Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 May 1930

Vol. 35 No. 1

Public Business. - Vote No. 56—Industry and Commerce.

Mr. McGilligan

I move:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £70,800 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, 1931, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála, maraon le Coiste Comhairlitheach na Rátaí.

That a sum not exceeding £70,800 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, 1931, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including the Rates Advisory Committee.

I have for the last two or three years given an account of the special branches of the Department. The Estimate this year shows no substantial increase and I do not intend to go into detail as I have done in other years. I intend to refer to points arising out of the minor Votes about which I said I would have some information. A point was raised by Deputy Lemass in regard to standard charges. Deputy Lemass brought into the discussion a decision of the courts, and a statement made by the Department in regard to standard revenue and the effect which standard revenue would have on standard charges. We discussed that at some length previously but not to the extent that would cover the ground. The exceptional rates brought forward by the railway company led to discussions and to court proceedings.

The Court took a view contrary to that taken by the Railway Tribunal on representations made by my Department. They held that there was no limit to the amount of traffic that could be taken at exceptional rates and to that extent negatived our contention that standard charges should be standard charges while there might be exceptional rates attached to them. It was stated that owing to the peculiar, abnormal circumstances of the time, especially the diminution of traffic, a point might be reached at which they could not hope that standard charges would bring in standard revenue. Charges were fixed with a definite appreciation of the fact that revenue would be short. It is well to remember that the Railways Act of 1924 stated that the standard charges to be fixed in the first instance for the amalgamated company shall be such as will, together with the other sources of revenue, in the opinion of the Railway Tribunal, so far as practicable, yield, with efficient and economical working and management, an annual net revenue equivalent to the average annual aggregate net revenue for the three years of account ended next before the 1st January, 1914, together with certain sums and allowances. The Railway Tribunal was instructed when fixing charges to have regard to the means which in their opinion are best calculated to ensure the maximum development and extension in the public interest and whether the application of such charges tended or, if continued, would be likely to tend towards causing an increase or diminution of the traffic. It is clear that the standard charges are not rigidly to be taken always and only on the basis that a simple calculation, showing that the standard revenue would not be derived therefrom, would necessarily render the charges wrong.

In connection with the points raised on the Railway Tribunal Estimate I do not intend to go into the general question of transport which will fall for discussion under two Bills which are to be introduced in the autumn. I would, however, point out that the Appointed Day provided by the 1924 Act has been fixed as 31st July, 1930. On that day three developments operate. First of all, a new classification of merchandise takes effect; secondly a new standard of carriage comes into operation and thirdly the standard charges operate. The classification was a matter that occupied the Railway Tribunal for a long time. The old classification arranged traffic according to the English industrial viewpoint and it was unsound so far as it applied to traffic originating in this country. Traders through my Department appeared before the tribunal pleading for a new classification and they so impressed the tribunal on the point that a new series has been arranged. It puts traffic in what is considered to be its proper position with a view to fostering and developing Irish trade.

The standard condition of carriages is also of importance to the trading community. In the old days the railway company established what it considered to be proper conditions, which could only be objected to on the grounds that they were not reasonable, and any question as to reasonableness had to be tried before the court. The whole system was unsatisfactory from the point of view of the trading community and also the railway company. The Act of 1924 empowered the Railway Tribunal to establish standard conditions of carriages for the handling of traffic, and stated that when settled conditions were established these would immediately be deemed reasonable. The position now is that this matter is settled not by the company but by the Railway Tribunal.

Standard charges are necessarily a corollary to standard revenue. The matter is provided for in the Act of 1924, and I have already quoted the section dealing with it. The standardisation of charges was necessary, because in the old unamalgamated system there were different charges operating in different sections, and traders found themselves in a peculiar position. The charges now will be applicable to all sections of the Great Southern system. Although standard charges have been settled, the exceptional rates still continue, and continue to a greater extent than we had fought for. Exceptional rates may not be as wide as they used to be. The rates that existed prior to the appointed day are continued if the trading community and the company agree. If they do not agree the matter is referred to me, and then, if necessary, to the Railway Tribunal. That is only in the case of exceptional charges, which run between not more than 5 per cent. and less than 40 per cent. below the standard charges. Anything within those limits not operating on the appointed day must be referred to the Minister and may, under certain circumstances, be referred to the Railway Tribunal, so that the question of such charges will be finally settled. There are alterations in railway law of a minor nature, which come into force on the day mentioned, and I would like to draw the notice of traders to the fact that they would be well advised to make themselves acquainted with the new conditions, such as those referring to the owner's risk rates and other matters.

Deputy Goulding raised a special point, and a very involved one, in regard to an old fund out of which he holds that certain money might still be available for baronially guaranteeing ratepayers in certain areas. I indicated then that I did not see much hope of any money being recovered from that, and on examination it looks as if that fear was justified. There was a sum of £93,000 given, or rather agreed on, as payment to the Waterford, Dungarvan and Lismore Railway. Later, the Fishguard system came into operation, and at that time there were large arrears of interest due on the £93,000. Part of the conditions of the establishment of the Fishguard system was that the new company would pay over the money and the arrears of interest, which were to be stabilised at a particular sum. The money was paid during the construction of the Fishguard and Rosslare railway system, or rather when the Bill was going through. The company undertook certain obligations, and it was agreed that if certain extra work was carried out by them a further sum of £93,000 might be given. One of the things to be done was the construction of a line from Fermoy to Dunkettle, and the other was the construction of the Cork railway system. A sum of £25,000 was given for the second work, but the first was not done and the remainder of the money was not given. That begins and ends the question of the £93,000. Some time later the Waterford Corporation, when a matter was raised in connection with the bridge, took up the question of the £93,000 and urged that there were certain sums in that fund that should be handed over to the Waterford Corporation. After a great deal of pressure a sum of £5,000 and, later, a sum of £33,000 were advanced, but it was clearly indicated that these were ex gratia payments. It may, perhaps, be argued that there was a sum of £93,000 guaranteed and that there were paid sums of £25,000, of £33,000 and £5,000, and that the remainder should be still available. These payments were, however, ex gratia, and there is no such account on which the ratepayers may rely.

At any rate, the ratepayers of the guaranteeing areas had a certain liability put upon them for the sum of £14,000 per annum. They paid that for a period of 35 or 40 years. They paid, in fact, until that sum of £14,000 per annum was reduced by half, and they continued to pay until the end of the stated period, when their liability lapsed. I do not think there is the slightest opportunity of re-opening that transaction, since there was no connection between the sums of money they were guaranteeing and paying and the fund to which the Deputy referred. I am assuming the fund to which he referred is the £93,000 fund. Those were the only two points raised, except one on unemployment insurance, which was dealt with on that Estimate.

Mr. Lemass

I am rather surprised that the Minister for Industry and Commerce did not think it desirable to give the House, in asking the Dáil to vote this money, a review of the work done by his Department during the year. I have made certain inquiries and have been unable to discover that the Department of Industry and Commerce has, in fact, done anything during the year except carry on. It has administered the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Factory Acts, and carried out other statutory obligations resting upon it, but, beyond that, it appears to have been content to allow the position this year to remain in all respects similar to the position of last year. When the Estimate was under consideration last year, we discussed a number of the sins of omission and commission for which the Department was responsible. There has been no repentance, apparently, and the sins are in exactly the same state of gravity that they were in twelve months ago. None of the legislative acts which were promised on that occasion has been forthcoming. None of the projects which the Minister outlined for the development of industry and the removal of obstacles from the path to progress have been put into operation. I do not know whether or not the inactivity of the Department of Industry and Commerce is due to the fact that the Minister in charge of the Department is also in charge of another important Department of State. We are aware that the Minister is also responsible for External Affairs, in respect of which Department there was considerable activity during the past twelve months. The Minister was engaged attending conferences abroad and conducting negotiations in respect of a number of matters at home, and one is forced to conclude that the time he was compelled to give to that work made it impossible for him to attend properly to the work of the other Department for which he is responsible. If that be the case, it is certainly very desirable that the two Ministries should not be joined in the one person, but that the Department of Industry and Commerce should be placed in charge of an individual with no other concern, so that the pressing problems with which it should be dealing will have a chance of being attended to.

The Estimate for this year shows a small net increase on that of last year, the increase being mainly accounted for under the head of salaries, wages and allowances. I am particularly interested to note that it is proposed to increase slightly this year the staff at the disposal of the Director of Statistics. I do not know if the increase in the staff of the Statistics Branch will help us to get the remaining census volumes any more quickly than they would otherwise be forthcoming. There are, I think, three or four census volumes still to be published. At one time the Minister was under the impression that all the information ascertained by that census of 1926 would be available and published before the end of the year 1928. He said, in discussing the Estimate for his Department in the year 1928 (Volume 23, column 1399, Official Report): "It is hoped that the final reports of this census, including the figures in respect of all the industries and in respect of agriculture, will be issued before the end of the year." Last year he told us that certain unexpected causes of delay had arisen, and that his original estimate was found to be impossible of fulfilment. He did leave us under the impression, however, that the greater part of the remaining information would be published before the end of 1929. It has not been published. I am particularly concerned about the failure to produce the volume relating to unemployment. In April, 1929, I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, by Parliamentary Question, when he expected the volume would be published, and he said that it would be published within four months. A couple of weeks ago I asked him why the volume had not been published, and he told me that there was no undue delay in preparing the information for publication, but that it had been decided to include in the same volume certain information relating to industries, and he could not give a definite estimate as to when it would appear. When discussing this matter last year, I questioned the value of figures relating to unemployment in the year 1926, if not published until three years later. Obviously it would be unsafe to base any conclusions concerning the policy to be adopted in 1930 upon information four years old.

I have no doubt that the volume, when published, will disclose that in the year 1926 a very serious unemployment situation existed. We will be told, however, that in the intervening period we have turned the corner, and that no argument based on these statistics is valid. It is even possible that the decision to include in the same volume statistics relating to industries has been taken in order to cover up the essential figures relating to unemployment in a mass of irrelevant matter. Certainly the attitude of the Department to the publication of this information has been most unsatisfactory. The figures, when published, will be of certain historic interest, and will be valuable when the next census is taken for the purpose of comparison. But the value which they might have had if published immediately after they had been ascertained has been destroyed by the delay. There are other volumes also due—I do not know quite how many. The only one to which reference has been made at any time in the House is that relating to the Gaeltacht. I should be glad if the Minister would tell us what other volumes it is intended to publish, and when they are likely to appear. Does he expect that the work relating to the census of 1926 will be completed in the present year?

It is not only in relation to the publication of census information that the Department of Industry and Commerce has been very lax. There are a number of other matters in respect of which its inactivity deserves to be mentioned. Before leaving the question of the census, however, I should like to pay tribute to the nature of the volumes which have been published. The information given has been set out in a very clear manner, and it is quite obvious that great ability has been brought to bear upon the work. As a result of the census—particularly the census of industrial production, which proceeded at the same time— we have a great volume of information concerning the economic conditions of this State which we had not got heretofore. My only criticism in connection with this matter is the delay which has occurred in making that information available. I think it would have been much better policy for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to have provided the Director of Statistics with an adequate temporary staff in the years 1927 and 1928 to ensure the speedy publication of the information than that a small staff should be employed for a longer period.

There are many matters which have been, in one form or another, before the Department of Industry and Commerce for a number of years in respect of which no action has been taken. One of the matters to which I refer is the report of the Tribunal on Prices. This Tribunal was established in July, 1926, and submitted its report to the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the 18th October, 1927. That Tribunal was established as a result of a popular agitation. There was considerable dissatisfaction with the prices that were being charged for articles of common consumption, and there was a belief prevalent that profiteering was in progress. The Tribunal was set up at a cost of £1,667. It went to very great pains to get evidence relating to conditions under which certain articles of food were sold and the prices that were usually charged for them. As Deputies will remember, it possessed the same power as a High Court, and it went so far as to commit a prominent official of a trade organisation in Dublin who refused to answer certain questions which the Tribunal put to him.

They stated in their report that only the knowledge that they possessed these drastic powers secured for them, in their opinion, the desired information in many cases. Their report revealed that a very serious situation existed. They pointed out, and produced the necessary evidence to demonstrate, that in certain areas consumers were paying too high prices for particular articles of food, such as bread, meat, milk and similar foodstuffs of common consumption, and that these excessive prices were due to the fact that unreasonable margins of profit were being secured by traders. They went further and stated that consumers were being robbed, not merely by excessive prices, but also by bad measure.

For example the report referred to a test which had been carried out on bottles used for the sale of milk in Dublin. As Deputies know, the practice of selling milk in bottles has grown very considerably in recent years. A test of these milk bottles showed that on the average the pint bottles were ten per cent short of a pint. In some cases, the bottles were actually only three-quarters of a pint, but the average deficiency was ten per cent. They pointed out, also, that in the case of non-perishable foodstuffs sold in packets, such as tea, dried peas, salt and similar articles, the net weight of the food-stuff in the packet was frequently less than that stated on the outside. In the case of bread, the Tribunal demonstrated that excessive prices were being charged at Dublin, Cork, Galway, Sligo, Dundalk, Waterford and Kilkenny—in fact in every city which they visited except Limerick. In the case of meat, they stated that there was no doubt that not profits were excessive and that retail prices generally could afford an appreciable reduction. That statement was made in respect of every city and town in which they carried out investigations. In the case of milk, they reported and produced evidence to prove that the prices charged in Dublin were, to use their own words, "at an unreasonably high level." In the case of butter, they showed that certain traders charged disproportionate rates for butter sold in small quantities. That is, the poorer section of the community which bought its butter in small quantities was being charged at rates altogether in excess of those charged to the better-class customers who could afford to buy in larger quantities. They pointed out that there was no justification for that practice which was, in fact, a method of robbing the poorer and, therefore, the more defenceless section of the community. The report in the case of tea was similar. The evidence produced before the Tribunal showed that the rate of gross profits on the cheaper teas was excessive, and that again it was the poorer section of the community that was being robbed.

I want to remind Deputies that that Tribunal was a judicial Tribunal which took evidence on oath and was empowered to command evidence. They went very thoroughly and painstakingly into the whole question, and their Report revealed a situation such as I have outlined. That Report is one of the most serious and important documents ever submitted to this House. It showed that the poorer section of our people are being systematically robbed by traders in the larger towns through excessive prices for articles of common consumption, and in many cases bad measure in addition. One would have thought that action would have been taken on that Report without delay. Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies and members of the Executive Council are frequently urging as an argument against the protection of Irish industries that protection might possibly increase the cost of living. They have gone slow on the matter of protection on that account, or, at any rate, so they have told us. In other words, they have left a number of Irishmen who might be in employment idle because of their fear that action taken to give them work would increase the cost of living. When they speak upon this matter of protection, they appear to be most anxious about the cost of living, but when they are presented with a report of a judicial tribunal which shows that the cost of living is excessive, not for any good economic reason, but because profiteering is in operation, they do nothing.

That report has been lying in the office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce since October, 1927. On 19th April, 1928, the Minister was asked to state the Government's intention in connection with the report. The Minister replied that he was advising the Executive Council to adopt the recommendation in favour of legislation dealing with short weight and measure, and that he was considering whether the recommendation in favour of marking certain articles of food with their country of origin could be incorporated in the impending merchandise marks legislation. On the main recommendation of the Tribunal, which was in favour of the establishment of a permanent prices board, he expressed his disagreement. He said he was not prepared to advise the setting up of a board to investigate prices otherwise than on a prima facie case being established by representative consumers that unreasonable prices were being charged. The amendment to the Weights and Measures Act for the purpose of dealing with the matter of short weight and measure, which he promised in April, 1928, has not been forthcoming. The Merchandise Marks Bill, to which he makes reference in that reply, has not been forthcoming. Nothing whatever is being done, and, as far as we know, the situation to-day is just the same as it was when the Tribunal was taking evidence.

The members of the Tribunal in their report were very insistent on the need for continuous investigation of food prices. They stated, as I have indicated, that they believed they would not have got the information which was made available to them if the witnesses whom they called before them did not know that the Tribunal possessed drastic powers to compel them to give that information. The Minister can tell us—in fact in relation to one particular article he has told us, that he has information to show that excessive prices are not now being charged. But I again want to impress on Deputies the fact that the Minister cannot feel confident that the information given to him in private by traders and other merchants concerned is reliable.

In that connection, I should like particularly to draw attention to what the members of the Tribunal have to say concerning the evidence submitted to them by the Dublin master bakers. Again let me remind the Dáil that the representatives of the master bakers were giving evidence on oath before the Tribunal which could have ordered their imprisonment if they did not answer questions. Yet this Tribunal had to say of this evidence: "We are unable to accept the majority of these statements as evidence of the net profit per sack accruing to bakers during the period when the price of flour averaged 49/- per sack." The Minister has given us to understand that he is now satisfied that excessive prices are not being charged for bread in relation to the price of flour. But this Tribunal proved that such excessive prices were being charged during the period covered by their investigation. They proved also that the master bakers of Dublin were not beyond supplying false information in order that they might continue enjoying the excessive profits which the Tribunal found they were in actual receipt of. The Minister cannot possibly feel satisfied that whatever information he has now at his disposal, supplied by these master bakers, is reliable enough for him to frame a policy designed to serve the best interests of the people most seriously affected.

The report recommended, as I have said, the establishment of a permanent prices board which would endeavour to achieve results mainly by the method of publicity. I do not want to be taken as agreeing with the report. I think it exaggerates the amount of good capable of being done by the publicity method. In England, that method was tried and proved inadequate and a Bill is now being discussed by the British Parliament for the establishment of a Consumers' council with drastic powers, including the power of fixing maximum prices in certain cases. Whether the Government approve of the proposal of the Food Prices Tribunal or not, it was their duty to take some action to curb the profiteering which the Tribunal found to be in operation. I think that they should have taken action along the lines now being adopted in England.

I know that there is considerable objection to any proposal to fix maximum prices. As writers on economic subjects have been pointing out recently, however, that objection is based upon the experience of the war years when prices were rising and when control was an attempt to prevent the inevitable consequences of inflation. The experience of that period cannot be a reliable guide to-day, when prices are falling and deflation and not inflation is the rule. Any board or any authority set up to deal with this question of excessive prices for articles of common consumption to be effective must have power to find out the truth by evidence and by the production of documents in the first instance, and the power to fix maximum rates as a last resort. The situation, however, calls for action, but it is calling in vain, apparently, to the Department of Industry and Commerce. The Minister is, no doubt, aware that the existence of excessive prices for these articles of common consumption is capable of being proved statistically. The index of retail prices has been falling much less rapidly than the index of wholesale prices. Statistics which have been compiled by the International Labour Office show that the cost at the beginning of the present year of the chief food commodities, together with fuel and light, were, in this country, between five per cent. and ten per cent. higher than in England. Professor Richardson, of the International Labour Office, has calculated a table of relative real hourly wages for the different countries, in which the real hourly wages prevailing in the Free State are shown to be three per cent. less than in Britain, 100 per cent. less than in the United States of America, 68 per cent. less than in Canada, and 51 per cent. less than in Australia. The real hourly wages are lower and the price of the foodstuffs, together with light and fuel, are higher. In that situation the Government should be considering ways and means of redressing the balance. I know that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is an enthusiast for rationalisation. Here is a sphere in which his enthusiasm could have full play. In the marketing of articles of common consumption, the foodstuffs upon which the lives of the poor depend, there is an inconceivable amount of waste resulting in prices being kept at a level permanently higher than in other countries. If the Minister gave the poorer people the benefit of rationalisation and cheaper prices he would be conferring a great boon upon them. I do not know what is the cause of the Government's inactivity, whether it is due to the inertia which has overtaken the Department of Industry and Commerce or not. Possibly it is due to a lack of desire to deal with the problem. The problem is there, however. The Minister, two years ago, gave a definite promise to introduce legislation to deal with certain aspects of it, but he has failed to carry out his promise. On the major problem he has apparently neither a policy to defend nor proposals to submit to the Dáil.

It is not merely upon this matter of food prices that the Department has been inactive. There are a number of other reports getting dusty in the pigeon-holes of the Minister's desk. In the year 1925 a Departmental Committee was set up to consider the question of workmen's compensation, and it reported in July, 1926. No action has yet been taken on that report either. The Committee recommended increasing the statutory limits to the compensation payable to the dependants of workers killed in industrial accidents, or to those who are deprived of their livelihood through permanent incapacity, or who otherwise suffered diminution of their earning powers. Some time ago a Private Members' Bill was introduced here by Deputy Rice, to bridge the gap intervening between the publication of the report and the date on which the Minister for Industry and Commerce would be prepared to submit his permanent legislation. That Private Bill passed its Second Reading, and went to Committee, but on Report Stage it was withdrawn, on the suggestion of the Minister, to enable fresh statistics, which he stated had been obtained in the interim, to be re-examined by the original Committee. The original Committee was re-summoned, but the majority have submitted a report recommending that no alteration should be made in the original report, and stating that the new statistics which the Minister for Industry and Commerce submitted to them, had no direct bearing on the recommendations at all. That report had been in the hands of the Minister for some time, but no intimation has been given that any legislation is likely to result from it. The situation in respect of workmen's compensation legislation is most unsatisfactory. We are a long way behind Britain in this matter, and the recommendations which the Committee made, although not the solution of the question I would like to see adopted, would effect a considerable improvement if put into operation. Personally, I think that this question of providing for workers injured in industrial accidents should be covered by a compulsory State insurance scheme. There is little prospect of such a scheme, however, being adopted by the present Government. At any rate, they could give effect, as apparently they are quite willing to do, to the recommendations of their Departmental Committee. The Minister has never at any time expressed disagreement with its recommendations. Apparently the delay in producing the Bill is due to the inertia which has overtaken his Department rather than any inability to find a method of dealing with the problem.

There is another report of equal importance which has been for a long time in the pigeon-holes of the Minister's desk and in respect to which legislation has been promised and not forthcoming. In November, 1923, a Departmental Committee was set up to examine into the question of industrial insurance and it reported to the Minister in July, 1924. The report revealed a situation existing in relation to industrial insurance which was just as serious as any other situation which the Minister might have been called upon to deal with in the six years that have intervened since the report reached him. It stated that important amendments in the law relating to industrial insurance were required to protect the insured persons from being defrauded. The persons concerned are, of course, again, the poorer classes of the community and, therefore, of no special concern to the Government. They are generally ignorant of their rights and are very often losers through the dubious methods adopted by some insurance companies and societies in pushing their business. The report showed that in 1924 there were approximately one million policies valid, yielding a premium income of about £800,000. There is no doubt that these figures have been substantially increased since. The latest returns for 1928 show that in that year 255,000 new industrial policies were issued, including sums aggregating £4,929,000. The report revealed, however, that a very large proportion of the policies taken out lapsed after a short period, because the insured persons discontinued paying the premiums. The number of policies lapsed in 1923 was 51 per cent. of the policies issued in 1923, and of the policies which lapsed in that year 30 per cent. were issued in the same year, 38 per cent. in the previous year, and 17 per cent. in 1921. It showed also that the costs of administration met by these companies practising industrial insurance business were remarkably high, being no less than 44 per cent. of the premium income. The Committee reported that the control over the business and the safeguards for the persons concerned provided by the existing law—that is, the law that was existing in 1923 —were entirely inadequate. They recommended the appointment of an Industrial Insurance Commissioner with wide powers of regulation and control and they recommended that the Minister himself should be the Commissioner. No action has been taken. Whatever abuses there were in connection with that business in 1923 are there still. Whatever losses have been suffered by the class in the community most affected in the matter are still being suffered. The Minister has repeatedly promised that legislation dealing with that business would be introduced, but the legislation has not been forthcoming. In the year 1923, the British Government passed an Act dealing with industrial insurance business. One of the provisions of that Act debarred companies not registered in Britain from carrying on the business of industrial insurance in that country.

That section of the British Act hit a number of Irish companies which had an industrial insurance practice in Britain. The Departmental Committee here found that from 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of industrial insurance business was carried on through British companies. It estimated that the premium income of foreign companies and societies from industrial insurance business in the Saorstát in 1924 was about £900,000. It has, of course, been increased beyond that figure since. No doubt a large part of that sum comes back into this country in claims paid and expenses of collection.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think the Deputy should go into so much detail.

Mr. Lemass

My purpose in doing so—I realise it is out of order—was to show the serious nature of the problem with a view to criticising the Minister for Industry and Commerce for not having dealt with it before now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I realise that, but I do not want the Deputy to go too much into detail.

Mr. Lemass

The Committee recommended in respect of these foreign companies that any of them which operated in this country should be required to take out a licence, and should also be required to deposit with the Accountant-General of the Free State securities representing a sum equivalent to the actuarial valuation of their Saorstát liabilities. There were a number of other important recommendations designed to remedy the defects in the position which the Committee found to exist in 1924. These recommendations about foreign companies were, of course, made on the basis that there would be reciprocal arrangements with Great Britain. The Minister has been as indifferent about this matter as the others to which I made reference, and there is no indication that this time next year we will not be considering the same question again. These are only some of the matters in respect of which the inactivity of the Department is open to criticism.

There are other matters to which I do not think it is necessary to refer at length. I do not know how far it would be in order to discuss on this Vote matters relating to the Electricity Supply Board and the progress of the Shannon scheme for the electrification of the Shannon.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think it would be in order at all to discuss the Electricity Supply Board. I do not think there is anything at all in the Vote about it.

Mr. Lemass

I think it would be in order to point out that the information which is being given to the Dáil concerning the activities of the Board is, in my opinion, most inadequate. I think the Minister has powers to require that adequate information be given by the Board. Certainly he prescribes the form in which the accounts of the Board are to be submitted. I submit to the Dáil that the information published is certainly not sufficient to give the Dáil an opportunity of examining the activities of the Board to the extent to which it should. The form in which the accounts are presented are from many points of view most unsatisfactory. I would like if the Minister would tell us if he himself is satisfied with the report as published. I would like particularly to draw his attention to the account with special reference to the auditor's note No. 5, which says:

The item bearing the heading "Suspense Account" in the Balance Sheet refers mainly to amounts expended on materials purchased for constructional work carried out by contractors, and for the carrying out by the Board of wiring contracts. It also includes wages and expenses of electricians employed by the Board in connection with wiring contracts in course of completion. The allocation of this expenditure in the books of the Board has not yet been made, nor was the stock of the materials on hands at 31st March, 1929, actually ascertained.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Minister responsible to the House for the activities of the Board?

Mr. Lemass

No, but he is responsible to the House for the form in which the Board's accounts are submitted to him.

Mr. McGilligan

What has that to do with the form?

Mr. Lemass

It may be, of course, that it is the Board's fault that this expenditure has not been allocated in its books, but I do think the Minister should have required from the Board information which would indicate whether this work, the installation of wiring systems in private houses, is being carried out at a profit or a loss.

Mr. McGilligan

I thought the Deputy said the items were not allocated.

Mr. Lemass

Surely the Minister should insist on having these items allocated and that the Board would keep its accounts in such a way that it would know whether it was making a profit or losing upon the services which it was controlling.

Mr. McGilligan

On the first year of the Board's activity?

Mr. Lemass

This is the second year.

Mr. McGilligan

It is the first year of that activity.

Mr. Lemass

If the Minister is satisfied that that is a businesslike way of doing it, I am afraid I am not.

Mr. McGilligan

I have not to be satisfied.

Mr. Lemass

Are we in order in discussing the policy of the Government in relation to the personnel of the Board on this Vote?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The policy of the Government?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. It has been apparently decided on by the Government to replace the individuals originally appointed to the Board by persons transferred from the Civil Service. I do not want to make any personal references to the individuals transferred.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Minister responsible?

Mr. Lemass

In fact he is.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will not that arise on another Vote?

Mr. Lemass

I do not know whether the Minister is responsible in theory or not. I am certain that in fact he is.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think the Deputy will find another opportunity of dealing with that.

Mr. Lemass

I would like to be assured that that is the case.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not assuring the Deputy, but I do not think he can deal with it on this Vote.

Mr. Lemass

Would it be possible to deal with it on the Vote for the President of the Executive Council?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That may be so.

Mr. Lemass

This is a matter of Government policy. It is not a matter of the administration of the Board or anything of that kind. Because it is Government policy it must be possible to discuss it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sure it is possible to discuss it.

Mr. Lemass

If you rule that it is out of order I will not discuss it here.

Mr. McGilligan

I would be responsible for recommending to the Executive the appointment or dismissal of the members of the Board.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Minister is accepting responsibility I do not rule it out. The Minister says he is responsible and the Deputy can deal with it.

Mr. Lemass

The original intention of the Minister expressed by him when the various Acts were under discussion was to make that Board an independent authority. By that I mean it was to be independent, not merely of the Dáil but of the Executive Council. In theory it is still independent. In fact the Minister appears to be anxious to ensure that the Board will be, if not at his direction, at least sufficiently subject to his suggestion to insure that it will always do as he desires. We are particularly concerned about this matter because the procedure adopted for the control of the Shannon scheme is a procedure which we would like to see followed more extensively in order that certain other important public services might be brought under public control. If the method of control by an independent statutory authority is to be brought into disrepute, as in my opinion the Minister is bringing it into disrepute by the appointment of persons who have been trained to be subordinate to the Minister instead of independent persons of known experience and ability, it is going to be a serious thing not merely for the undertaking concerned but also for the State in general because it did seem that it would be possible by the establishment of boards of this kind to combine the advantages of business management with public control of public undertakings.

The persons whom the Ministers have appointed to be members of the Electricity Supply Board are undoubtedly persons of ability but I think that public policy would have been better served if they had not been civil servants or ex-members of the Civil Service. There are surely available men of business experience and of known independence who could have been appointed to the positions on that body. The Minister apparently is anxious merely to provide that the Board will be free of Parliamentary interference but nevertheless be subject to Executive control. That was not the original intention. If the Minister would give us a clear statement of the Government's view in connection with this matter it would be very useful but no statement in my opinion can possibly justify the course he has proceeded on.

Last year, when the Estimate for this Department was under consideration, we discussed at considerable length the deductions to be drawn from the operation of the Trade Loans Guarantee Acts. The Minister said then that he did not intend, unless there was an increase in the type of application that ordinarily would be made under those Acts, to ask for a renewal of the Act when it came to expire in that year. He said what he intended to do in future was to bring people who had control of money into contact with people connected with industries requiring capital. Subsequently he did introduce a Bill to continue the Trade Loans Act, and apparently was under the opinion, and expressed himself as being under the opinion when doing so, that there would arise a number of applications under the Act which would justify its being continued. As far as I am aware, nothing further has been heard of the applications, and I would be glad if the Minister would explain what happened to prevent them coming to the point at which the guarantees would be given, and if it is his intention to continue the Act beyond this year.

I would also be glad to know if he has in fact succeeded in doing anything in pursuance of his alternative policy of bringing persons in control of money into contact with persons requiring capital for the industrial enterprises with which they are associated.

The Department of Industry and Commerce has a function in relation to Irish industry which is not confined to the mere supervision of the performance of the Acts enacted in relation to it. It has a function of stimulating and directing industrial enterprise. In the position in which this country now is, with unemployment serious, with emigration very serious, and with a general atmosphere of depression prevailing in industrial circles, we are forced to the conclusion that the existing situation is as it is because the Department of Industry and Commerce has failed in its main duty. If that Department were animated by the right spirit of enthusiasm and energy its activities would be much more evident than they have been in the past. If we are going to solve the major economic problems of this country we can do so only by developing our industrial arm. That is the job of the Department of Industry and Commerce and to a certain extent it has failed in that job. I do not know whether that failure is to be attributed to the fact that the job is too great or whether it is to be attributed to the fact that the job has not been properly tackled. I believe the latter explanation is the right one, and it is because I believe that, and because of the other matters to which I have made reference, that I ask the Dáil to express its dissatisfaction by referring this Vote back for reconsideration.

Mr. Goulding

I would like to point out that dissatisfaction still exists in the Co. Waterford, with reference to an unexpended balance of £93,000. At the time of the construction of the Rosslare line the people understood that the £93,000 was a sort of gift to them to compensate them for certain inconveniences they were supposed to have undergone. A certain sum was expended in Waterford City, and another sum was expended in Cork on the construction of the Cork loop-line. It was constantly held out to the people that the unexpended balance was to be spent in some portion of the county on some public work. Time and again at election meetings in the old days in Waterford it was constantly promised to the people that the then City Member would use every effort with the British Treasury to get hold of the unexpended balance. That belief is still in existence in the county, and it would be very desirable if it were made quite clear to the people whether their hopes must be abandoned. They believe that the British Treasury seized the balance of the money and still holds on to it.

Mr. Nally

When the Minister is replying I would like him to make some reference to the present position of the Ballinrobe and Claremorris Railway. I understand that the Railway Company intend to substitute a bus service for the present railway passenger service. Representations have already been made to the Department of Industry and Commerce by the Ballinrobe Traders' Association, protesting emphatically against the proposed substitution of an omnibus service for the railway passenger service between Ballinrobe and Claremorris. I might mention that the Ballinrobe and Claremorris line was constructed under an Order in Council in May, 1890, and it was worked under an agreement by the Midland Great Western Railway Company. There was a guarantee given by the Mayo County Council to the extent of £860 per annum. That guarantee runs until 1934. I think it is the duty of the Minister to see that the Great Southern Railways Company lives up to the agreement entered into in connection with this section. It would be a retrograde step to discontinue the passenger service on the railway line at this time. I hope the Minister will make some effort to protect the ratepayers who are contributing to the guarantee. In this connection I refer especially to the ratepayers in the barony of Kilmaine. I would like to know if it would be necessary for the railway company to go to Court in order to obtain legal sanction before discontinuing the service. I am given to understand that they cannot discontinue the service without an order from the Court. I would also like to have it made clear whether the residents of the guaranteeing area will be given an opportunity of being heard in the event of the matter going to Court. If the service is discontinued I think the Mayo County Council should be relieved of the guarantee as from the date of the discontinuance of the service. This is a matter of considerable importance for the residents in the area affected and I would like the Minister to give it serious consideration.

Mr. T. O'Reilly

My principal reason for supporting this motion to have the Vote referred back for reconsideration is based on the neglect of the Minister to introduce legislation for the development of the mineral resources of the country. As far back as 1927 I brought under the Minister's notice the existence of valuable copper mines in South Kerry. I was anxious at the time to have those mines examined with a view to their subsequent development. I mentioned the matter first in November, 1927. In June of the following year engineers came down, examined the ground, and reported favourably on the existence of copper mines. It was declared that the richest class of copper are was to be found there. On the 27th February, 1929, I asked a question in relation to mines. My query was whether the Minister had power to grant leases of land for the purposes of mining and of mines that had once been worked, and whether he would be prepared to introduce legislation vesting him with the necessary powers if he had not got them already. The answer I got was that the Minister had no powers pending legislation which was being prepared for introduction.

On the 23rd October, 1929, I submitted another question to the Minister, in which I pointed out that the development of mineral resources would absorb a large percentage of the unemployed and would stem the tide of emigration in the congested districts in the South of Ireland, and I asked the Minister to state the cause of the delay in producing a Mining Bill. The Minister's reply set out: "I am not aware of any prospective mineral development likely to afford substantial employment which has been impeded in any way by the lack of legislation relating to such development. It is expected that a Bill dealing with the matter will be introduced before Christmas." At the time that statement was made the Department was aware that applications for leases to work minerals in Kerry had been received from at least four persons. One of those persons was a gentleman from Cardiff, and another was the representative of an American syndicate. Nevertheless we were told that the Minister was not aware of any prospective mineral development likely to afford substantial employment. Surely when applications are received from people such as I have mentioned it is a definite indication that substantial employment would be given. That mineral development was then impeded by lack of legislation is as plain as a pikestaff.

I think the period when the Minister should have introduced legislation dealing with the development of our mineral resources is long overdue. He must give some opportunity to the people anxious to develop our mineral resources. They are anxious to open mines, but they cannot get any further unless there is a Mining Bill. Three years ago, legislation was promised, and so far there is no indication that it will be submitted to the Dáil. When reference was made to the matter on another occasion, the House was informed that a Bill would be introduced as soon as the general legislative programme admitted. In Kerry, we had definite indication of the desire to open mines. There were four applications received, and if these applications were granted at the time, mines would now actually be working in Kerry. When the Minister was asked if any person or persons applied to his Department for permission to work a mine in Kerry, he said that he believed there were people who were asking permission but, speaking from memory, he could not say whether the applications were in respect of County Kerry.

It is the duty of the Minister to introduce a Mining Bill at the earliest possible moment. He certainly should do it this session. I am sure there would be no opposition to a Bill of that nature. Why there is so much delay in this respect I cannot understand, and I am sure other Deputies in the House cannot understand it either. The Gaeltacht Commission recommended the development of the country's mineral resources. Where is the use of appointing a Commission if its recommendations are ignored? In regard to mining work, I think more money should be provided for the purpose of more thorough investigation. There should be borings carried out wherever engineers think that borings are required. They should not be content merely to examine the ground. I know that when the engineers went to Kerry they had nothing to go on except what they found on the surface. I think they should have some appliances so as to ascertain the quality of the material underneath.

With regard to sand, there are certain parts of the coast of Kerry where the people used to get quantities of it. At least one gentleman there, at Valentia, has what they call a regulating lease, and under that lease I am informed he has power to prevent any person from drawing sand. I think that in that case the Minister should withdraw the lease so that the people would have the opportunity of taking sand where they always took it. It is a great hardship on these people, who used to take sand for housing purposes and for use on their land, to have to go outside that area for it, and I think that the Minister should take a note of it. I hope he will introduce a Mining Bill this session.

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy Lemass is annoyed because I did not review the work done by the Department. I said in opening that I would refrain from going into details this year as I had already covered separate sections of the Department's work year by year for the last three years, and that the duties and the activities were much as they had been. The Deputy said that he had made inquiries and had found that the Department's activities amounted to nothing, and then he said "except that they had confined themselves to their statutory duties"—a very good task for a Department like mine when one considers all the statutory duties thrown on the officials. In fact there have been extra statutory duties thrown upon them and these duties now probably form the majority of their duties. We have inspectors who must travel round to see how far the Factory Acts and the Trade Board Acts and matters of that kind are being properly administered, and also officials who are concerned with the Advisory Committees which deal with applications under the Trade Loans Act, and the inspectors and officials do a tremendous amount in getting industrialists in this country into closer co-operation with one another and with the Department.

Deputy Lemass says that the position is much as it was last year, that none of the legislative acts and none of the projects outlined by me last year has emerged. I am not sure what were the projects other than legislation to which he referred; there was nothing definite stated. His first complaint is that I happen to be the political head of two Departments, and the phraseology he uses here in dealing with that is in sharp contrast to the language he uses outside. For the purpose of this debate my duties as Minister for External Affairs have had to be emphasised by him in order that the time I give to the work of the Department of Industry and Commerce may be diminished, and consequently Deputy Lemass said that I had displayed considerable activity in the other Department, that I had been attending many conferences and negotiations abroad. I might remind him of the belittling phrase he uses at public meetings—that I am "gadding around the Continent." But in to-night's contest I am attending conferences and conducting negotiations. That is a sample of the Deputy's honesty in argument.

We get a complaint with regard to the census volume dealing with unemployment. The Deputy quotes against me a remark that I made in 1928, that I hoped this would be published before the end of the year, and he went on to say that last year I implied—I would like to see the phrase in which the implication lies—that it would be published before the end of 1929. I did tell the Deputy, in reply to a question recently, that certain things had intervened, for instance that certain combinations of figures appeared to those who were dealing with these volumes as suitable for a volume previously placed at a later date in the programme and that trouble would be caused to them if they took the volumes in the old order. At any rate, without anything in the way of a direction from me a particular volume was brought out. It also suited certain legislation that was coming forward that that volume should come out at the time it did. The Deputy, quoting my answer to him that certain information would be included relating to industries, gives it as his opinion that I am doing this in order to cover up the figures relating to unemployment with a mass of useless information. But it seems to me that the Deputy does not require my figures relating to unemployment—he often gives his own figures. He has referred to the appalling number of unemployed, which, he said, ranged from 60,000 to 90,000.

Mr. Lemass

50,000.

Mr. McGilligan

I heard to-day that it has been advanced by him to the point that there are more unemployed in this country relative to the population than there are in America, Germany or Great Britain. That is a statement that I would like to see tested. The Deputy said, further, that it is unsafe to rely on the 1926 figures in 1929. I think that the suggestion he made is a good one, that in order to show how far the 1926 figures present a reliable picture of 1930 a subordinate census return for 1930 should be sought. I think that is a good suggestion. But the Deputy is certain that the 1926 figures will show a serious state of unemployment. The Deputy's speech was full of this type of phrase—"I have reason to believe,""I know,""I have no doubt," but the Deputy did not advance one single figure. I am certain that he did not in that connection advance a figure because previously he committed himself to a statement with regard to the number of insurably occupied people in the country which he said he derived from a volume of the census. The census people have been off and on at different periods endeavouring to find out where the Deputy could possibly get the segregation of the figures he gave from the volume to which he referred, but they simply do not lie in the volume. Certainly, if they did lie in the volume, a good deal of trouble would be saved.

Mr. Lemass

I do not know what the Minister is referring to. I pointed out that if the number of persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act was half the total number of the people employed in the country, and if 25,000 of them were unemployed, it was safe to assume that the total number unemployed would be 50,000.

Mr. McGilligan

Only if another hypothesis be added "and if the rate of unemployment in each half is the same"—but that is another vital factor that the Deputy neglects. That is not the figure I was referring to. When I referred to the fact that the number of people in insurable occupations, as measured by the contributions to the unemployment insurance fund, had shown an increase, the Deputy countered that by saying that in a particular year we had only so many people registered as being insurably occupied, and he gave a different figure of 300,000 of insurably occupied people, which he said came from the census volume. I cannot get that figure anywhere, and I defy the Deputy to refer me to it.

Mr. Lemass

If I knew the figure about which the Minister is talking I would be glad to do so, in order that the census staff could get properly on to their work.

Mr. McGilligan

I did not speak of this 300,000. The Deputy did, and he must have some foundation for it. He asked what other volumes it was intended to publish. I am not going to tie myself to time with regard to their publication, because in 1928 I was far too optimistic about the rate at which these volumes could be published. What I will say is that no census has been taken in which such an amount of information has been given in such a short space of time as is being given here with regard to the 1926 census. We are definitely ahead, relative to the size of the country or its population, of any other census that has been taken. There are still volumes to come on unemployment, on the Gaeltacht, the second portion of the volume which was last issued dealing with marriage fertility, and there will be a general volume. The dates on which these will be published I do not determine. The Deputy again showed his point of view a little with regard to the work of the Statistics Branch when he said that it would have been better at the beginning to have an adequate temporary staff to produce these volumes. The Deputy apparently imagines that it is by the multiplication of clerks that statistical records are brought out. Surely the Deputy knows that the analysis in the volumes of the figures is the important thing, and the analysis of a statistical return in any volume depends on about three people as far as my office is concerned. One does not get people with the mathematical and scientific training that is required to produce statistical returns by looking around for a temporary staff; it is not by getting people of the temporary staff type that one can build up a Statistical Department and arrange for volumes to be produced. Deputy Lemass has complained of the inaction of the Government with regard to the report of the Food Prices Tribunal. He said that the Tribunal was established as a result of popular agitation. I do not remember——

Mr. Lemass

The Tribunal did not say that.

Mr. McGilligan

No, the Deputy said it. I do not remember any popular agitation at all at that time. The Deputy says it cost a certain amount of money, that it took evidence in a compulsory fashion, that it revealed the existence of a very serious situation. The situation which the Tribunal itself described was one in which they believed that excessive profit-taking was shown but that this might be due to the fact that there was a wasteful system of distribution, and too many retailers in business. They by no means said that there was profiteering as that word is understood, though they did say it in regard to a couple of things, but not generally as a result of their inquiries. After all their deliberations and the compulsory taking of evidence, what did they recommend? They recommended that there should be an import mark on goods, that some attention should be paid to short weight and measure; that price lists should be displayed in shops, covering not merely the variety of articles that there would be in a provision shop, but also covering the different varities of quality, and they recommended the establishment of a Prices Tribunal. I said here at least twice that as far as the short weight and measure part was concerned it would be attended to, and as far as the import mark was concerned that it would be attended to, but that I disagreed with, and would not advise, the adoption of the recommendation to establish a permanent Prices Tribunal. I stated that I thought it would be costly, and that I did not think it would produce any very great results.

The Deputy says that there is no legislation here dealing with short weight and measure and also with merchandise marks. He says that nothing has been done. The Deputy apparently imagines that the way legislation is procured is by saying: "Here is something you must legislate about," and then, hey presto, you have a Bill the next day.

Mr. Lemass

Two years ago.

Mr. McGilligan

Two years. The question of weights and measures and merchandise marks has to be weighed against several other measures which other Government Departments are putting through the office of the Parliamentary draftsman. I have a short Weights and Measures Bill fully drafted by my Department. I have a Merchandise Marks Bill fully drafted in the same way, but when they will make their appearance here I do not know. The promises given at the time that the Report was discussed have been fulfilled, but the fact that they have not yet been seen in the House is another matter. I am not going to accept the recommendation in regard to the marking of prices. I do not think that the Tribunal could have adverted to the number of prices that would have to be affixed in an ordinary shop. Take the case of an ordinary provision shop. They have eggs as one item, and there are shops in which you see ten different qualities and ten different prices. In addition to that fact, I am supposed to set up legislation to ensure that traders will mark their maximum and minimum prices for each store and for each particular quality. Does the Deputy imagine that in the case of vegetables, cauliflowers, for instance, the price must be changed owing to a variety of size, quality or condition? Are we to mark each individual cauliflower? Do fish depend on type, weight, size, and condition? Are we to have individual markings affixed in each case? I cannot see how that section of the recommendations has anything to commend it. It would run contrary to the practice of traders to indicate a variety of prices and quality. Neither do I believe that mere publication of prices would be effective, and it would be only for the purposes of publication that the Tribunal would be set up.

What is the complaint running through the volume comprising the report? Is it not that the public were not interested, that the consuming public could hardly be got to give evidence, and that they did not come freely before the Commission? They say that they believe that the money spent on their deliberations was well spent, as it would serve to educate the community. I do not know if that is so. One cannot get from the report, or from the evidence given before the previous Commission, any great belief that the publication of prices would lead to a reduction of prices. If one is to go on to that point here, one could not stop at it. There must be a definite step forward to the compulsory fixing of prices. On that, so far as one can gather, there are more dangers inherent in the situation than there are benefits likely to accrue. I leave that to go on and say that in reference to the two things that could be dealt with by legislation, and about which I made promises, there is going to be legislation. I am not going to deal with the marking of prices or with the establishment of a permanent prices tribunal. I have no faith in setting that up, as at present advised, nor do I believe that the country would get any real value for money spent upon it.

As regards the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1926, the progress of the Bill in that connection was to a certain extent interrupted by the Private Members' Bill which was introduced last year. Though the Committee reported that the new figures put before them on the sending back of the Bill had no great bearing on the situation, there have been modifications in the Bill I had, and the Bill with modifications is ready. The date of its introduction here, however, depends on the congestion of the Parliamentary programme and on what measures will get priority here. We are told that the situation is most unsatisfactory because the Deputy says we are a long way behind Britain. We are, and we are a long way behind Britain in our industries. All these things have their reactions, and though one may have perfect sympathy with the objects in view one has to have regard to the question of cost. That Bill will come in its proper course. The Deputy brings forward the insurance report and says there has been no action upon it. Again he means that there has been no legislative action. I can say now what I could not have said earlier, namely, that if I had accepted the report of the Commission and acted on it and brought in legislation, say, in 1924 or 1925, establishing myself as a Commissioner and giving myself the powers that the Commission recommended, my first act would have been to destroy quite a number of insurance companies in this country, and a number of these would have been native companies.

I thought that that would be a serious situation in which to place myself and these companies. I recognised that the situation was sufficiently serious without my interfering in that way. That, however, does not mean that no action was taken because I did not take hostile action against certain companies. As I say, that does not mean that nothing was done. It does not mean that in the intervening years the companies have not been brought along in a proper way. Unfortunately the position in regard to the Deputy is that he only reads reports and gets a lot of theory, but he has no regard for actual facts and difficulties of a situation. We will be judged as to how we handle that responsibility when legislation comes on. We are told that whatever abuses there were are there still. I deny that. Without taking direct action against the companies I think that the Department has brought about a much healthier state of affairs in insurance than there was previously. In regard to the question of the lodging of money, I may say that most companies have made a deposit.

Again, when the Deputy came to the point of the Electricity Supply Board, he wandered around a lot and I did not hear anything definite from him except vague innuendoes against people. He tried to play that off by saying that they were men of ability. He thought that there were people on that Board who were trained in subordination and that they were civil servants. We may generalise from such statements and say that civil servants have been trained in subordination. Would the Deputy meet a group of civil servants and argue that with them? I have no such experience of civil servants. Civil servants have a tradition. They may be overruled, but they are not trained to subordination. What appointments have I made? According to the Deputy I should have got men of known independence. Again, the insinuation is there about civil servants. Can the Deputy get concrete and tell me what he is after? Will he interrupt me if I put the case wrongly? A man who was a servant of a local authority was Chairman. He is no longer Chairman. The Chairman now is a man who had been in the Civil Service. A civil servant is a man trained to subordination. The ex-servant of the local authority was not. The civil servant was not a man of known independence. Is that the whole claim? Is there more? Has another civil servant been appointed? Can we get the name from the Deputy? I am anxious to discuss this matter because men's lives are being interfered with by innuendo.

Mr. Lemass

I object to that. I made it quite clear that I was not referring to any individual but to the policy of the Government in respect to the Electricity Supply Board.

Mr. McGilligan

Yes, the policy as suggested was that I wanted to get the Board under my control and that I tried to do that by appointing men who were trained in subordination and who were not of known independence.

Mr. Lemass

That is what I said.

Mr. McGilligan

I say that that is taking away people's character and belittling their professional capacity. I think that the Deputy should be more honest and should mention names. I will mention names. I will leave out people common to the old Board and the present Board. There are three others— namely, Mr. J.J. Murphy, who is no longer there as a full-time Chairman, but as a part-time member; then there are Mr. Browne and Mr. Fay. To which of these gentlemen does the phrase, "trained in subordination," apply? Can the Deputy say? Will the Deputy say that Mr. Browne has been trained in subordination and is, therefore, likely to be subject to my wishes? Will the Deputy say whether Mr. Fay has either of those two characteristics? Will the Deputy answer? There is no other meaning in what the Deputy says except that one or other of these two men was a man who would act contrary to his own judgment and would do what I told him? It is a pity to see the Deputy tongue-tied at a moment when speech would be valuable? Am I to leave it at that?

Mr. Lemass

If I wanted to answer these questions I would have referred to them when stating my views.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy simply flings out statements without knowing whether they are true or not.

Mr. Lemass

I am certain that they are true.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy is quite certain that these people are going to act contrary to their own judgment and to be subject to my wishes. Can the Deputy give any example from their past conduct or from anything they have done while members of the Board? Can he do anything except the cowardly thing and make statements that are not backed up by any argument?

Mr. MacEntee

Will the Minister say why——

Mr. McGilligan

I would like the Deputy to let Deputy Lemass deal with this matter himself and if the Deputy has anything to add he can do so later.

Mr. Lemass

I do not know what the Minister is trying to insinuate. I said that it should be the policy of the Government to put men of known independence on the Board. If the Minister is trying to provoke me to make an attack on these men he will not succeed.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy has already done it.

Mr. Lemass

It is the Minister who is playing a cowardly part in this discussion.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy again says that civil servants are not business men. Does that apply to Mr. Browne or Mr. Fay? A member of the Investigation Department of the Revenue Commissioners would not, of course, be dealing with business men and would not be apt to deal properly with any business problems that came before him. Mr. Fay was never a civil servant. He was an engineer in private practice except during the period in which he was dealing with the Shannon Construction Works. Was his training likely to give him business experience and ability to deal with business problems? Did the work which he carried out on the Bally-voyle Viaduct or in connection with the rebuilding of Mallow Bridge give him any business experience?

When he was attached to a big business firm in London, was he likely to have civil service methods ingrained in him or to be inured to habits of subordination, or was he likely to become as good a business man as any other man on the Board?

I move to report progress.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported. Committee to sit again to-morrow.