-thirds of it. If the House is asked to vote moneys it should be somebody's duty to ensure that those moneys are spent within the year for which they are voted, so long as they can be spent economically. I merely take this opportunity to impress on the Minister for Industry and Commerce that if the Minister for Finance, or any other Minister; fails to keep his promises he should assist such Minister in the spending of these moneys, which are so urgently needed for the purpose of promoting employment.

Mr. CULLEN

I would like briefly to refer to sub-head I (1), dealing with the grant-in-aid of the expenses of the International Organisation of the League of Nations. It will be noted that there is a decrease in the amount under this sub-head. I hope we are not to take that as an indication of the Minister's intention to take a less active part in the work of the Organisation, although I note that the amount in the following sub-head remains the same. I have had an opportunity of seeing the work of the Organisation at Geneva, and I recognise the value of it. I think any Deputy who has taken part In its work will recognise that it is doing good work. In the discussion on unemployment yesterday, the Minister referred to the difficulties encountered in building up industries and to the competition that our industries must meet. He pointed out that our produce enters into competition with the produce of other countries. In this connection it is well to bear in mind that the real work of the International Labour Organisation lies in setting up certain minimum industrial conditions all over the world, and this State should actively participate in that good work. We know the amount of competition that we have to face, especially in regard to the produce of Eastern countries, where the pay of labour is very low. The work of the International Labour Organisation is undoubtedly raising industrial conditions in those countries and so helping to dispose of the competition which exists on account of very lowly-paid labour.

The value of the conventions and recommendations, and of the work generally that is being done in Geneva, will be lost if the work is not followed up and completed by the various national assemblies. It is well to bear in mind that the Office in Geneva looks to the various national assemblies to see whether or not its work is appreciated. The fact that numbers of conventions have not been ratified by various countries is constantly referred to by the Office as an indication of lack of appreciation of its work by the national assemblies concerned. For that reason I would urge on the Minister that he should adopt the various recommendations and conventions that have been arrived at. I would refer, in this connection, to the convention adopted in 1925, dealing with the prohibition of night work in bakeries. That should not present very much difficulty to the Minister's Department, because it is a fact that by agreement between the employers' and the workers' organisations, night baking has practically ceased in this State. Therefore it should not present very much difficulty to the Minister to bring in legislation that would make this prohibition effective. I hope that the Minister will adopt the conventions and recommendations of the Office, more particularly the convention dealing with the prohibition of night baking, and that he will be able to announce that at an early date he will bring in legislation to ratify that convention.

Mr. DAVIN

I want to take advantage of this Vote, which includes the Minister's salary, to protest against the Government's go-as-you-please policy and against its failure to control or to regulate the country's transport system. Previous to the dissolution of the last Dáil the transport system was partially under the control of the Minister for Local Government and of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, while the Minister for Justice had some share of responsibility for the administration of certain laws affecting it. Under the extension of Executive responsibility, all Ministers being equally responsible on questions of policy relating to this matter, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce being, if possible, more responsible than anybody else, I want to put certain questions before the House and to invite Deputies to express their views upon the administration of the laws passed by this House, and on the failure of the Government, as a whole, to produce any transport policy.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce has been tinkering with the railway side of the transport problem. He was responsible in the last Dáil for the introduction of three or four measures. One of these forced the amalgamation of the railways wholly situated within the Free State, another repealed certain clauses of that Act which gave pension rights to men who lost their employment on account of the amalgamation, and a third was the Railways Omnibus Act, which gave certain rights to the railway companies to run motor buses in certain parts of the country over approved routes and under very severe restrictions regarding fares.

I am raising this question because it affects the administration of laws already passed and regulations made by the Department, and because of the failure of the Department to insist upon the administration of these laws, which failure has resulted, as far as the railway services are concerned, in the disemployment of almost three thousand railwaymen. On the hustings during the elections, and in the House the other day, the President appealed to Deputies and to citizens to support Irish manufactures, to do all that they possibly could to help in the establishment of Irish industries, presumably, from the labour point of view, by giving away certain rights and conditions of service. I wonder what the President has to say with regard to the huge amount of money that has been and is still being exported for the purchase of motor buses, which are being brought in, in some cases, by foreign capitalists, put on the roads and allowed to run where they like, at whatever speed they like, and to charge whatever fares they like. If the President wants to put his own policy into operation and wants to reduce the adverse trade balance and give more employment, let him deal with the situation that we find ourselves confronted with to-day of millions of money going out of the country to purchase motor buses, thus depriving our workingmen of necessary employment. I am sorry the President has left the House, but the Minister for Industry and Commerce, no doubt, will speak for him, as he is jointly responsible. I referred to the fact that the Ministry has not carried out the laws and regulations for which the Government is responsible. There is a number of bus companies, financed in some cases by foreign capitalists, operating in this country. I have gone to the trouble to get information in order to try and prove my case, because when I raised this matter twelve months ago and suggested that these buses were exceeding the speed limit the Minister for Justice took exception to my statement and said I was exaggerating the position. I am therefore going to put before the House a few cases to prove that what I said twelve months ago is correct.

The time-table of the Magnet Bus Company shows that a bus leaves Longford, 76 miles from Dublin, at I p.m. and is due to arrive in Dublin at 4.21 p.m. This works out at an all-over average speed of over 22 miles per hour. What the speed must be on certain stretches of road can be guessed from the fact that the time-table shows six official stopping places between Longford and Dublin. Apart from these official stopping places, it is well known that most of these buses stop at every town and village along the whole route. Yet an all-over average speed of 22 miles per hour is observed. A bus leaves Mullingar at 2.6 p.m. and is due in Dublin at 4.20 p.m. Mullingar is 50 miles from Dublin, so that doing the journey in 2¼ hours, which includes stopping places, leaves an all-over average of over 22 miles. The legal speed limit is 12 miles per hour. There are buses running long distances between Dublin and Longford and Dublin and Mullingar at an all-over average speed of 22 miles per hour, without making any allowance for the stopping places.

Again, a bus leaves Dublin at 8.30 a.m. and gets into Kinnegad, 39 miles away, at 10.10 a.m.—an average speed of over 23 miles per hour, although there are seven official stopping places. The greatest violation of all is, perhaps, in the case of the buses plying between Cavan and Dublin. A bus is timed to leave Cavan at 8 a.m., and reaches Dublin, 85 miles away, at 11.30 a.m., representing an average speed of 27 miles per hour, although there are 14 official stopping places between the two points. What has the Minister to say to the way in which the law is being abused by those foreign capitalists who run buses brought into this country?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Nothing.

Mr. DAVIN

The Minister has nothing to say.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is not my job.

Mr. DAVIN

It is the Minister's job inasmuch as the Government are collectively responsible for the administration of laws and regulations made by them. It may be convenient for him for the moment to ignore his responsibility in the matter.

Mr. BAXTER

It is only 75 miles from Cavan to Dublin—the Deputy made a mistake there.

Mr. DAVIN

I am quoting the railway mileage. I claim the right to deal with this matter, because it concerns unemployment and is an abuse of the law, and because the unlimited facilities given to bus owners here has resulted in the unemployment of about 3,000 railway men. I will now deal with another route. I had the pleasure of pursuing a bus on the route from Dublin to Limerick recently and trying to catch it up. I told the Minister a story yesterday in connection with that. Although I was riding in a fairly good motor car, I was unable to catch up on this bus on the journey between Monasterevan and Portlaoighise. The time table is circulated; and can be procured by the Minister or any Deputy, and I am relying on the time table to prove that there is an abuse of the law by these bus owners and companies which must be stopped by the Government or by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who has a share of the responsibility. There is a bus running between Dublin and Limerick and Limerick and Dublin. I am not going into all the details, but the time table, which is officially circulated, and can be procured at Eason's bookstalls for 2d. or 3d., if the Minister does not know the facts already, shows that this bus leaves Dublin at 6 o'clock in the evening, and is due to reach Limerick at 11.20 p.m. There is one stop in Roscrea, half-way between Dublin and Limerick, where, according to the time table, the bus stops for fifteen minutes, to get water, I suppose, and cool the engine after the effects of exceeding the speed limit. In other words, the distance is covered, making allowance for one stop of fifteen minutes at one of the ten stopping points, in a period of five hours. The Minister can see that in that case, making no allowance for the time lost at any other stopping point, the average all-over speed is 24 miles per hour.

I want to know from the Minister now, and I think this is the only opportunity I shall have before the Estimates are finished, when he proposes to introduce the promised Transport Bill, which he gave the House to understand before the dissolution was likely to be introduced to deal with the situation. The Minister was responsible for the passing of an Act which gave the railway companies the right to run buses under very severe restrictions and regulations. By his failure to carry out the law, he is allowing these foreign capitalists to come in here and destroy the railway systems, and thus create unemployment, which could be avoided if there were equally restrictive regulations applied to the other bus owners in this country. I understand also that on the North side of Dublin young boys under 18 years of age are being employed as conductors on buses, presumably at a rate of wages which would not bear comparison with the wages paid by the railway companies. I should like to know from Deputy Baxter, the leader of the Farmers' Party, or some of the Deputies of that Party, whether the farmers, who according to Deputy Baxter are carrying the whole weight of the country on their backs, carrying everybody else on their backs, are prepared to tolerate a system which will compel the ratepayers, as it did last year, to provide the sum of £1,199,567 from the rates to bolster up this cut-throat competition by buses run by foreign capital against the railway system in this country. The Minister for Industry and Commerce fixed the capital of the Great Southern Railways Company at £27,000,000, all of which, I think it will be agreed, was subscribed in this country. He is now allowing foreign capitalists to come in and destroy that railway system which he himself has set up, and which is working under very severe regulations made by the Minister. He is allowing it to be ruined at the expense of the railway shareholders, the railway users and the railway workers.

I asked to-day for figures as to the cost of maintenance of the roads, and, according to the figures given to me. the sum of £1,199,567 was provided out of the rates, at the expense of the farmers presumably; the Government provided, by way of grants, the sum of £813,865; and the revenue from motor taxation amounted in the last financial year to £616,207. I am not to be taken as entering an objection to the provision of proper roads in this country. I think there is certainly need for better roads than we have, but I say that the cost of the maintenance of these roads must be borne in a fair proportion by those who make most use or cause most abuse of these roads. I contend that the bus-owners of the country who are ignoring the laws made by our present Government, without any interference, should be and must be called upon to pay a greater share of the cost of maintenance of the roads, if we are to have fair competition amongst the people who provide transport in this country.

There are other people who have probably greater interests in the railways than I have, but I am speaking on this occasion in order that other members who may hold views on this matter may give expression to these views for the guidance and the information of the Minister. If this system is allowed to go on, if it is tolerated much longer, there will be a chaotic and a cut-throat competition which the Minister, later on, will find it impossible to control. It is time that some check should be put on the people who are ignoring the laws. If the Minister wants to prevent unemployment he will have to deal with the bus owners who are ignoring the laws and, by ignoring the laws, are crippling the railway industry, with the result that thousands of railwaymen, from year to year, even from week to week, are being thrown out of employment. I have not heard from the Minister, and I think it is his duty to give the information to the House, as to when he proposes to introduce the Transport Bill.

We have been told that an InterDepartmental Committee—I believe the Minister referred to it as a Traffic Committee—has been set up under certain terms of reference to give-advice to the Minister, but the peculiar thing about the setting up of the Committee is that it consists of officials of different departments, and it has been set up to give advice to a Department which, as far as I can gather, has no general policy itself on the question of transport. If the Government want the Committee to give them advice they should first of all give the Committee some outline, of the policy which the Ministry as a whole is prepared to pursue. The Ministry should delay making their pronouncement of policy no longer. The interests of railway users, railway shareholders and railwaymen are at stake, and the Minister should make some pronouncement as to what the future intentions of the Ministry are in regard to the general problem of transport and the regulation and control of those who use the roads at present.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Minister for Finance has made a statement on the question of the bonus raised by Deputy O'Gorman. I do not want to say very much about it, except just to add a little to what the Minister for Finance has stated as to the number of public servants who were transferred and who have Treaty rights. Out of every 18 permanent civil servants in this country, 16 have Treaty rights, and if Deputy O'Gorman and Deputy McMenamin proceed to put into force the policy they seem to have outlined we will arrive at a state of things which, to use the words of Deputy McMenamin himself, would be more fallacious and more erroneous and lead to a greater state of financial despondency than that which we have at present. Sixteen out of eighteen permanent civil servants have Treaty rights and cannot be interfered with in the matter of bonus. There is a further point apart from that fact which precludes any handling of that matter—that justice demands that a bonus should be paid.

Mr. O'GORMAN

No.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Justice demands that it should be paid. The civil servant was not given the advantage of the boom years. The civil servant did not get his salary raised when prices were high. When the farmer was enjoying big prices for his produce and the business man big prices for his goods, the civil servant was prevented from feeling the good effects of the boom years; therefore he should be equally spared the severity of the slump years. That is what I call the justice of the case. The cost-of-living figure on which the bonus is regulated stands at about 90 at the moment. Still the bonus by no means represents the increase in the cost of living to a man if you take his salary in 1914. I will take one example. Take a man with a basic salary of £500. He does not get now a bonus of £450, which would be 90 per cent. more. He gets £221 of a bonus. With regard to the taxation deducted from the salary plus bonus, it is also severe. A man with a salary of £500 in 1914 paid income tax of £12 15s., leaving his net salary £487 5s. His total salary now is £721, and on that he has to pay an income tax of £80, so that his net salary is £641. It is quite clear that this man, drawing a salary of £641 under the conditions that prevail now, is a great deal worse off than a man drawing £487 in 1914. That is as to the arguments on the justice side of the case.

There has been a whole lot of talk, the usual misleading talk, as to savings. The Minister for Finance made a calculation in his speech on the Budget before the last, in which he said that if 20 per cent. reduction were made on the salaries of all civil servants in receipt of £500, and if an additional 20 per cent. reduction were made on those who had £700 and upwards, the saving would not allow him to give a reduction of one-fifth of a penny in the sugar duty. That is the net saving that would be represented by the injustice that Deputy O'Gorman and Deputy McMenamin would like to have. When Deputy McMenamin speaks of an increase, I wonder does he want his idea of a reduction to apply all round? Deputy McMenamin is a barrister. Have barristers' fees been raised since 1914?

Captain REDMOND

They have not.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

They have.

Mr. McMENAMIN

I would like to ask the Minister to inform himself on the various matters accurately and not address the House inaccurately.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I want to put this to the House: that as a matter of fact the fees that barristers get have been raised. One cannot state the exact all-round percentage, because it varies according to the particular court that one is in, but there has been, in fact, an increase. An increase, was specially and specifically arranged to meet the increase in the cost of living.

Mr. McMENAMIN

I flatly contradict that statement. There has been a statutory provision in regard to solicitors' fees, but not in regard to the other branch of the profession.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am not talking of statutory provisions. I am talking of the actual practice.

Mr. McMENAMIN

Or in actual practice either.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

In actual practice it is a fact—the legal profession all round.

Captain REDMOND

I am afraid the Minister, as a barrister, knows very little of actual practice.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Possibly.

Mr. McMENAMIN

Or facts either.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I would not like to go into this question of practice, or how much practice is worth to some people in this House. It would lead to some disconcerting discoveries.

Mr. McMENAMIN

Would the Minister keep to the facts and reply to my statement or withdraw?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

If Deputy McMenamin wishes me to take up Deputy Redmond's point as to practising barrister's income. I would have to ask for facts as to Deputy McMenamin's practice and what he draws from that: what he gets from his actual practice at the Bar with regard to fees. When I get that answer I will be able to make some evaluation as to what he knows. We will then be able to evaluate the evidence he can give on this point. I reiterate my statement that legal people in general, and people in the profession which the two Deputies represent, which is one branch of the legal profession, had in fact their fees increased, and are therefore in the enjoyment of greater fees. I do not know if these two Deputies will stand for a reduction in them, or move a motion before the Bar Council that barristers should not be allowed to receive in fees more than what they normally did in 1914. I would like to see what kind of reception they would get from the Bar Council if they proposed it.

Captain REDMOND

Is the Minister suggesting, as he has mentioned my name, that I said at any time in the course of this debate or elsewhere that civil servants should not receive the bonus?

Mr. McMENAMIN

I never suggested anything of the kind either. I only asked for a statement of policy.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Deputy Redmond was quite clear about that. I was stating that the salaries of civil servants could not be interfered with on account of Treaty rights. Deputy Redmond intervened when I was talking of barristers, and that was my only reference to him. Deputy McMenamin certainly left the House under the impression with all his talk about an erroneous and fallacious policy and of the state of financial despondency we were in, that he stood for a reduction. At any rate, if he wants a statement of policy, he gets it now. As a matter of justice, as far as I am concerned I hold that it would be quite wrong to interfere with the bonus, and as a matter of policy it cannot be done whether one regards it as just or unjust. To interfere with it would leave the second state much worse than what the present state is. Sixteen out of eighteen civil servants could apply to retire and get Treaty conditions. They would be able to go out and draw a pension for the rest of their lives without doing any work, and the Civil Service would have to be staffed all over again under the new conditions of decreased pay, which would not get us anything great in the way of talent. There was only one thing in the statement made by Deputy O'Hanlon that I object to. He left the House under the impression that he would welcome an inquiry, and said that when we had the result of that inquiry people would know whether they were getting value for their money or not. He indicated prima facie the belief that we were not getting value, but that to my mind was balanced by his other statement that you could get as good work out of a man by paying him £5,000 a year as by paying another man £500 a year, because that is in complete contrast to the ordinary statements made with regard to pay for civil servants. There has been a pretty definite propaganda and move to single civil servants and public officials out in a particular way. The idea seems to be prevalent through the country that it is hardly possible to imagine a public servant who is worth more than about £1,200 or, in an exceptional case, about £1,500. If we are to have that sort of mind ruling in the country it must go further than the civil servants.

There will be the logical corollary to that, that there ought to be a steeply graded super tax on all incomes of £1,500 and over so that the State would get everything earned over £2,000 a year. You cannot apply a reduction of that kind to public servants only, and not apply it to people in other walks of life, such as those in commerce and professional life. You cannot reduce the salaries of judges and allow the salaries of counsel to remain as they are. You cannot expect to have a judge sitting on the Bench at a salary of £1,000 a year and have counsel appearing before him earning three times that amount. You will have to have a general close down all round. Deputy O'Hanlon stated that he was opposed to that. Deputy O'Hanlon said he was in favour of a Committee being set up to see whether the country was getting value for its money. He was in favour of an inquiry being set up so that we could see whether or not a prima facie case could be made in regard to the charge that is constantly being made: whether a civil servant does in fact give value for his money. There was an inquiry of the same sort held elsewhere, and the decision was in favour of the civil servants.

Mr. O'HANLON

That was not an inquiry conducted by civil servants. I say that it would be in their own interests to have an independent inquiry set up. The result of such an inquiry would set at rest the idea in the public mind, held rightly or wrongly, that the cost of administration is too high.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not think that the idea of an independent Committee is so much in the public mind or is so prevalent through the country as the anti-large salary view.

Mr. O'HANLON

That is not my view.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I admit that, but I am afraid it is the view of Deputy O'Gorman.

Mr. O'GORMAN

The view of Deputy O'Gorman is that salaries should not exceed the capacity of the country to pay. My opinion is that the salary of a civil servant, no matter how high the position he holds is, should bear some proportion and relation to the income of the average citizen in the State.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is a different point also which is not a popular one: the capacity of the average citizen with regard to earning; because otherwise I think the Deputy would be in agreement with me that if you make a decision on the one hand that the country can only bear earnings of so much, that has to apply to business all round and not merely to the public service.

Mr. O'GORMAN

I stated before that in business the payment of bonus was abandoned long ago, but now, as we are having an across-the-table debate I might point out to the Minister that I am strongly of opinion, and the public agree with me, that it is absurd and unjust to add a bonus of £263 to a salary of £1,000 a year.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is a point of view that has to be countered in this country, a view from which no good can come. It would simply mean that you are not going to employ people of bigger brain capacity than £1,000 will remunerate. In that way there lies disaster for the country. It will mean that the English Civil Service, as before, mil be manned by the best brains of this country, and that the best brains of this country will not remain here to enter the public service. Deputy O'Brien asked me with regard to a return of the unemployed. There is of course a classification dealing with the unemployed, but it comes under sub-head K. Parts of the country have already been classified according to the various occupations and according to industry. No return has been made in any part of the country with regard to industrial status, unemployment or dependency. They fall into groups that will be dealt with later. I am not sure when the volume on that can be promised. The earlier volume that I spoke of has been promised for this year, but I doubt if the unemployment section will come into that period. It is being dealt with, however late it may appear.

Deputy Morrissey and Deputy Johnson spoke of the matter of what the Department is doing to develop existing industries. Before I come to deal with the details of that, I object to the point of view to which Deputy Johnson gave expression that it is any part of my business as head of the Department of which I am Minister to see that all the moneys voted are spent. I protested in this House before, and I protest again, against that view that I am Minister for Employment. I am Minister for the Department which happens to control the unemployment insurance code and fund, and I have certain relations with unemployment in that regard. I have further to do with industry and commerce, but if there is employment outside and beyond industry and commerce, then that is no part of my special function and no part of my special duty. It is no part of my duties to see that all the moneys voted in this House for road-making which comes within the area of transport services should be spent, even though it may be said that that money provides employment. That is no part of my task, and it is one which I refuse to accept here and now.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Minister then make representation to his colleagues to set up a Ministry that will have that task? The Minister supplanted the Ministry for Economic Affairs, and there seems to be an opportunity here for some Ministry that will have supervision over every improvement in the public life of the country.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Even the Minister for Economic Affairs, if he remained, would have nothing to do with seeing that money which had been voted for drainage and sewerage schemes would have to be spent.

Mr. JOHNSON

No, but if the Ministry sees that there are large numbers of people disemployed, and sees the Dáil has voted money for the employment of those people, surely somebody is responsible, and one would think that that responsibility would come within the scope of the Minister's activities.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Let me take one of the items referred to, money for roads.

ACTING SPEAKER (Professor Thrift)

Would not this be dealt with in the Bill for the appointment of the Minister for Works? It is hardly connected with the present discussion.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not think it comes within the scope of the present Vote and consequently is no part of my duty, and that, I think, is a verdict in my favour. I have been asked what is being done with regard to the development and extension of industries, and Deputy Morrissey threw out a hint in favour of a publicity campaign in favour of Irish industries. The plan referred to is one amongst the earliest that were discussed when trying to help Irish manufacturers, and in giving that publicity it was suggested that there should be a tax upon the advertisement of foreign goods, but that particular way would lead to the definite prohibition of English newspapers in this country or the putting of a tax upon them. It would have other reactions possibly not clear to Deputies. The Deputy threw out that suggestion, but so far it is not practicable to adopt that particular device. There is a further point. Most Irish manufacturers will tell you—I believe it is only when they are in a despondent vein that they say this—that they have from time to time, and very often, to ask the retailers not to admit that the goods that they have are Irish manufacture or else they will not be sold. As I say, I believe that it is only when they are in a despondent vein they say that, but I know a case to my own knowledge where the matter was tried out for a period of some weeks and where certain boots were bought, and bought without objection, when not advertised as Irish made, but were refused when definitely put before their customers as being of Irish manufacture.

Mr. MORRISSEY

All the more necessity for publicity.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not know about that.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I mean to kill that spirit.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I think there is necessity for entering upon a campaign directed in another way. The question was asked one time as to how far trade unions were going to co-operate in any matter of pushing Irish manufactured goods. Let us take the case of one particular item, namely, matches. Matches made in this country are quite as good, and you get as many to the box and as many boxes to the holder as imported matches from other countries, yet the fact remains that Irish matches are not bought to the extent that they should be, and the reason is that the retailer gets some very small extra profit on a certain amount of matches sold. It is a small percentage and, apparently, that is handed over to the assistant in order that he may push the matches, because it has been my own experience that you get foreign matches pushed upon you to the exclusion of the Irish.

Captain REDMOND

That is a matter for the Tariff Commission.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

No tariff could help a commodity which does not at all complain of underselling in the sense that there is less price for the article. It is a matter of unfair competition owing to the fact that retailers' assistants push foreign matches as against the home matches.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Is the Minister aware that retailers can get foreign matches at from 6½d. to 7½d. per dozen boxes whereas they have to pay 9½d. for Irish matches? I would like to know if the Minister has any ground for the suggestion that assistants are paid part of the profits by the shop-owner to push foreign matches against Irish.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I think I have given an answer. I am taking comparable boxes of matches. The same number of boxes in the container. Therefore there is no such distinction such as getting twice the amount of foreign matches for a penny as you will get of Irish. That does not hold good at all here. I am speaking from information supplied to me from the match manufacturers in this country, the men most likely to urge this consideration of tariff if they believed they were being undersold. Without speaking of tariffs or anything of that sort, and taking comparable boxes of matches with very small advantage to the retailer, I cannot understand how the retailers could get so enthusiastic and their employees get so enthusiastic in the matter of pushing foreign matches unless there is some pecuniary advantage given to the employee as well.

I suggest that there is great room in which trade union activities through the unions could be used so that Irish employees should be got to do their best by giving the benefit of this push to Irish goods to the exclusion of other goods, or in preference to other goods.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Minister allow me to say that for twenty-five years, to my own knowledge, the organisation that includes the greater proportion of shop assistants has been advocating amongst its own members the very doctrine that the Minister is now preaching? If he will only apply to the Secretary of the Dublin Industrial Development Association he will find that statement of mine confirmed to the fullest possible extent.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I hope I understand the Deputy to mean that the Dublin Clerical Workers' Union have insisted upon this, but the point that I was arguing, and one that the Dublin Industrial Development Association would also press, is how far do the members of the trade unions as individuals carry out that policy?

Mr. JOHNSON

We are in the same position as the Minister is with regard to any of the public services. He may call for a particular class of service and try to stimulate interest in particular work, but it is not possible to say that the full effect desired would follow, but, so far as the Clerical Workers' Union are concerned, and more particularly the Distributive Workers' Union, they have always insisted in the propaganda, at their annual conferences and in their monthly journal that their members should always give a forward push to Irish goods.

Mr. W. O'BRIEN

Is the Minister aware that that Union has refused to accept advertisements in their journals from any but Irish manufacturers? Not a single advertisement is inserted in their journal except from Irish manufacturers, although very often high prices are offered by foreign firms.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I hope it is not understood that I am making any complaint. I am putting it that there is a great deal of publicity with regard to Irish-manufactured goods that can be brought about other than that by Government Departments. I am, however, now on a different suggestion. I am accepting the suggestion of Deputy Morrissey that publicity is a thing to be aimed at. It has been before us for a long time. But we have found for some years past a reluctance on the part of industrialists to enter upon any publicity campaign; they certainly would not face up to it on their own. They would not face it to-day, even if a Government Department got some of the work done for them. It is almost impossible to get industrialists in this country to send representatives or exhibitions abroad. There have been many opportunities afforded them, and even in this country it has been found difficult enough to get them to enter upon any publicity campaign, their excuse being that they were not ready, that the goods were not in a state at which they could be sold, and the time was not ripe. Other people hold that their goods were sufficiently sound in quality to warrant exhibition, but there was a prejudice against Irish manufactures and so on. That is disappearing, and quite recently there was a very heartening experience by officials in my Department at a Feis held in Roscommon, where intimation was given that the Department should send down an official to get into touch with the people there and to give them advice in regard to local industry.

A very interesting discussion was the result, which, I think, will bear fruit quite soon. People of my Department. have been on journeys of that sort trying to get as much publicity as possible for Irish industrialists, and trying to get industries worked up in local centres to the greatest extent possible. There have been, as Deputies previously dealing with the Estimates will realise, advisory committees formed in certain branches of manufacture. Meetings of these are held from time to time, and even groups are called in to consultation from time to time to see if they know any way that Government activity can be remunerative. There have been a big number of meetings of these committees held during the last year and in addition to that, there has been an enormous amount of investigation of that kind done as to the possibility of starting industries. That has proceeded quite steadily during the year, and negotiations for opening new factories and things of that sort have been dealt with. A great number of firms have sent representatives here, and at conferences have been put in touch with people likely to be of use to them. In every possible way that a Government Department can intervene there has been intervention with a view to getting local capital and enterprise joined to start new industries. Information has been sought in a great many places by people interested in the establishment of new businesses in this country. Various information was required, most of which could be supplied by my own Department, but a good deal of it was supplied by other Departments, information as to the possibility of getting the export trade worked up, and questions as to transport costs and labour costs; as much help as could be given was given.

The other side of the work that that particular section dealt with, that of the development type, would be on the side of mineral resources, and there we were handicapped by the fact that the personnel of the staff we have had was rather small. A very big demand was made on their time, and unfortunately those demands came in at all sorts of periods when journeys could not be arranged, so as to get the best possible result from the visits of the officials to the country. There have been a great many inquiries as to the possibility of mineral development. Exploration work, which is necessarily limited, has been going on generally at the request of people who seem to have capital to sink in any sort of mineral development. As a matter of fact, all this has focussed attention on a certain Article of the Constitution, which is of very doubtful value in connection with the exploitation of mineral resources in the country, and it is quite possible that there will have to be legislation dealing with the granting of leases or licences, for the working of minerals in this country, which will probably come before this House in the autumn.

Although there has not been visible to people in the country any great publicity with regard to manufacture and there possibly has not been any great evidence to the ordinary outsider of work done in the Department, there has in fact, been a great deal. It is necessarily limited. My Department can do a fair amount in the way of collecting information to hold it at the disposal of people who make inquiries, but we cannot, on our own, drive people into industrially developing the country. We can simply assist by having information at our disposal, having it in the most easily understood form, but that is the beginning and end of our activities.

Mr. MORRISSEY

Might I ask whether the Government would be prepared to consider coming to the House and asking for a certain amount of money, which would be spent on publicity for pushing Irish products? The Minister will realise, I am sure, and so will the House, that there are others besides Irish manufacturers to be considered in this matter; when you are trying to push the sale of Irish products you are considering more than the Irish manufacturers. It seems to me that if it is to be done in the most effective and cheapest way it must be done by some central authority.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

In view of a communication I received a couple of days ago, it may be necessary to come to this House and ask for a grant to help, with a certain amount of Government supervision, an outside body to advance upon the road of publicity of which the Deputy spoke. The whole matter of Government initiation of industrial development in the country is not one I should like to pronounce upon at this time. It has been stated that there is this question of allowing a Government Department, such as my own, to intervene before the Tariff Commission, with a view to having proposals put forward before the Tariff Commission, to start businesses under the aid of protection. There, again, one has to face the difficulty that if there is not a sufficient body of people interested in the country even to the extent of claiming a tariff, what hope is there in getting people, once a Government Department has claimed a tariff, to come over and operate on it? If there is no hope are we to take the step that Government Departments are to engage in business? It would require a lot of persuasion to get people to believe that the age of private enterprise is so far past that Government Departments have to intervene in order to get businesses started.

Mr. MORRISSEY

That is not my question.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

No. The particular matter of a Government grant, or Government money with regard to publicity, is a matter that has been considered under about three headings. There has been the question of giving a grant, the spending of which the Government would supervise, to a certain outside body, which seems to be the best to inaugurate a publicity campaign.

Mr. JOHNSON

Is that tourist development ?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Not by any means. It is industrial development. That is a different matter. Those are matters that have to be thought out at the moment. Certainly I am not in a position to ask for money to engage in any such publicity campaign. If a suitable demand is made I will put that forward for consideration by the Minister for Finance, and finally for the House.

Deputy Cooper has talked of publicity of another type and of statistics. He said I have promised statistics from time to time. I think my attitude in this House is rather one of refusing statistical information on the ground that giving piecemeal statistics was going to hinder the getting out of the first authoritative publication. We should wait until we get the census returns and also those in connection with the census of production. I do not know what statistics Deputy Cooper wants. He spoke of a year-book. We have not got one. We could compile one, but it would be full of inaccurate information if we were to compile it just now. It would be mainly conjecture and guess-work, so that it is better to wait until we have all the census information available, and then we can produce our year-book. It is easy to say that we are the only one of the Commonwealth of Nations which has not a year-book. I wonder what would be said if that statement was made shortly after Canada, South Africa and Australia had achieved a particular status. If that comparison were made at a time when it was comparable to our circumstances now, it would not be found so much to our disadvantage. We can produce an ordinary kind of tourist handbook giving information regarding such matters as historical remains and antiquities.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does the Minister throw any doubt on the reliability of the Ulster Year-book?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Comparisons are odious, and I am avoiding them. Deputy Hogan raised the old question with regard to people who own what is described as a few acres of land, who get employment on the roads, and who, when they become unemployed, are refused benefit. The Dáil only hears of cases in which benefit is refused, but it never hears of cases in which it is paid. In a great many cases benefit is paid to people in possession of land. In the last Dáil I stated that a man was not ruled out of unemployment benefits because he had land.

Mr. HOGAN (Clare)

The Minister knows that it is a fact that not alone is he ruled out because he has land, but he is ruled out if he lives with a brother or sister who has land.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It may be, but what I am putting to the Dáil is that Deputies are not to draw the conclusion that universally everybody who has land is ruled out from receiving unemployment benefit simply because he has land.

Mr. HOGAN

Are we to take it that the reverse is the case, that he may have land and draw benefits?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes.

Mr. DAVIN

Under what circumstances? Give us a typical case.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I could give a number of cases. I stated previously that the way the matter runs is this. A person gets into an insurable occupation, stamps are to his credit, he goes out of that particular type of work and applies for benefit. At the time he applies for benefit all his circumstances are taken into account, his industrial history, how long he has been in industrial life, and also whether he is an industrial worker or a farmer. It is also ascertained what use he makes of his bit of ground, and what seasons such ground is of use to him. These facts are taken into account, not by officials in my Department but by the umpires of the Court of Referees. There is no rule laid down on which such umpires found themselves, so that they would rule out automatically anybody having land at any period of the year.

Mr. HOGAN (Clare)

Will the Minister agree that applications made in January and June, May and October, have been rejected? During what seasons or months is benefit given?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The particular seasons of the year and all the circumstances are it taken together. The Deputy cannot assert that everybody who has land and who at the same time has stamps to his credit is ruled out from getting benefit.

Mr. JOHNSON

Has there been any formulation of a regulation for the guidance of officers throughout the country in respect of this matter? It appears to me, from the knowledge which has come my way, that there is considerable variation in the methods of administration in this matter.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The referees in various districts may have different points of view as to the suitability and so forth of the land. That is not regulated, and I do not think that it should be. If Deputies want that kind of thing regulated remember they are going to leave my Department with more power to insist on an average ruling instead of leaving it to the people on the spot to decide the circumstances. It is put up here—I am inclined to think now, Deputy Hogan believes it—that we are, in fact, taking money from people with land in insurable occupations and refusing afterwards to pay them benefit.

Mr. HOGAN

That is my experience.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is not the case. As I say, the Dáil will only hear about cases brought up here in which benefit is not paid. I have previously asked Deputy Hogan to get two or three cases, giving particulars concerning each case, have them discussed here and allow the Dáil to give its verdict upon them.

Mr. HOGAN

They have already gone to the Minister's Department. I will not say that I brought them to the Minister's personal notice.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy has an easy remedy. Let him raise this matter on the adjournment some evening and we will argue it. There is an impression created that we are doing a very unjust thing, namely, taking money from people with land when they get into insurable occupations, and refusing to give them benefit afterwards. If Deputy Davin presses, as I think he did when the Dáil met last week, that these people should be exempt from deductions——

Mr. DAVIN

I said if they were compelled by law to pay for the stamps on their cards they should be given credit for such stamps when they are unemployed.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

They are.

Mr. DAVIN

They are not.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

They are. It is all a matter of circumstances. Nobody gets benefit simply because there are stamps to credit. Everybody has to pass the same test as a man or woman with land. That test is—is he, or she, unable to obtain suitable employment? These are the circumstances that have to be taken into account. As I say, Deputy Hogan can bring up two or three cases on the adjournment and let the House decide whether the circumstances were such as to warrant a particular decision. In the end, I am not bound in these matters, because they go to the highest court and there is no interference there. The other side of the case is, that if you cannot get them changed it is obviously a case of not asking these men to pay towards the unemployment fund. If that is the attitude to be adopted county councils and other local authorities will always employ a man with land because he will not be so costly, as they will not have to pay contributions for him towards the fund. The fund will be considerably weakened in that way, because certain men, who will be regarded as good lives, will be taken out of it and the fund will then depend on the bad lives.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister may take it that is not our policy.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am glad to hear it.

Mr. DAVIN

For the guidance of the House I might state that I brought under the notice of the Minister, by correspondence and by a question in the House, the case of an individual who was employed in a quarry for five years, with the exception of one month each year, when the place was closed in order that the machinery might be overhauled. This man had a small holding with a valuation of £2 10s. 0d., but when thrown out of work with the other employees, while the machinery was being overhauled, he was refused the unemployment benefit.

Mr. M. DOYLE

If I might intervene, not in defence of the Minister, I might mention that I have knowledge of such cases as were quoted, where individuals were refused the benefit by the officials, but, when the matter came before the Court of Referees, the dole was granted.

Mr. DAVIN

Will the Minister deal with the kind of case I quoted?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Obviously I cannot deal with a single case here. Deputy Hogan need not occupy the whole evening, and on the adjournment Deputy Davin can deal with that particular case by way of a motion.

Mr. DAVIN

I will put down a motion.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

There are various ways of phrasing it. The Deputy's argument comes down to trying to get people to believe that there is a definite rule that a man who has land cannot draw benefit, even if there are stamps to his credit. I deny that. We have heard of the bad cases. Deputy Lawlor raised a matter concerning the City Commissioners and talked vehemently of how someone had blundered. I stated in this House that that has to be related back to the whole incident and circumstances at the time. The circumstances were that I was trying to get through this House a Bill that was rather contentious and had certain reactions on the municipal undertaking here.

At one moment I found I had a deputation telling me that certain men had been put out of work. I asked them why, and I was told the reason. I detailed the circumstances to them, and I got no objection from them to my explanation that day. The explanation was that certain work by way of extension of the municipal electricity undertaking had first to be sanctioned by my Department, and afterwards there is to be sanction for the loan, looking for borrowing powers by the Department of Local Government. A practice had been growing up of simply proceeding with the extensions, and then confronting my Department with the dilemma: "Are you going to stop work that is being done?" The matter became rather critical this year when it was thought to order a very big piece of machinery at a big cost, when a similar type of machinery, costing the same amount and synchronising with the work at Ardnacrusha, would have been of value three years hence. A piece of machinery might have been ordered, and seemed likely to be ordered, which would mean three years hence that that amount of machinery, worth about £40,000, would be useless.

Under the circumstances I could not agree until I got detailed specifications and an agreement that certain things were to be looked to. Having intimated that clearly two or three times, I found men were being put off work on the ordinary extensions in the city, and that it had nothing to do with the turbine I had spoken of. I think there was something very peculiar about that. One can get a bad impression of what was done at that time. I am ready to answer any question and to stand any public investigation as to the justice of what I did on that particular transaction, as to whether or not my action had anything to do with the putting of certain men out of employment.

Mr. LAWLOR

I only desired the Minister to understand that, from the information it was possible to obtain outside, undoubtedly the responsibility was placed on his shoulders. If the responsibility was placed on the Minister's shoulders when it could have been placed on the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, at least, would be in a position to have set the matter right. I have a clear-cut statement, made specifically, that the Minister put his foot down on any extensions of the electricity supply, independent of the question of the turbine engine altogether, and that, in addition, the Commissioners would not consider any overtures from the Minister's Department as regards that class of work. The only guarantee they would take that they could proceed without being pilloried afterwards, would be on the Minister's signature. The Minister stood on his dignity for three weeks or more before he gave his signature, and the men were walking about. I am glad I raised the matter, as my intention was, if a similar thing happened again, that at least those who have no control over the matter will not be the only persons to suffer.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

There was no standing on dignity for any period. There was a very definite meeting with people, a clear-cut statement as to the position, and also intimation with regard to the turbine that specifications would have to be insisted upon, but that normal extensions could run. There were certain things we had to have explained to us and we hoped these would follow. I say again quite clearly that I have nothing to lament, as far as my action is concerned, for what happened. I think certain people were unjustly treated, but it was not because of anything I imposed on the Commissioners. It was no intention of mine, and was no ordinary or logical outcome of what I did.

Mr. LAWLOR

I see that. It originated from the other end, possibly with an object in view.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Deputy Johnson spoke about a reduction from £1,500 to £1,000 under sub-head H—Departmental Committee on Crude Alcohol: Prizes. Originally a resolution was passed in the Seanad and a committee was appointed on foot of that with terms of reference as follows:—

"That, with a view to the estab lishment of two important industries in Saorstát Eireann, the Seanad suggests to the Government the desirability of offering substantial prizes for—

1st. The most efficient type of in ternal combustion engine developing 15 B.H.P. while using crude alcohol alone as the motor spirit:

2nd. The most suitable and economic crude alcohol for the development of power, so treated that it could not be consumed as a drink.

"B" part has been satisfied, that there is an engine capable of use in this way, and consequently prizes for the two items have been reduced to the proper amount set out in that section. £1,000 still remains for the A portion. As regards the reduction in the next sub-head, "Grant-in-aid of the expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations)," the Free State contribution for the ordinary League of Nations purpose is determined on a proportionate basis. We pay so many units out of the calculated number of the total units required. As the amount required has gone down our proportionate amount has necessarily decreased.

As to night baking, I think I indicated, in dealing with a certain number of these conventions brought forward that we were pretty clear that the conventions with regard to night baking would be adopted in the Free State. Inquiries had to be made, and when these are completed of course there will be a resolution here with regard to the convention. Deputy Davin has spoken of my failure to control transport, and made a statement that all the Ministers now being equal the responsibility of the Minister for Industry and Commerce would be less. I do not know what that means. A Bill has not been introduced with regard to transport. I think I indicated, on the Railway and Road Motor Powers Bill, that only when that particular Bill had been in operation for a year or two would we have reliable statistics as to what it would cost to run motor vehicles on roads, allowing for proper depreciation. I do not say that if any portion of that Transport Bill had to depend on that particular type of statistics there would be a long time before the Transport Bill would be introduced. The Deputy has talked of a Transport Committee. I think if the Deputy looks at the terms of reference he had better call that a Traffic Committee.

Mr. DAVIN

If the Minister looks at the official notes he will see I did refer to it as a Traffic Committee.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I was asked by Deputy Johnson if certain matters would fall to be dealt with by that Committee. I said no, that certain matters were excluded from the consideration of that Committee, which was dealing with one matter, that is, reporting to the Minister who has to deal with traffic regulations. I doubt even if we get all this co-ordination with regard to transport matters, even if it is desirable, that it will be possible to keep the Minister for Justice out of the police control of traffic regulations in cities. I think that will always remain unless the Deputy wants to have special transport police under the Ministry of Transport running around trailing buses to find out what could be done and what penalty could be imposed on them.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the Chair.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I think there is every evidence a comprehensive Transport Bill will be required, but it will be some time before it is ready. In the meantime, it may be necessary to approach this problem step by step. I agree that one of the scandals of the road at the moment is the number of these road buses, and the amount of road they occupy outside their own legitimate portion of the road, the speed at which they travel and the fact that they can block the road to the ordinary motor driver, going at a speed, I think, the ordinary motor driver would be summoned for going at.

Mr. DAVIN

Pending the introduction of the promised Transport Bill, will the Minister undertake to give an assurance that whatever competition is carried on between the road motor people and the railways will be carried on within the limits of the law, as otherwise it would be unfair competition, and these people should be dealt with if they exceed the speed limit?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

As to my collective responsibility, for instance, if fish from trawlers were dispatched to France and not carried over our railways it becomes a transport matter, as I have collective responsibility for fisheries, so that anything can be raised on this Vote of mine. I have nothing at the moment to say as to buses keeping to their proper speed. I am not sure that the Deputy's recital as to the time-table is evidence. I understand the question has been raised in the courts, and that the time-table is not binding on the driver. It is merely an indication of the time at which people might expect to get to places, but it is not binding. The Deputy would have to travel on one of these buses and go as a witness to prove that the bus has travelled beyond the legal speed. If evidence cannot be got as to the speed at which buses travel, action cannot be taken.

Mr. DAVIN

Are we to wait for some disaster involving loss of life to a number of people, such as occurred at Drumcollogher, before action will be taken? And then when the disaster occurs the Minister will come to the House and express sympathy for the lives that have been lost.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is going too far. I am saying that on the Vote for the Ministry of Industry and Commerce I should not be asked why buses travel at certain speeds, and why bus-owners have not been brought into court.

Question put and agreed to.