Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 May 1931

Vol. 38 No. 7

Vote 56—Industry and Commerce (Resumed).

Motion again proposed:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £70,590 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála, maraon le Coiste Comhairlitheach na Rátaí.

That a sum not exceeding £70,590 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, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including the Rates Advisory Committee.—(Minister for Industry and Commerce.)

Debate resumed on the motion of Mr. Davin: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."

Mr. Davin

Previous to the adjournment of the House on Friday last, I gave very briefly and in the short time at my disposal four reasons why Deputies should vote for the amendment on the Order Paper. The first reason was for the purpose of giving the House an opportunity of showing its disapproval of what I described as the Minister's half-way house policy for industrial development. By that I mean as far as I understand the Minister's policy, the policy which he has adopted of encouraging the development of industry through the agency of the Trade Loans Guarantee Act, plus the policy of selective protection which is the Government's policy with regard to industrial development. In answer to the question which I addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce last week, the Minister informed me that between the date of the passing of the Trade Loans Guarantee Act of 1924 and the 31st March of this year a sum of £325,840 had been sanctioned by his Department under the Act. The number of persons employed at the date of the passing of the Act by the firms who have received guaranteed loans was 110; the number of people employed on the 31st March this year by the same firms was 873. In other words, between the date of the passing of the Trade Loans Guarantee Act and the 31st March last the Minister's policy has had the effect of finding employment for 793 persons. Assuming that it is correct, and I am not going to say it is, that the total sum of £325,840 would eventually have to be found by the taxpayers of this country, it would have cost the taxpayers £130 per person to find this employment for 793 people in the intervening period.

I do not think that the Minister will claim that that is a very great or a very marvellous contribution towards the solution of the problem of unemployment, and that it is no great effort on the part of the Government to encourage industrial development. The Trade Loans Guarantee Bill when originally introduced into the House received the qualified support of the members of the Labour Party. If the Minister will read the Official Report of the Second Reading debate on that occasion he will find that many of the things which were pointed out by the then leader of the Labour Party have since happened. He will find that if the suggestions then put forward had been adopted by the Government there might have been very different results now.

I would like the Minister to tell us, if he can, what portion of the £325,840 was given to firms in industries that had already received the benefit of tariffs. What portion, if any, of that money may now be treated as a bad or irrecoverable debt, and what amount of new capital has been put into tariffed industries by private capitalists? I am sure the Minister will agree that that has a bearing on the matter. The members of this Party contend that the industrial policy of the present Government has failed to achieve the objects for which the Government themselves adopted it.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

We are perfectly satisfied that it is practically useless for the taxpayers of this State, and we are satisfied that all these taxpayers will have to pay either one way or the other for the development of these industries and for the guaranteed loans which may have to be found unless these industries are reorganised on a national scale. We have a considerable number of industries which have received the benefit of tariffs, and I do not see that there is any co-operation between the firms concerned in these industries—cooperation of the kind which would enable them to turn out and manufacture in quantity and quality the commodities that are required by the citizens of this State.

I take the boot industry as a clear case in point. As far as I know there is very little reduction in the numbers of pairs of boots imported into the Saorstát since the tariff was put on. There has been very little effort on the part of those firms who got the benefit of a tariff to turn out the type of boot which the majority of the people of this country require. I am extremely anxious to find out to what extent new capital has been put into that industry and whether the Minister believes that the policy of the Government in giving the benefit of the tariff to people engaged in the industry has brought about the results which the Government hoped to achieve at that particular period. The tariffs have got and are getting a fairly long trial, and in our opinion the people who were given this form of assistance have not done their duty in manufacturing the type of boots which the majority of the people of this State require. On one occasion I gave the Minister a copy of an advertisement which appeared in the "Daily Mail" and the "Irish Independent" on one day and which was inserted by a Northampton boot firm. That advertisement appeared in the "Daily Mail," circulating in England, and in the "Independent," circulating here, and showing clearly a photograph on the body of the advertisement that the price was 16s. 9d. in England and 18s. 9d. in Dublin, proving clearly that the people who want this type of boot, and will get it, will have to pay the amount which is put on the boot in the shape of a tariff.

The members of the Labour Party believe that the benefits of a tariff should not be given to any industry or to any group of people engaged in an industry unless there is some reorganisation of the present methods of production and until there is an assurance given by the Government that there will be a monopoly of the whole market available for the home manufacturers. The population of this State is only three million people. On the other side of the Channel there is an available market of forty-five million people. The policy of rationalisation or nationalisation, or whatever one likes to call it, is being pursued there very vigorously by the industrial people, with the result that the available capital at their disposal makes it possible for them to throw their surplus boots or other manufactured articles into our market at prices considerably below what the firms here can turn out these articles at in the ordinary way. The experience of seven years which the Ministers now have of the boot tariff should go to show the necessity there is for insisting upon the reorganisation of these small industries on national lines and the necessity there is for guaranteeing the home market if that can be done without any disadvantage to the consumer. That guarantee should be given to every industry which gets the benefit of a tariff at the expense of the taxpayers of this State.

The point is, can we establish new industries or maintain existing ones by tariffs or guaranteed loans unless we give a monopoly to those who control such industries in our own limited home market? I would like the Minister's answer to that in the light of the inside experience he had of the working of the firms who got these advantages during the last six or seven years. Can this be done without a reorganisation of the existing industries and a greater and more direct form of national control? We say not. If the Minister believes there is any good ground for that opinion then it is up to him to alter the policy of the Government which they have followed and face the new situation that confronts him.

There is another matter that I would like to refer to. From my own personal observations of the manner in which the Trade Loans Guarantee Act has been and is being administered, it is being administered only nominally by the Department of Industry and Commerce but in reality by a well-known firm of chartered accountants in this State. An application for a loan is referred to an Advisory Committee consisting of certain selected persons, people who are heads of certain firms of chartered accountants in the State, plus one person— very seldom more—who has some experience of the working of the industry. The loan is sanctioned by the Minister through the agency of the Industrial Trust, the directors of which consist practically of the controlling individuals of these very same firms of chartered accountants and auditors. The Industrial Trust, then, has the power to appoint directors or a certain number of directors on Boards of the firms which get the benefit of the loan. Again, these firms, consisting of accountants and auditors, nominate a representative of their own as a director of the firm that gets the benefit of the loan, and when it comes to the winding-up of the firm, strangely, it is wound-up by the same individuals. If there is any responsibility given in the future to the Minister of continuing the policy outlined in the Trade Loans Guarantee Act there must be more authority and more responsibility thrown upon the Minister and far less upon the people who have been administering this Act up to the present.

In dealing with this Trade Loans Guarantee Act and its results so far as the finding of employment for citizens of this State is concerned, I think the Minister will agree that it has been a very costly experiment up to the present. I asked the Minister, and I hope he will be able to furnish the figures when replying, to give us approximately the amount of irrecoverable debts which will have to be met hereafter by the taxpayers. We all know that certain firms who got the benefit of this particular Act have since closed down and that others, I am very sorry to say, are on the verge of closing down. This is the only Vote on which this matter can be thoroughly thrashed out, and the House is entitled to get such information as the Minister has at his disposal on the working of the Act up to the present time. I hope that he will supply the figures that have been asked for.

Mr. Good

Will the Deputy say why the costs of production are so high in the particular industry referred to?

Mr. Davin

The excessive rates of interest charged by the rotten banking system we have in this country.

Mr. Good

If the Deputy cannot answer I will be able to help him later on.

Mr. Davin

I am sure that answer is not satisfactory to the Deputy. We know, at any rate, that a considerable amount of money was given for the purpose of establishing a dead meat factory in Drogheda. I do not know to what extent the State will be involved in a bad debt in connection with that particular transaction. We know also that a fairly decent amount has been guaranteed to the Glass Bottle Co. at Ringsend, and I regret to say that that particular firm, which up to last November was giving employment to close upon 200 people, is now, for all practical purposes, closed down. I would like to know whether the Minister has any information in that matter, or whether there is any possibility of giving any assistance whereby that particular industry can be carried on. I was one of a number of members of this Party who were asked to meet a deputation representing the people on the workers' side. We heard a very long story concerning what led up to the closing down or partial closing down of that particular factory. I was one of a number of members of this Party also who subsequently met those who had some responsibility for the management of the concern. Any ordinary-minded man deducting fifty per cent. from what had been said on both sides could not come to any definite conclusion as to where the real responsibility rests in connection with that particular matter. From what I could gather, it is a regrettable state of affairs, considering that the concern had received £50,000 at the expense of the taxpayers of this country, that both the management and employees of the concern should so differ as to lead up to the closing down of the concern and thus deprive 200 people of very valuable and useful employment. There are other Deputies in this House who have a far greater responsibility in connection with that particular matter by reason of the fact that they represent the area concerned, and perhaps it might not be right for me to go any further into the matter. Perhaps the Minister could say whether, for all practical purposes, the firm is closed down, and whether the amount of the guaranteed loan will eventually have to be found by the taxpayer.

I come to another firm. On this I could say a good deal, but I will say as little as I possibly can for the present. It is the firm of Ailesbury Brothers, Edenderry. The number employed by that firm before the loan was asked for in 1922 was 350. In 1929 and long after the loan had been given by the Department of Industry and Commerce the figure dropped to 250. Unfortunately, at the present time, as far as I can find out, there are only 98 persons employed, many of them casually, in that particular concern. Rumours have been circulated by the management of the concern that there is a likelihood of the Edenderry factory closing down in the near future. Deputy Lemass has been touring that part of my constituency, and he is reported in the local Press to have held conferences, whatever that may mean, with some people, and possibly with the management of the factory. Perhaps he will be able to give some information in addition to whatever the Minister may be able to give in the matter. However, the number of people employed in 1922 was 350, and it has now dropped to 98. There is something radically wrong with the management or working of the place. This particular industry got the benefit of a tariff of 33? per cent. ad valorem duty on imported furniture and a guaranteed loan by the Government of a very respectable sum. The industry that cannot carry on and pay its way with such a generous measure of State assistance is not worth propping up, and the cause requires to be investigated.

I contend that there is something radically wrong with the management or present conduct of the particular concern. This is a case where there can be a fifty-fifty argument as between the Minister and the shadow Minister, Deputy Lemass, in connection with the working of this particular concern. A loan has been guaranteed by the present Government or by the Department of Industry and Commerce, and the manager is a very responsible public representative of the Fianna Fáil Party. There will be, therefore, no trouble on that particular score. I am only concerned in this particular case in so far as whatever is wrong can be put right, and I say that anyone and everybody who can should help to find employment in that particular concern, if employment can be found for the numbers that were employed there in 1922. I might inform Deputy Lemass, and the Minister also—I am not sure whether they know it or not—that the representatives of the trade unions and the trade unionists have given considerable latitude to the people responsible for the working of that factory in so far as they have been allowed to encroach upon existing trade union regulations. Boys have been employed, and are being employed, even in spite of protests, where men should be employed. Skilled workmen who have served their time in many cases are being paid improvers' rate of wages. Trade union officials and trade unionists working there have put up with that for the purpose of helping the factory to carry on, and not giving the management or the Minister an opportunity of saying that trade union action was the cause of the closing down of the factory. I should like Deputy Lemass to bear that in mind, particularly in view of the fact that he has been holding some conferences there.

Mr. Lemass

I have not been in the Deputy's constituency recently, or in Edenderry for months, and have not been in conference with the manager of that factory, nor was I reported in the Press as being in conference with him.

Mr. Davin

The local papers reported the Deputy as having held conferences with the people interested in the working of the Ailesbury Factory before Christmas.

Mr. Lemass

The reporter was drawing on his imagination.

Mr. Davin

That is quite possible. In any case, I am sure that Deputy Lemass knows something about the working of the factory, and if he does not, it is his business to find it out. If he accepts the figures I have given, it is up to him here and now to point out to the Minister how the working of that factory can be improved, or what he would do if he were in the Minister's position to find employment for the 350 people who were employed there in 1922.

Mr. Aiken

What would you do?

Mr. Davin

I am sure I will have his co-operation and support in attempting to have that done, if it is possible to have it done. I should like to know from the Minister—I am not sure whether it is his business to find it out, or whether he has made inquiries—why it is that this firm do no advertising.

Is it due to the conscientious outlook of the people responsible for the management? Is it due to the fact that they do not believe in using the taxpayer's money for advertising against the other people engaged in the same industry who are not getting Government assistance? Any good business concern, whether boot manufacturers or anything else, believes in advertising in these days of competition. I have been asked by people who have a life interest in the future of that factory to find out why the present management do no advertising.

Mr. Moore

They have no money.

Mr. Davin

Deputy Moore seems to know something about the place, too. At any rate, if they have no money they should be given sufficient money to advertise the very high-class quality of furniture which is being turned out at present in that factory as compared with what was turned out five or ten years ago under private management and without Government assistance.

Mr. Moore

I think the Deputy is not aware that the loan the Government would give could not be used for advertising purposes.

Mr. Davin

I am sure that if Deputies Moore and Lemass took up the same attitude on that matter as they did on the question of the toffee factory they would not get any further. If Deputy Moore will recollect the attitude adopted by Deputy Lemass on the question of the provision of Government funds for advertising the products of a toffee factory, he will find the reason why the management did not advertise the furniture which is being turned out there in order to get a larger market and employment for the people previously employed.

Mr. Lemass

That has nothing to do with the trade loans.

Mr. Davin

I am hoping to learn something from Deputy Lemass on this. I think he knows a good deal more than I do about this factory. I know that he has far greater privileges than I have so far as going into the factory and seeing the books, etc., is concerned.

Mr. Lemass

None whatever.

Mr. Davin

There is a feeling in that particular area—at least it has been repeatedly conveyed to me—that there is a sort of political preference given to workmen engaged in the factory who are known to pay a penny a week into the local Fianna Fáil fund.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps it is no harm to state at this stage that it is the Minister for Industry and Commerce who is responsible for this Vote and not Deputy Lemass. The Deputy should keep that in mind.

Mr. Davin

I was addressing the House when I said that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should get back to the Estimate.

Mr. Davin

I am sure Deputy Lemass would not object to that. I ask the House also to express their disapproval by their vote of the policy of the Minister as regards his responsibility for the chaotic condition of the transport industry—the go-slow policy of the Government which is leading to the bankruptcy of the transport industry. The Minister referred briefly in his opening remarks to certain proposals which would be brought before the House in the shape of legislation dealing with the railway situation. Of course, I am not in a position to anticipate what the Minister is likely to do in connection with that matter. I do not know whether he is in a position to get up—if he does, he certainly could not justify it—and tell the House, after six years' working of the Railways Act, that his amalgamation policy is a success. If he has any intention of doing that, will he tell us from what point of view the amalgamation policy has succeeded? Is it from the point of view of giving better paid employment and more employment to workers who have a life interest in the industry? Has it succeeded in giving better dividends to the 14,000 or 15,000 shareholders, or has it brought about decreased rates for the trading and travelling public? These are the only things upon which one can judge of the success or otherwise of the Minister's policy in regard to the Railways Act of 1925.

Mr. Good

Which I understand was supported by the Deputy.

Mr. Davin

The Deputy misunderstands me very seriously when he suggests that. I think that the Deputy, if he will search his memory, will find that our policy in regard to transport was clearly put before the Dáil in what is known as the Railway (Transport and Communications) Bill, 1923.

Mr. Lemass

Is the Deputy against amalgamation?

Mr. Davin

I say that the amalgamation policy of the Government has failed, and I want the Minister to indicate more clearly than he did in his opening speech what is the next step that the President referred to when, in 1925, he said that the next step would be taken if this policy failed in three or four years. I hope it does not mean the continuance of a deadweight board of directors of fourteen or fifteen members, many of whom would be considered over age if they were working at manual or clerical work in the service. How many of the present board are over sixty, which is the retiring age for all railway men from active service? Does the Minister seriously suggest that any good business board should consist of such a large number of individuals?

Mr. McGilligan

Does that arise on the Estimates? The question of directors is not under my control.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think it does.

Mr. Davin

I certainly suggest that any alteration of the existing policy of the Government should mean the establishment of a board representing national rather than sectional interests.

Mr. McGilligan

Would the establishment of such a board require legislation?

Mr. Davin

I am not quite sure whether it would or not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am.

Mr. Davin

I hope, at any rate, that the Minister will bear in mind the remarks I have been allowed to make on that most important aspect of the matter. I should also like to ask Deputies to disapprove of the policy of the Minister in so far as he has, apparently deliberately, refused to deal with the profiteering evil which has had such a disastrous effect upon the poorer sections of the community in the cities and towns.

The Minister very hurriedly made reference to this in his opening remarks on the last occasion that he addressed the House at considerable length on the matter, and said he was satisfied that profiteering did not exist to any great extent, and therefore there was no necessity for the Government intervention or of the taking of remedial measures to put the matter right in the interests of the community.

Mr. McGilligan

How could the Deputy ask me to remedy this matter?

Mr. Davin

I would ask the Minister, when making inquiries into this particular matter affecting the main body of the citizens of this State, to inquire what the farming community are getting for eggs, bacon, butter and milk in the local market, and what price the people have to pay for the same commodities in the cities and the towns. Would he be surprised to hear that during the winter I know people who sold milk, and found it very hard even to sell it at the price, at 8d. or 9d. per gallon to people in the city who retailed it at 2/4 per gallon? There is surely some margin between the figures in that particular case to justify the intervention of the Minister. The same thing applies to-day and applied for the past three or four years in connection with every one of the necessaries of life on which the poorer section of the community have to rely. I hope the Minister will, if he satisfies himself that there is some grounds for the complaints that I make, bring in whatever measures are likely to prevent the continuance of this profiteering.

Mr. McGilligan

Again the question of legislation is introduced. I put it that this does arise from this particular Vote.

Mr. Good

Will the Deputy say if there was profiteering also in wages?

Mr. Cassidy

And also in builders' profits?

Mr. Davin

I asked the Minister to read the recommendations of the Food Prices Commission, which gives valuable advice. It is a matter for himself to decide on the ways and means that may be adopted to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission. At any rate, within the limited scope which the Chair has allowed me, I have given four good reasons why I think this Vote should be referred back for reconsideration.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Davin moved that the Vote be referred back for reconsideration. It is our intention to support that motion, though not necessarily on precisely similar grounds to those advanced by Deputy Davin. Apparently Deputy Davin based his main case on the administration of the Trade Loans Guarantee Act, which, he said, was by no means a marvellous contribution to the solution of the problem of unemployment or of industrial development. In arguing that the policy of the Government for assisting industry, as indicated by the annual enactment of that Act, has been a failure, Deputy Davin is undoubtedly in a position to produce facts which appear strongly to support him. Under that Act the State was committed to a liability of £326,000, over £175,000 of which it has already had to meet. The net result has been to increase employment in industry by only 773 persons. These facts appear to support Deputy Davin's plea that assistance of that kind to industry is unduly expensive, and not productive of substantial results. At the same time I do not consider that we can, on that account, abandon altogether the possibility of promoting industrial revival in that way.

In any scheme that we adopt for giving financial assistance to industrial concerns that need it, we must make a very considerable allowance for mistakes. Mistakes will occur. The type of concern that requires assistance from the State is a concern which cannot get assistance from banks, and on that account, the State Department dealing with the matter is liable to have a much higher proportion of failures than any bank directorate could contemplate. At the same time, however, we have to note the fact that the proportion of failures under the Trade Loans Guarantee Act here is substantially higher than the proportion in England under the Trade Facilities Act.

There has been recently laid upon the Table of the Dáil a return of the State guarantees which the taxpayer is about to be asked to make good. I would like to make it clear that I do not consider it advisable that the Minister responsible for the administration of this Act should be subjected to any undue criticism on account of the failure of the firms to which he gave assistance. At the same time, the Dáil should not allow any case of this kind to go without a very thorough examination. I would very strongly urge upon the Minister that a Select Committee of the Dáil or of the Dáil and the Seanad should be established to inquire into the facts relating to the six cases in which the taxpayer is asked to make good the guarantees. It would be possible for such a Committee to deal with matters that cannot be very well discussed in public and in much greater detail than is possible here.

Of the six firms mentioned in the Report, I wish to make some remarks. As I have said, the total amount which the taxpayer is asked to provide is £175,000, made up of £150,000 in respect of principal and £25,000 in respect of accumulated interest. The first firm in the list is Allihies Copper Mine, Ltd., in County Cork. I understand that when the assets of this firm came into possession of the State they were sold. The plant has been broken up and the possibility of the mine restarting at some future date has been definitely destroyed. This mine, I understand, ceased operations in consequence of the slump in the price of copper. It was possible that the slump would be only of a temporary duration and that in the future there would be a possibility of the mine restarting again. I am sure it is not necessary for me to tell Deputies how important it is to the very poor district of West Cork, in which this mine was situated, that no possibility of employment there should be lost sight of.

Certainly no possibility of future employment should be wantonly destroyed. These mines, while working, gave employment to 130 or 150 men, and the cessation of that employment has caused very great hardship in that area. The only hope which these people had was the prospect of the mine being re-started, and that is now definitely removed as the result of the action of the Minister in ordering the scrapping of the machinery, some parts of which, I am informed, were sold at an amazingly low price. I am told, for example, that a Crossley engine which cost £4,000 was disposed of at the ridiculously low sum of £170, and that other parts of the building were sold at corresponding prices. When the Minister for Finance was in West Cork recently he was approached by a deputation from these districts and asked to consider the advisability of allowing that plant to be retained and kept in working order so that the possibility of taking advantage of any rise in the price of copper could be availed of. Apparently the Government has decided otherwise. I doubt very much if the financial advantage of scrapping the machinery can have been very considerable. In that connection I would like if the Minister would tell us where information relating to the amounts secured by the realisation of the assets of any of these firms can be obtained by a Deputy. We have been furnished with a statement which would seem to indicate that the taxpayer will be asked to pay the full amounts of the guarantees plus the accumulated interest without regard to any sums secured by the realisation of the assets.

The next firm mentioned in this list is the Carrickmacross Knitting and Hosiery Company, about which I know nothing. The third is the Irish Fresh Meat Company, Drogheda. I think I am correct in saying that a guarantee of £70,000 was given in the case of this firm against the advice of the advisory committee.

Mr. McGilligan

That is not correct.

Mr. Lemass

My recollection is that the Minister has so stated, but I will take his word that that is not so. In any case a guarantee of £70,000 was given. The directors of the Company in their report to the general meeting of the members, which was held on the 1st March, 1929, stated that the losses which they had experienced as a result of their trading operations were due, mainly, to insufficiency of working capital, and a consequent necessary restriction by the Company to a small weekly kill, which was insufficient to carry the weekly factory expenses. It was obvious from the beginning that the capital resources were inadequate and they could not possibly extend their operations, so that its weekly or monthly or annual revenue would be sufficient to meet its overhead charges. In addition, however, complaints have been made, and I want the Minister to tell us how far he has investigated these complaints, that some part of the failure can be attributed to the fact that excessive commission was paid to cattle salesmen, some of whom were salaried directors of the Company. I think the Minister should state why it is that he did not take action in respect of this Company earlier than he did and before the sum of £8,446 had accumulated in arrears of interest. It seems that the pending failure of the Company was obvious early in the Company's operations, and the delay as between the period in which it, in fact, ceased operations and the date on which these returns were submitted to the Dáil has been very considerable.

The next firm mentioned here is Cornelius Connor & Sons, Ltd., which received £6,000. I do not know anything concerning the circumstances of that firm, but I think the Minister should give them to us. As far as we can discover from the information which was tabled, that firm was engaged in the business of trading in milk in the neighbourhood of Dublin and was given this sum of £6,000 to extend its operations. Surely there are enough people trading in milk in the neighbourhood of Dublin to obviate the necessity of the State financing another? In fact, the Minister will recollect that the Food Prices Tribunal reported that the price of milk was being maintained in Dublin at an excessive level, due to the fact that there were too many people trading in milk. Despite the fact that everyone knew what the circumstances were, the Minister decided to give £6,000 to this firm for the purpose of enabling it to extend its operations and allowed £686 to accumulate in arrears of interest.

The next is the Wicklow Mineral Grinding Company, the only point arising in connection with which was the additional cost in which the State was involved arising out of the legal action which the Minister undertook apparently on wrong advice. The last one mentioned here is the Irish Glass Bottle Company, Ltd.

Mr. McGilligan

What does the Deputy say was wrong advice?

Mr. Lemass

I take it that the Minister was advised that he had a case which he was likely to win in the courts, and as he did not win I presume that the advice was wrong.

Mr. McGilligan

That is the simple statement of the Deputy. The advice was wrong because the case was lost.

Mr. Lemass

That is the standard.

Mr. McGilligan

That is the standard. Is it the standard that rules with regard to clients and counsel?

Mr. Lemass

That has been the practice.

Mr. McGilligan

Good heavens, it is amazing. Did the Deputy find out who gave the advice?

Mr. Lemass

I did not; I do not think it matters in the least.

Mr. McGilligan

You were very inquisitive the last time. Did you find out?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. McGilligan

It was one of the Deputy's advisers on the land annuities who advised us.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister has a good point to make now. I do not claim that the advisers or the members of our Party are infallible.

Mr. Davin

The lawyer members are.

Mr. Lemass

Not always. Occasionally they make mistakes. In any case, I want to deal with the Irish Glass Bottle Company. Deputy Davin stated that the failure of that company appears to have been due to the fact that there was continuous friction between the manager and the directors. I do not think that was the prime cause of failure. It is quite obvious that the capital liabilities were altogether in excess of what it could bear. There was no possibility of the company, even if it got a monopoly of the glass bottle trade, paying the interest on all these capital charges. The Deputy will, no doubt, remember the circumstances under which this £50,000 was given and the other liabilities which the company had at the time. The only possibility which that company had of ever making progress lay in a reduction of these capital charges in some way.

When the taxpayer has provided this £50,000 such a reduction may be possible, but it has not been possible heretofore. It is well known that there was friction between the workers and the management. It appears to have been continuous and must have affected the efficiency of the Company. I cannot accept the statement that responsibility for that can be evenly divided between both parties. As far as I have been able to discover, the management appears to have been unnecessarily dictatorial and shortsighted in their dealings with the workers. Whether I am correct in that or not I am satisfied that no matter what the management of the Company did it was not possible to meet the interest charged on the loan much less repay any of the principal, in view of the other capital commitments.

Altogether, I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce can have no reason to feel satisfied with the manner in which he has administered the Trade Loans Guarantee Act. I think better results could have been achieved, and I said so before. I take it that it is the considered policy of the Minister to allow the Act to expire and to substitute for it some other form of legislation. Statements to that effect have appeared in the Press, and I would be glad if the Minister would tell the House exactly what he intends to do in this connection. The Act is due to expire in June or July, and inasmuch as the Minister has not abandoned all hope of giving State aid to industry, whatever legislation he intends to substitute for it will have to be introduced before then. I do not intend to discuss the circumstances of any other firm which does not come before us in consequence of a report from the Department. The firm to which Deputy Davin referred has apparently met its liabilities in this respect. If it has done so I think it is a considerable tribute to the management in view of the very difficult circumstances in which that concern has to operate.

Mr. Davin

Has the Deputy any suggestion to make whereby the number of people employed could be increased or existing conditions improved to such an extent that the number of men employed in 1922 could be reemployed?

Mr. Lemass

The concern of members of the Dáil is not so much to devise plans by which a particular industrial undertaking could be fostered but how a particular industry could be fostered. The information which I have been able to get concerning the furniture industry here would seem to show that it is making good headway under the protection of the tariff which it has received.

Mr. Davin

What about the number employed?

Mr. Lemass

I am not sufficiently familiar with the conditions of the Edenderry factory to know whether it is not making greater progress. If, in fact, the circumstances are as Deputy Davin suggested, I am not nearly as familiar with them as the Deputy is.

Mr. Davin

Does the Deputy dispute my figures?

Mr. Lemass

I do not know anything about the Deputy's figures. The Edenderry factory was at one time doing a very substantial business in the construction of coach bodies, on which a large number of people were employed. That industry has been allowed to die out by the Government. An application for protection which was under consideration by the Tariff Commission for four years was recently reported on unfavourably. When a motion asking the Dáil to reject the report was moved here it was defeated by the Cumann na nGaedheal majority, although not one voice was raised to justify the Vote given on that occasion. I do not know whether the Minister's inability to defend the Government's action was due to lack of argument or to natural shyness. I wish to suggest to the Minister that if it was due to sudden shyness he has an opportunity of doing so now, and I will be very glad to get an indication of the Government's attitude to the report and to know if they see any hope for the coachbuilding industry in this country other than through the granting of protection which it asked for.

Mr. Davin

Can the Deputy tell the Minister if he knows the cause for a reduction of 150 men in the Ailesbury factory between 1929 and the present time?

Mr. Lemass

I could not.

Mr. Davin

Surely it was the Deputy's business to inquire when he was there?

Mr. Lemass

It is eighteen months since I visited Edenderry. The Deputy may know more about my movements than I do myself, but I can assure him my statement is correct. I wish to leave that subject and to come to another of very great importance and that is likely to attract considerable attention from the public in the near future. It is a long time since we had a discussion here on the conditions existing in the flour-milling industry. It is an industry which applied for a protective tariff, and whose application was referred to and reported on by the Tariff Commission. By a majority the Dáil confirmed the report of the Tariff Commission, and in the discussion which took place, fears having been expressed from certain parts of the House that the flour-milling industry was about to go as the coachbuilding industry has since gone, Ministers were at great pains to assure us that they were keeping an eye on developments in that industry, and that if anything took place which they considered detrimental to the interests of the people they would not hesitate to take action to prevent it. Developments have taken place, and on the 25th of last month it was announced that a scheme of rationalisation for the Irish flour-milling industry would come into operation on the 1st May.

It was stated that the general idea was to restrict the output of the mills in such a manner that the price of the product would be increased and that trading would be gradually confined to a definite area. That Press announcement drew an official statement from the Flour Millers' Economic Association, a statement which did not contradict anything I have read, but which stated that as there were no redundant mills in the Irish Free State there was no question of closing down mills, and also that there was no price agreement in the parties concerned. In a comment on this development, the official organ of the English Flour Millers' Association, quoted in the "Irish Independent" of April 5th, stated: "The Irish mills did not feel the troubles of the over-production of late years as easily as the English mills." I do not know if it is necessary to advance any argument to convince members of Cumann na nGaedheal that you cannot have over-production in an industry in which the productive capacity does not exceed our total requirements. The Irish flour-milling industry never suffered from over-production, but it has suffered and is suffering from over-importation. The purpose of the rationalisation scheme appears to be to stabilise the existing volume of imports. The production of the Irish flour mills may not be decreased, but, if this rationalisation scheme is allowed to go through, all possibility of getting it increased is going to be destroyed. The Minister looked without concern on the invasion of the industry by the British flour-milling combine and thought, in fact, that it was a good development, but now he is faced with the situation that the mills in this country are going to be restricted to a maximum output equal to the average over the past few years. That is the declared intention of this new organisation at present, although it is quite likely that in the near future its aims will be changed and that we will find a gradual restriction of the output of the Irish flour mills coming into operation, with the consequent gradual increase in the importation of English flour.

We are definitely opposed to this rationalisation project because we think that it is fraught with considerable danger to the Irish people, and we think that the Minister should take action to prevent it as soon as possible. There is probably need for some organisation that would increase the efficiency and improve the selling methods of the Irish flour mills, but that does not appear to be the purpose of this organisation. We do not suffer from over-production, as I have already said, and there is no necessity to restrict our mills to a definite quota or to limit the area in which they can sell. The only purpose which the promoters of the organisation could have would be to ensure that the importation of English flour will be maintained at the present quantity. We know from the trade returns of this year that flour imports are going up while wheat imports are going down.

It is natural in that situation that Irish mill-owners should jump at any project which would appear to offer them security on the present basis for the future. Under the rationalisation scheme they are, apparently, guaranteed a certain share of the market, whereas the only future they could see otherwise, in consequence of the Government's refusal to impose a tariff and the continuous increase in the importation of foreign flour, is ultimate extinction.

Not merely are we opposed to the rationalisation project on the ground that it is detrimental to the best interests of our people, but also because we see that if it is allowed to develop it will prove a considerable hindrance to any Government that attempts to improve the situation in the future. An international combine, controlling production inside and outside the country, can defeat any tariff which is imposed by any Government by a mere manipulation of prices. If the rationalisation scheme goes through, and if the flour-milling industry here is definitely linked up with the combine in England, no tariff imposed in the future will be able to improve the situation. The effect of a tariff will be merely to increase the price of imported flour, the revenue from which will go to the Government, whereas the price of home-milled flour will also be increased, the profits going into the pockets of the combine. The Minister, in introducing this Estimate, made some reference to two movements which he said appeared to be in restriction of trade, which took place last year, and in relation to which he took action. As a result of that action he said that one of these movements had definitely disappeared and that the other was forced into a channel in which it could not be harmful. Here is another similar movement now, and I would like the Minister to tell us what steps he will take to prevent it developing in a manner which will be very detrimental to the interests of the industry and to those of industrial revival in this country as a whole.

Deputy Davin made reference to the transport situation and said that amalgamation had been a failure. He left us under the impression that it was his desire that the railway situation should be restored to the condition that existed before the Amalgamation Bill was passed by the Dáil.

Mr. T. J. O'Connell

Not at all.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Davin not merely made the statement but was questioned about it and he adhered to the assertion that amalgamation had been a failure.

Mr. O'Connell

Yes, but surely the conclusion to draw from that was that they should go further and nationalise?

Mr. Lemass

Nationalisation is amalgamation. The word he used was "amalgamation."

Mr. O'Connell

His argument was that they did not go far enough, that they did not nationalise them.

Mr. Lemass

The phrase used was "amalgamation."

Mr. O'Connell

That they stopped there, that amalgamation was a failure.

Mr. McGilligan

He stated that our scheme of amalgamation had failed.

Mr. O'Connell

Exactly.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister, when introducing the Estimate, said that he had been considering the transport situation last year, and had prepared a Bill the purpose of which was the betterment and the preservation of the existing railway system, but during the and of last year, or the beginning of this year, he had certain conversations with the railway directors, as a result of which he found it necessary, he said, to embark on another line. I find it difficult to know what other line the Minister could be embarking on other than the betterment and preservation of the existing railway system. Either the Minister told us too much or did not tell us enough. I think that it is due to the Dáil that we should get from the Minister some clear exposition of his intentions in regard to the transport situation. We have heard rumours and have seen reports which would seem to indicate that it is the policy of the Minister, if not of the Executive Council, to hand over complete control of all the transport resources of the country to the Great Southern Railways Company. The transport policy for which the Minister has stood heretofore does appear to have failed.

The amalgamation of the railways has not produced the results which he appeared to have anticipated. After five years the Great Southern Company has not come within 80 per cent. of the standard revenue, and the whole purpose of the Railways Act and of amalgamation was to put the company in a position to earn a certain minimum revenue known as standard revenue. Even the operation of standard charges as from the 1st July last does not appear to have improved the situation in the slightest. The Minister appears to recognise that fact. The difficulties of the railway company arise mainly out of the fact that a large part of their passenger trade has been diverted to the roads. In fact, the revenue from goods traffic has been maintained at a remarkably steady level, despite the decline in commercial activity during the past few years. The policy of this Party in that regard has already been made known. We believe that the interests of the railway company and of the transport users of the country require that the road and rail services should be brought under one control, but we do not think that that control should be the existing railway management.

Deputy Davin used some hard words about certain railway directors. Whatever we may think of these directors as individuals, we cannot consider that Board is necessarily the most suitable which we can get to control the transport of this country. There is need for some policy. The Chairman of the Great Southern Railways Company, at the annual meeting this year, spoke as follows:—

"Whether the future policy of the Free State is to be nationalisation or a continuation of company ownership, the whole question of transport demands immediate attention in the interests of the country. At the Congress held in Madrid in May last it was abundantly demonstrated that of all the countries there represented in none did such chaos as regards road and rail control exist as in Great Britain and the Irish Free State."

A need for a policy there undoubtedly is, and that policy apparently the Minister has not yet attempted to formulate. He has promised us three Bills dealing with transport before the House rises for the summer, and he said that even after these three Bills had been considered the whole general transport question will have afterwards to be reviewed.

Mr. McGilligan

I did not say "afterwards."

Mr. Lemass

I will quote exactly what the Minister said:

"There are at least three Bills on transport which are now being considered and on which the whole general transport question will have afterwards to be reviewed."

Mr. McGilligan

When the Bills are brought forward.

Mr. Lemass

I am not trying to make any point about that. If the Minister tells us that the policy of the Government in respect to the transport situation will be given effect to by these Bills, then, well and good, but from other remarks made by him on Friday last when he was speaking he certainly definitely left the impression that certain delays had taken places as a result of which the preparation of these legislative proposals have been very considerably delayed, and would have to be delayed for some time longer. If the Minister has any doubts on the matter I will quote him the relevant sentences.

Mr. McGilligan

I would like if the Deputy would.

Mr. Lemass

"As I did not receive any final information from the railway company on certain points I put up to them until the early months of this year, that legislation has had necessarily to be postponed."

Mr. McGilligan

That is the legislation which was in preparation last year had to be postponed. If the Deputy goes back a little further in the report he will find that.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister said he was proposing to introduce legislation on certain lines.

Mr. McGilligan

Last year.

Mr. Lemass

But subsequent to the preparation of that legislation he had certain discussions with the directors of the Great Southern Railways Company, as a result of which he abandoned the original legislation and proceeded with entirely fresh legislation on new ground.

Mr. McGilligan

I proceeded this year to draft new legislation.

Mr. Lemass

That fresh legislation was held up until the early months of this year. This is only May, and I take it the legislation has not yet been completed in his office.

Mr. McGilligan

Not all.

Mr. Lemass

If it has not been completed in his office, then the prospects of having it introduced here before the summer recess are very slight.

Mr. McGilligan

They are not very rosy.

Mr. Lemass

So I take it that the Dáil will have to wait a considerable time longer before it will have any idea or explanation of what the policy on transport is. The Minister refuses to give any indication of policy.

Mr. McGilligan

Does the Deputy think that I should give an indication of policy ahead of the Bills?

Mr. Lemass

I should certainly think so. I do not know what the Government's proposals are, but in respect to the majority of Bills an indication of policy is usually given beforehand, sometimes, I admit, at country meetings rather than in the Dáil.

Mr. McGilligan

No matter what the reactions of such an announcement would be?

Mr. Lemass

There are certain cases in which it is not impossible to give an indication of policy. Certainly the policy of this Party here is to bring the transport services in this State under State ownership and unified control. I do not think any serious results are likely to accrue from the fact that it is known that is our policy.

Mr. McGilligan

Why? Because the populace know that it cannot be carried into effect.

Mr. Lemass

I do not know if they know anything of the kind.

Mr. McGilligan

Surely they do.

Mr. Lemass

Surely projects which can be carried out successfully elsewhere can be carried out successfully here?

Mr. McGilligan

It is one thing for a member of the Government, who has the backing of the majority Party in the House, to give indications of policy in advance of legislation, but it is another thing for a minority Party to say what it would do if it were in office when nobody bothers about it.

Mr. Lemass

After all, it is only a matter of weeks now.

Mr. McGilligan

You can state any policy you like.

Mr. Lemass

In my opinion the Minister is open to criticism for having allowed the situation to develop as it has and for having held his hand so long before taking action to remedy it. It was obvious very shortly after the Railways Act came into operation that the original anticipations of the Minister were not going to be realised. Everybody expected that the second step to which President Cosgrave referred then, and to which Deputy Davin referred to-day, would be taken shortly afterwards.

In the course of his remarks the Minister dealt with a number of other matters to which I want to refer. He gave us a promise that a number of publications were going to come from the Statistics Branch. I do not know what reliance we can place on these promises. Similar promises given in the past have not been fulfilled, but if the publications to which the Minister referred are made available I admit that there will be a very considerable addition to our knowledge of the economic conditions existing in the country. I cannot, however, accept as reasonable at all the Minister's explanation of the delay in relation to the publication of the Census volume on unemployment which the Minister called the Volume on Industrial Status. As far as I can understand the Minister's remarks, these statistics are available for publication, but the written matter necessary to explain them away is not yet ready, and that without that written matter the Minister does not think that any useful purpose would be served by giving the statistics unadorned by this written matter.

I think that the Minister can take the risk that some irresponsible people may misunderstand the figures. It is now four years since these figures have been collected, and their value is daily growing less. I suggest that if necessary we could do without the written matter to which the Minister has referred. There is, in fact, in my mind a very strong suspicion that the whole anxiety of the Minister is to present these figures in the form most favourable to the political party of which he is a member. I do not think the delay in the publication of the figures is due to the pressure of business in the Statistical Branch of the Department so much as to the political difficulties of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party.

Mr. McGilligan

I never said it was.

Mr. Lemass

We are both agreed that it is merely political considerations that are behind it.

Mr. McGilligan

Why does the Deputy bring that in as if it were something that had not been already dealt with? When one thing is denied the Deputy jumps to the other.

Mr. Lemass

The publication is being held up anyway, and it happens to suit Cumann na nGaedheal politically that it should be held up.

Mr. McGilligan

That is not so.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister referred to the Bill implementing the Article in the Constitution—the Minerals Bill. He said that the Minerals Bill has now been received from the office of the Parliamentary Draftsman, and that it has been finally discussed in the Department. On June 30th, 1927, the Minister said in connection with this Bill: "It will probably come before the House in the autumn"—that is, the autumn of 1927.

The autumn of 1927 came, but the Bill did not. On the 16th May, 1928, the Minister said that "Legislation is at present being considered; part of it, in fact, has definitely left the Department's hands, but there is no hope of having it introduced before the Autumn Session." That was in 1928. He went on to say: "I hope that before Christmas there will be no obstacle as far as this House can take away that obstacle, to proceed with that Minerals Development Bill." Now he tells us in the month of May, 1931, that the Bill is nearly ready, and he hopes that it will be introduced before the Autumn of this year. I do not know that the Minister's promise on this occasion is of any more value than the promises he made in 1927 and 1928, on each of which occasions he said that the development of the mineral resources of the country was being impeded by the absence of that legislation. The same thing applies to a number of other Bills which the Minister here has promised from time to time. Speaking on Friday last on the matter of prices he said that his Department had taken action which resulted in the reduction of the prices of one commodity and that in relation to a number of other commodities disputes concerning prices were in progress and that he thought that it was much better that the problem of excessive prices should be tackled in that way rather than by the introduction of legislation giving them compulsory powers. The Minister has long ago declared his opposition to compulsory price regulations but he did promise when the Food Prices Tribunal reported to introduce two Bills, one dealing with Short Weights and Measures and the other with Merchandise Marks. The Minister knows that the Food Prices Tribunal urged the introduction of such legislation, saying that certain poor classes of the community were being robbed by unscrupulous shopkeepers through bad measures of one kind or another. Speaking last year, the Minister said that he had a Short Weights and Measures Bill drafted in his Department. That Bill has not yet appeared. He also said that he had a Merchandise Marks Bill fully prepared. That has not yet appeared either.

I do not know why it is that the Minister's Department in so far as the Dáil is concerned appears to be the most inactive of all Departments of the Government. It may be that the Minister has to give portion of his time to the management of another Department. In that case I would strongly suggest to the Government that the work of Industry and Commerce is so important as to require the whole time of a Minister, and that it is work that we cannot afford to neglect, no matter how important such things as the Royal Style and Title and other such things with which the Minister is so much concerned may be. It is almost seven years since a Departmental Committee set up to examine into the working of the Workmen's Compensation Acts reported. The Minister promised legislation to give effect to its recommendations, but he did not do so. Two members of the Minister's Party, Deputy Rice and another, introduced a Private Member's Bill seeking to effect some temporary improvement in the position while the Minister was preparing a permanent measure. When that Bill came before the Dáil the Minister asked to have it withdrawn, on the ground that additional information had become available and that he was to re-summon the Committee to consider that information. The Bill was withdrawn; the Committee was re-summoned, but it reported that the additional information had no bearing on the subject at all and reaffirmed its original report. The Minister has not taken any action since, and the permanent legislation, which has been in preparation since 1924, has not yet appeared before the House. Is there any prospect that it will appear, and that those other Bills will appear in the course of the year? I have spoken for a longer period than I had intended, but I do not think that the inactivity of the Department of Industry and Commerce in respect to a large number of matters should be the subject of severe criticism by members of the Dáil. The dissatisfaction which has been felt throughout the whole country should be expressed by the members of this House. I therefore support the motion moved by Deputy Davin to refer this Estimate back for reconsideration.

Mr. Byrne

The House has listened to a very venemous attack by Deputy Davin on the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It seemed to me that was a most illogical attack. The Deputy pointed out in the course of his argument that certain payments for the relief of the unemployed were being made throughout the country at present. I remember when the Bill was passing through the House to legalise these payments that Deputy Davin was one of the strongest supporters in the Dáil of the Bill. It seems to me that, in view of the support Deputy Davin gave to the passing of that Bill through the House it is now rather illogical that he should condemn or even criticise its failure. I think it is a very poor thing that a Deputy who supports a Bill legalising these payments should, when they afterwards appear in black and white, treat them as something that should not be done, or as something unworthy of the Department of Industry and Commerce, or, indeed, something of which the nation should be ashamed.

One would think, listening to the arguments of Deputy Davin, that the Department of Industry and Commerce had done absolutely nothing for the expansion of Irish industry in this country, that no steps had been taken by the Department to encourage industry. If anybody would consider the reports which the Department of Industry and Commerce issued recently they would see what the facts of the situation are. Anybody who has read the reports, which have been sent to every Deputy of this House, would notice that one fact stands out pre-eminently; that is, that the industries of this country are not alone holding their own against world-wide competition, but that they are actually progressing in the present condition of economic depression that exists throughout the whole world. There is one thing that the Department of Industry and Commerce has got to be careful about. It seems that this House never takes notice of the fact that one-third of the people of this country earn their livelihood in industrial pursuits. Speaking upon this question, purely as a business man, it is one of the most important things that the Department of Industry and Commerce is charged with—to safeguard this one-third of the population who are earning their livelihood in industry. If the greatest care is not taken by the Department of Industry and Commerce, it is simply a matter of destroying all the industrial progress that this country has made within the past eight or nine years.

I think, in view of the many statements that Deputy Davin has made, that it might be interesting for me to point out, very briefly, some of the industrial progress that the Saorstát has made in the past few years. I regret that the Minister, when introducing his Estimate, did not give the House a short review of the industrial progress that the State has made for the past few years.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister would not have been in order in going beyond last year.

Mr. Byrne

Perhaps he would have been in order in stating that in the past three years there has been a considerable expansion of industry in the country. However, I think if one considers the many industries with which the Department of Industry and Commerce has recently dealt, one can only come to the conclusion that considerable progress has been made. If one looks at the margarine industry, for instance, what has happened in the output of that industry? The industry is now practically supplying the whole of the Irish market. The output is now £331,000, and imports have fallen from £167,000 per annum to £3,987. Was not that due to some effort on behalf of the Department? In the confectionery and jam industry twelve new factories have been established since 1926. Was no progress made by the Department in the matter of these factories, all of which are working prosperously at the present time? Since 1926 the output of these factories has increased from £879,329 to £1,172,418 in 1929, an increased output of £293,086, or 33 per cent. It may be well to mention that there has been an increase also of 53 per cent. in the chocolate trade and 29 per cent. in the jam trade. There has been an increase of 542 hands employed in these industries, and the wages paid have increased by £60,000 per annum. I would like the House to recollect that these are practically new industries as far as this country is concerned, and the Labour Party, above all parties in this House, ought to give honour where honour is due, as far as industrial progress and industrial employment are concerned.

Mr. O'Connell

Would the Deputy tell us about boots?

Mr. Byrne

I will refer to the items that I want to refer to. There has been a lot of talk about the bacon-curing industry. In the bacon-curing industry two new factories have been established since 1927. All these establishments at the present time are practically working full time, and there has been an increased output of almost half a million pounds. The farmers have received £639,000 in increased prices for their commodities. There has been an increase of 650 hands, and wages have increased by £41,548. If there is one industry more than another that has been criticised from the opposite side of the House as being in a very depressed condition it is the bacon industry. We ought at least to be fair to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, no matter from what angle we speak, when we are speaking about industrial questions.

Mr. O'Connell

What did the Minister do for the bacon industry?

Mr. Byrne

Let us speak of things as they exist, not as the Labour Party, perhaps, would have them to exist. Look at any other of the trades which have been dealt with by the Department. Take the clothing trade. Has there been no industrial progress made in the clothing trade? If Deputies would look at the reports to which I have referred the fact that there has been considerable progress made in the clothing trade would be evident. Would it astonish the House to know that since 1926 there have been ten new factories opened? Despite the world depression at the present time, ten new factories have been established in a trade that is practically new to the country. That is something that the Minister ought to be congratulated on and not be criticised about. In that industry at the present time we have 4,500 hands employed, an increase of 1,300 hands, and that is one of the industries about which there has been very severe criticism.

Deputy O'Connell asked me to deal with boots and shoes. I want to look at that in as fair a way as possible. In the boot and shoe industry the wages bill is now £93,726 per annum.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would tell me what all this has got to do with the administration of the Minister's Department in the last twelve months?

Mr. Byrne

I am dealing with the arguments put forward by the Labour Party.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think the Deputy is.

Mr. Byrne

With all respect, I am dealing with the particular industry that I have been requested from the Labour Benches to deal with.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What we have got to consider on this Vote is the administration of the Department of Industry and Commerce during the last twelve months, and nothing else.

Mr. Byrne

Has it been efficient or inefficient? How can we find out whether it has been efficient or inefficient without looking at certain facts and figures? I think there is no Deputy in this House who sticks more closely to the subject than I do. I will be very brief as far as this particular industry is concerned. There has been an increase of 126 hands in the industry. There are now 1,125 hands employed. Let me take another industry. The woollen trade is now employing 600 extra hands. The blanket industry is employing 390 extra hands. We are making now 80 per cent. of the blankets required in the Irish Free State. The progress made in these industries has been made during the period to which I refer, and part of it has been made in the period under review. If one looks at the new Ford factory——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely that has nothing to do with the Minister's administration in the last twelve months?

Mr. Byrne

In dealing with the administration of the Department it is necessary to deal with the policy of the Department and with the methods which the Department has used in the expansion of industry. It is necessary to ask those criticising the Estimates, not in a constructive but a destructive way, if the policy and administration of the Department have not made for industrial progress. If one looks at the exports he will find a figure of £10,000,000 for Guinness's stout. That may not be palatable news to the Labour Party, but at least one has to be fair to the Government when discussing industrial questions. The policy and administration of the Department of Industry and Commerce have everything to do with it. If the Labour Party do not know that upon the policy and administration of the Department the prosperity of this industry depends then they are not fit to represent their constituents in the Dáil.

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare):

We will take a shot at it.

Mr. Byrne

You may have a shot at it, and you are only having a shot. We have, through the administration of this Department, a revenue from tariffs of £1,335,000. That is due to the administration of the Department and nothing else. Through the policy of the Department we have, perhaps, the smallest number of unemployed of any country in Europe, with the exception of France.

Mr. Hogan

What are the figures?

Mr. Byrne

It was stated a few days ago that the registered unemployed numbered about 25,000.

Mr. Hogan

Do you accept that?

Mr. Byrne

There are in Northern Ireland, which is only a fraction of the Free State, several thousands more than that.

Mr. Hogan

It is not a portion of the Free State.

Mr. Byrne

I accept that correction— it is portion of Ireland. There are more unemployed in the city of Glasgow than in the whole of the Free State. There are more unemployed in the city of Liverpool than in the whole of the Free State. Is that position not due to the wisdom and administration of the Department?

Mr. Anthony

Talk about India and China.

Mr. Byrne

Deputy Anthony is a great wit, especially when he has no argument. If I am touching the Labour Party on the raw, I think it is time that they got a little touch. The Labour Party, if they want to be fair, honest and straight, and criticise the Estimate upon its merits, should recognise that we have a smaller ratio of unemployed than any country in Europe. We have listened to Deputy Lemass for a long time dealing with the problem of rationalisation. I hope you, sir, will not rule me out of order if I say a word about what rationalisa- tion means. It appears to me that those who criticise rationalisation in the flour industry do not appear to know what is the object of rationalisation. I am sure Deputy Anthony knows very little about it. I do not know whether he will support the views put forward by Deputy Lemass or not, that rationalisation necessarily means reduced output. Anyone who knew anything about political economy would not attempt to make a statement of that kind.

Mr. Anthony

It produces reduced employment.

Mr. Byrne

It does not necessarily mean reduced employment. If rationalisation is carried out in a proper way it means, not reduced employment, but increased employment, and it certainly means increased output. I have no hesitation in saying that it means a reduction of overhead expenses; it means the elimination of waste in an industry, and the putting of an industry on a proper economic basis, so that it can meet competition. Deputy Lemass was very careful in dealing with this to keep away from the actual state of the grain milling industry at present. If he had looked at the report of the Department what would he have found the economic condition of that industry to be? Would he have found it to be in the condition of decay that we were told a few months ago it would inevitably fall into when certain proposals were put forward by Deputy Anthony in this House and were not accepted? The figures are there for Deputy Anthony to read as well as for me. The grain milling industry shows an increase of 6 per cent. output in flour and a reduction in imports of over 83,000 cwts. There is not much sign of decay there. Is that due to the administration and policy of the Department? I think the Department has played no small part against very severe criticism in having that state of affairs exist at the present time. If one looks at the production of maize meal one will find an increase of 15 per cent., or over 811,000 cwts. If one looks at flaked meal, one will find an increase of 132 per cent., while the imports have fallen off by over 158,000 cwts. That is the great criticism that has been put forward by the Opposition. That is the great criticism put forward by Deputy Davin and the Labour Party for the referring back of this estimate. Has there been a single sound argument advanced why the estimate should not be passed? The only thing I feel sorry for is that the amount of the estimate is not considerably larger. In my opinion, if the industries of this country are to be expanded in the way which it is undoubtedly possible to expand them, the country will have to expend a considerably larger sum of money than the amount contained in this estimate.

There is one thing I should like to say to the Minister, and I say it by no means in the way of criticism. I should like to ask him has any progress been made in the negotiations regarding the cement industry. I have had communications from many quarters asking me to take up this question with the Department. I do think that when we have available deposits of material for the manufacture of cement here something should be done to satisfy the areas in which these deposits exist that the Department is alive to the necessity for getting ahead with the development of this industry in the same fashion that they have got ahead with the development of the other industries to which I have referred. I realise something that perhaps Labour Deputies do not understand. I realise that large-scale production in this country is practically impossible. I realise the diversity of the industrial imports that come into the country. But if there is one industry more than another which, in my opinion, can be dealt with upon a successful basis by this State, it is the cement industry. I have been written to from the areas where these deposits lie, and it has been pointed out to me that certain firms have bought up these deposits on the distinct promise and understanding that the development of the cement industry would be taken in hands in the shortest possible time. I should like to hear from the Minister if any progress has been made, or if he has any announcement to make.

I referred to the question of small-scale industries and to the diversity of the industrial products that come in here. In doing that, I am thinking at the present moment that in a little country like ours—that is, Denmark— they have more cement factories, and they are working there successfully at the present time, and they are practically able to supply the needs of their own home market. I believe we could do just as successfully in the manufacture of cement. I desire to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he could inform the House if any progress has been made in the development of the Irish cement industry.

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare):

I am afraid I cannot rise to the same intellectual level as was exhibited by Deputy J. J. Byrne. I would rather talk in plain, common-sense fashion of plain, common-sense and mundane interests. If I were to argue on the basis of the logic used by Deputy J.J. Byrne, I would say, possibly: "Look at the great fruit crop we had last year, all due to the activity of the Minister for Industry and Commerce," and then I might be asked: "Why does the Labour Party propose to refer back this Vote?" I would also refer to many other things that the Minister for Industry and Commerce would not claim to have anything to do with, although Deputy J. J. Byrne would attribute all to the activities of the Minister and his Department. I am never so happy as when I find myself in agreement with Deputy J. J. Byrne, and when he says that it is important for the community to realise that the safeguarding of one-third of the community engaged in industrial pursuits is an important matter for the community and for the Minister, who is responsible for the safeguarding of that industry, I agree with him. But it is amazing to think that while he referred to several industries, he did not tell us what the Minister for Industry and Commerce has done to prevent the flour-milling industry from passing out of the control of the people of the country, and thereby endangering its continuance here. Deputy Byrne would find it inconvenient to mix Guinness's stout and flour, and that is the reason, I suppose, why he left it over, but the danger is, nevertheless, evident, and the Deputy ignored it.

I want to refer to some things that the Minister has deliberately ignored in his administration in the last twelve months, and it is not for want of knowing something about them. I have taken considerable pains to bring under his notice the fact that his Department through the administration and development of the Shannon power has thrown out of employment a very large number of men in the Killaloe area who were dependent for their means of livelihood upon the Shannon. Now when the Minister has utilised the Shannon power in the interests of the community for the development of electricity, notwithstanding every effort that we have made, he has so far refused to recognise the claims of these people. We had not very long ago meetings in that area and we had promises of support, both oral and verbal, from people with reference to the hardships caused through the development of the Shanon power. I hope these people who wrote promising their support and others who expressed their support in person will give us their support now in this Assembly, which is the proper place to give it.

I shall endeavour to put the case of those people before the House as understood by themselves. That case has been issued by the people concerned who give it under two headings. In class one it is stated:

(1) When the riparian ownership changed hands the fishermen went with the incoming purchaser, thus establishing an inherent right of fishing on those waters.

(2) When a fisherman died or became unable to pursue his craft, he was succeeded by his son or some member of his family; and this was the practice for the past three generations.

(3) When the riparian owner sublet the water, the incoming tenant paid each fisherman £2 10s. 0d. per week, thereby showing a dual ownership. The fishermen were fixtures on these waters, and their rights were never questioned or interfered with by owner or sub-tenant.

(4) The fishermen's art or craft is highly technical, and the acquisition of this skill was confiscated when the hydro-electric scheme was put in operation.

—that is to say, his skill went by the board. It was no use afterwards.

(5) The riparian owners—Messrs. Whip Bros., Major Lefroy, and J. Crowe—were handsomely compensated, whilst the poor fishermen were cast on the "scrap heap," and their acquired art and skill absolutely ignored. It is to be hoped that there is not special consideration for the rich, and none for those who require it most when their trade is rendered useless by measures adopted by an Executive Government for the benefit of the nation as a whole. This Machiavellian policy is absolutely destructive of all right.

(6) The fishermen on the riparian waters also enjoyed the privilege of trout-fishing in the evenings, thus adding to their emoluments—7/6 per day on an average for each man.

(7) The fishing grounds at Killaloe extended from Lough Derg to a distance of 2¼ miles down the Shannon, to a point where the Garranboy River discharges into the River Shannon.

(8) The increased height of water, ten to fifteen feet, precludes all salmon and trout fishing now. The number of licences taken out previous to the Shannon scheme in the Killaloe area was about fifty for salmon, and this year the number issued was one.

The second class of fishermen concerned——

Mr. McGilligan

Before this interesting category is finished, might I ask what has it to do with my administration of the present legislation?

Mr. Hogan

What it has to do with it is this: the Minister has power to pay compensation to certain people who had claims upon the Shannon waters.

Mr. McGilligan

No. The particular class to which he refers do not come under any Act.

Mr. Hogan

The Minister has power to pay compensation. He has sufficient power under legislation at the present time to pay compensation to those people.

Mr. McGilligan

To the people mentioned by the Deputy?

Mr. Hogan

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

No, I have not. It would require amendment of the Act. I have not that power under the present Act.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If it would require amendment of the present Act the Deputy is precluded from raising a matter which would require legislation.

Mr. Hogan

I submit that it is not a fair method of meeting the argument to say that the Minister has no power under the Act. It would require a good deal of legal argument to sustain his contention that he has not power. I submit the Minister has not addressed any legal argument to show he has no power. I am not ascribing any wrong motive to the Minister there, but I am putting it that he has not put up any legal argument to prove that he has not power to pay compensation under the present Act. I submit there is legislation existing by which the Minister could pay compensation to those people. I cannot produce the necessary authority, but I submit he has the power to pay.

Mr. McGilligan

I have been asked this question several times, and I have always replied in regard to groups of applicants that to pay them would require an amendment of the existing Act, and that I am precluded from paying because of the restrictions imposed under the present legislation.

Mr. Hogan

Let us argue it this way: That in the administration of his Department he has utilised the Shannon with the effect of throwing a certain number of people out of employment. Surely that is administration, and I am entitled to open up that by pointing out that his administration of the development of the Shannon power has thrown these people out of employment.

Mr. McGilligan

When the Shannon legislation was passing it was recognised that certain people would be thrown out of their employment, and for certain of those the House approved certain compensation in terms. For certain others it unfortunately did not. I am advised that it would require new legislation to do what the Deputy is asking.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It seems clear from what the Minister says that he is advised that he cannot pay compensation to those people for whom the Deputy is concerned without new legislation and, therefore, if the Deputy argues the case on that assumption he would be, in effect, advocating new legislation. The Deputy knows that would not be in order.

Mr. Hogan

I do not want to suggest new legislation upon this Estimate. I just want to say that that is an unfair way to ask me to produce my authority to show that he has power to pay compensation to these people. And the Minister knows perfectly well that is a matter that would require a good deal of research and examination of statutes that I am not in a position to do at the moment. However, I argue that that is an effect of his administration. He has thrown a certain set of people out of employment. That action is attributable to his administration.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

To the administration of the Act.

Mr. Hogan

Then he has paid no attention to that. I suppose if I am ruled out I will have to pass from it, but I would like the Minister to indicate whether he proposes to take and cognisance of their existence at all in the near future. I will have to take other means of raising this matter. As the Minister has chosen this method of interfering with me, I will have to choose another method of raising it in this Assembly. Now, going further on, I think I will be quite relevant and quite in order in dealing with people thrown out of employment because of the operation of the Shannon scheme. I have a statement here, signed by a good many workers in the district, in which it is stated deliberately that people are brought in from adjacent and far-removed counties to undertake work on the Shannon, while there are people who did work on the Shannon Scheme idle in that district. I put it to them, was there any particular skill required? The reply was characteristic: some of them told me that the only skill required was the skill in getting the job.

Mr. McGilligan

From whom was the job got, the Department or the Electricity Supply Board?

Mr. Hogan

Have we no means of raising the administration of the Electricity Supply Board here?

Mr. McGilligan

Not on my Vote.

Mr. Hogan

It appears to me that I am very much out of order this evening. However, I will try to have a shot at something the Minister is responsible for. He seems a very irresponsible Minister this evening. He is very interesting on all occasions, but never so interesting as when he enters into the realms of fiction. I want to refer to that piece of polite fiction known as the live register. It is a masterpiece of polite fiction, and the Minister responsible for the production of that masterpiece cannot be questioned. We have on these benches on several occasions endeavoured to indicate that the number registered on the live register does not represent the amount of unemployment. In order to get information I tabled several questions. It will be found in the Official Report No. 6, 18th March-20th March, 1931, that I asked the Minister if he would state the number on the live register, and the number of books retained in the various exchanges on the latest dates available for his Department. He gave me for the 9th March, 1931, the number of books retained in the various exchanges. The other day I put down another question, asking him what was the number of books retained. He gave me the number on the live register on the 9th March. I wanted the number of books retained on that date, and the Minister has supplied me with figures for the 16th March. If I read out the figures it will be seen that there is a very grave discrepancy between the number of books retained in the labour exchanges and the number on the live register. Some of the discrepancies were because some people returned to employment that is not insurable, and therefore did not withdraw their books, but that does not account for the large discrepancy in the return as given here.

In the Unemployment Exchange in Carlow there were on the live register 594. The number of books retained on the 16th March was 683; in Drogheda the figures were 1,082 on the live register and 1,468 books lodged; in Dublin the figures were 8,818 and 10,434 respectively; in Dundalk, 1,030 and 1,145; Dun Laoghaire, 1,011 and 1,246; Kilkenny, 731 and 888; Wexford, 789 and 1,025; Cobh, 559 and 857; Cork, 3,464 and 3,590; Fermoy, 623 and 887; Limerick, 2,862 and 3,558; Tralee, 637 and 901; Waterford, 1,492 and 1,699; Athlone, 1,423 and 1,525; Galway, 459 and 697; Letterkenny, 303 and 550; Sligo, 634 and 951. That explodes, I think very beautifully, the live register. On his own figures the Minister has shown us the number of people on the live register. He has also shown us the number of people whose books are lodged and not withdrawn. It simply means when people exhaust their unemployment benefit that they do not register further and, therefore, they do not appear on the live register. But their books remain. The index of unemployment in the country leaves out of account the number of agricultural workers who are not registered and insured. Surely the Minister could adopt a simple means of trying to find out the number of unemployed in the Free State instead of giving us the live register on every occasion.

I also want to refer to what the Minister would call a hardy annual, that is to those who pay unemployment insurance and get no benefit. He knows all about those who work under county councils and who, although they pay unemployment benefit, do not get any insurance benefit. That is a fairly extensive class. We have repeatedly asked the Minister to consider their position, and to consider whether it is fair to ask them to pay unemployment insurance when they are not receiving any corresponding benefit. There is another class, and I have several letters from them, civil bill officers and such who, although they pay unemployment insurance benefit, are deemed not to be entitled to unemployment insurance benefit. I have several letters from these people. It does seem unfair. If a person is not to receive any benefit for the payment of unemployment insurance, he certainly ought not to be asked to pay.

I cannot drag myself away from some consideration of various aspects of the Shannon scheme. I have the case of people whose cottages have been destroyed and not restored to them.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

I have a letter from a man who says that his case is still outstanding; that it is nearly four years since an officer from the Department came for possession of his cottage and got possession without hesitation at the time. The officer of the Department promised him faithfully that a new cottage would be built for him before six months. That promise was made in August, 1927. Four years have elapsed and yet there is no sign of a cottage being built or of the plot of land being given back. Just imagine what it means to his wife and children when he has to pay 8d. a stone for potatoes. Justice is not being done to him.

I think the Minister should give careful consideration to the complaint and see that the plot is immediately restored. A plot of land means a good deal to a cottier, as its produce would probably maintain himself and his family for a considerable period. To ask a man to give up his plot and his cottage and to give him no compensation is not by any means treating him fairly.

There is also the case where land has been submerged. I will read an extract from one letter which is typical of many that I received from Scariff district.

The place is flooded still, about 12 Irish acres, and it is good meadow land. During the last twelve months I lost the entire produce of it, about 20 tons of hay; also the after-grass, as well as grazing. From the letter of the Department I can see that they mean to do nothing, neither to pay for the damage nor reduce the flooding until their engineering survey is completed.

The hay in the meadow and the hay that was saved has been destroyed, while the after-grass, that would be of some use to the farmer, has also been destroyed. Now that the land cannot be used for any other purpose surely the Minister should consider the desirability of paying compensation and allowing this man some of his claim to meet local and national calls, such as taxation. These are matters that I would like the Minister to deal with when he is concluding. I would also like him to indicate whether he has taken any steps to develop deposits where representations have been made to him, such as those dealing with the manufacture of cement. I regret that I have not been able to deal with the position of fishermen, because evidently there is no legislation under which the Minister could pay the compensation. Even though there is not, the Minister might indicate whether he has any knowledge of their existence.

Mr. Briscoe

Is it your ruling, sir, that no matter in connection with the Shannon development or any function of the Electricity Supply Board shall be dealt with on this Estimate, even to the extent of reserved functions, as they were called, retained by the Minister under the Act? Deputy Hogan was referring to men whose employment ceased by virtue of the development of the Shannon scheme. The Minister pointed out that it would require legislation to compensate such people. Surely we can discuss that matter from the point of view of alternative employment.

An Ceann Comhairle

Has any ruling been given?

Mr. Briscoe

I do not know, but I think the Minister himself has ruled in the matter.

Mr. McGilligan

He has not.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy can take it that the Ceann Comhairle is not accepting that position. Has a ruling been given?

Mr. Briscoe

Not to my knowledge. I was not here for all the debate.

Mr. McGilligan

Ask Deputy Hogan. A ruling has been distinctly given.

Mr. Hogan

I certainly did not accept the Minister's ruling.

An Ceann Comhairle

Was a ruling given from the Chair?

Mr. Briscoe

I was not here all the time.

Mr. McGilligan

I was. A ruling was given. The Deputy was confused in his opening statement. A ruling was given on three points raised by the Deputy.

Mr. Briscoe

Is the Minister prepared to discuss under this Estimate items upon which it is within his power to give information? For instance, reports on the working of the Shannon Board.

Mr. McGilligan

They come up on the Board's Report.

Mr. Briscoe

The Report is long overdue, and has not been presented yet. On former occasions I questioned the Minister over considerable periods about the returns. The Report is nine months overdue now.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has asked me if I would give a general ruling. It would be preferable if the Deputy would elaborate the point he has in mind, and let me see what precisely it is. I gathered that a ruling was given to the effect that matters that required legislation could not be discussed. That is a well-known rule. I think also a ruling was given to the effect that a matter within the competence of the Electricity Supply Board cannot be raised on the Minister's Estimate. Perhaps the Deputy would proceed, and let us see if these are the points.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Hogan tried very hard to get certain information from the Minister with regard to employees who were displaced on certain works. For instance, employees of undertakings that were hitherto in existence.

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy Hogan did not raise any point like that.

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy spoke of people who were employed on the Shannon works and who are now unemployed.

Mr. McGilligan

That is another matter.

Mr. Briscoe

They would not be entitled to compensation if their unemployment is not caused by the Shannon works. Is the Minister prepared to consider the question of providing alternative employment for those who have been displaced?

Mr. McGilligan

Is it allowable under any Act to give alternative employment?

Mr. Briscoe

There is nothing in any Act to preclude the Minister from treating with people who are unemployed owing to such works.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not referring to persons who were employed in electricity undertakings which were taken over by the Electricity Supply Board under the Act?

Mr. McGilligan

I think the Deputy is.

Mr. Briscoe

Partly those.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Act covers those cases, and places the responsibility on the Electricity Supply Board.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Hogan referred to fishermen whose livelihood has been interfered with. There is nothing in the Act referring to fishermen, but the Deputy knows that by the setting up of the Shannon power development scheme the livelihood of these persons was affected. He is not in a position to give them compensation because they are not covered by the Act.

As Minister for Industry and Commerce, and knowing that the livelihood of these men has been affected by his own act, he should try and find some alternative accommodation for them by means of other employment.

An Ceann Comhairle

The position, I take it, is that persons who earned a livelihood as fishermen on the Shannon, have been, it is alleged, prevented from continuing to do so by the development of the Shannon Scheme, and not by the Electricity Supply Board.

Mr. Briscoe

By the fact of the Shannon power works being established.

An Ceann Comhairle

They have not been displaced by the Minister?

Mr. Briscoe

If the Minister had not set up the Shannon Scheme their means of livelihood would not be gone.

Mr. McGilligan

Not the Minister— the Oireachtas.

Mr. Briscoe

When I say the Minister I do not mean the Minister personally, but the Minister is responsible.

An Ceann Comhairle

They have not been displaced by any administrative act on the part of the Minister. It is not as the result of the Minister's administration that these men have been displaced, but as a result, apparently, as the Deputy himself states, of an Act of the Oireachtas. When the Minister states that he has no power to do anything without further legislation that seems to me to answer the point of order.

Mr. Briscoe

I do not think the Minister said that.

Mr. McGilligan

I stated that distinctly.

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister is now taking up the attitude that it is an Act of the Oireachtas that is responsible for the fact that these men have now no means of earning a livelihood, the Act of the Oireachtas which set up the Shannon power development scheme. His attitude is that unless an Act is brought in to enable him either to give them compensation or an alternative means of earning a livelihood he has no responsibility and is not going to consider their position at all.

Mr. McGilligan

It is not a question of responsibility or considering their position. Unless the power is put into my hand by an Act of the Oireachtas I am not empowered in any way to do anything with regard to these people. If anything is to be done for them it will require an Act of the Oireachtas.

Mr. Briscoe

I am asking the Minister if he will develop a will to do something for these people. Even without an Act he might be able to find some means of seeing that as regards any employment that is going they would get a preference in the same way as ex-National Army men get a preference on contract work. The fact that a man has been earning his living as a fisherman does not mean that he could not earn a living in some other employment if it were offered to him. Surely the Minister should be prepared to say that these men would get some preference in that way. I do not imagine that an Act of the Oireachtas is required to enable the Minister to do that.

Mr. McGilligan

I am afraid it would require an Act of the Oireachtas to do what I have been asked to do.

Mr. Briscoe

Even if there is no legislation in existence to enable the Minister to do a positive act in that direction, will he indicate to the House that he has the will to do something? Passing from that, I would like to know from the Minister if he has any ideas or information to put before the House with regard to the development of civil aviation in this country? I understand that representations have been made to him and that certain conferences have taken place. I would like the Minister to state, so that the information will become known abroad, whether any facilities are going to be accorded in this country in the matter of the development of civil aviation.

Mr. McGilligan

In what way?

Mr. Briscoe

First of all you have in the Saorstát a civil aero club, the members of which are handicapped tremendously because they have been promised—I do not say by the Minister but by some means—that they will be given some kind of a subsidy.

Mr. McGilligan

There has been no subsidy for the year that is under consideration in this Estimate.

Mr. Briscoe

There was a subsidy given under different Votes. I am given to understand that the Minister's Department has had certain conferences with representatives of this aero club.

Mr. McGilligan

May I again ask for a ruling on a point of order. Can there be discussed on an Estimate what I may do in the future unless it is tied up with some particular power that I have, and by which my administration last year may be criticised?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is confined to something which arises under the Vote.

Mr. Briscoe

Surely, A Chinn Comhairle, you are not going to rule that transport, as an industry in the country which gives employment and in which money is invested, is not a matter that comes under the administration of the Minister?

Mr. McGilligan

Except in so far as it is imposed on me by statute, there is no obligation on me with regard to it.

Mr. Briscoe

Are we to take it that in this debate on the Minister's Estimate we can discuss nothing except what is set down under the various sub-heads, the same as we might do at a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee? Can there be no discussion of policy? Is the Minister not to give the House any idea of his policy in regard to any particular matter that arises under the head of industry and commerce? Is that what we are to take from your ruling?

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy is asking me for a ruling, I think.

An Ceann Comhairle

I could not rule in the terms that the Deputy suggests. The position is that we are here reviewing the action of the Minister within the last twelve months, and we can only discuss the things which the Minister has a statutory power to do. The rule which prevents us from advocating legislation is a sound rule. There would be no limit otherwise in a discussion on Estimates. The Minister is asking for a certain amount of money for the expenses of his office. Deputies are confined to criticism of his administration within the powers devolved upon him by statute. Of course, as the Deputy is aware, there is no comparison at all between what the Public Accounts Committee normally does and the discussion, which is in order, and what takes place on an Estimate. On Estimates questions of policy can be discussed.

Mr. Briscoe

That makes the position very difficult. The ruling now is that we can only criticise the Minister's administration on Estimates for the coming year.

An Ceann Comhairle

The past year.

Mr. Briscoe

The Estimate before us is for the coming year.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are discussing the action taken administratively by the Minister during the past year.

Mr. Briscoe

Are we to discuss the past year on the Estimates for the coming year?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes—administrative action.

Mr. Briscoe

So that if an item appeared on last year's Estimate and does not appear on this year's Estimate, we are precluded from discussing it because it does not come under one of the sub-heads in this year's Estimate. I think that your ruling makes it absolutely impossible to get any reason——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is importing meanings into my ruling that are not there at all.

Mr. Briscoe

You stated definitely that we must criticise the Minister's administration during the past year. You realise that we have in our hands the Estimates for the coming year. The position is that we must not refer to them at all. I suggest that we should send for last year's Estimates and discuss them over again.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Ceann Comhairle did not say that the Deputy cannot criticise the Minister.

Mr. Briscoe

No, the Minister's Department.

An Ceann Comhairle

Or the Minister's Department. The Ceann Comhairle does not suggest the matters which may be debated.

Mr. Briscoe

Would you please tell us what we may do? I was attempting to criticise, if you like, the lack of policy on the part of the Minister last year. For instance, he failed last year to give any help in the development of civil aviation. The Minister says there is no sub-head in the Vote dealing with that matter, and that therefore it cannot be discussed. I want to argue that civil aviation is something that will have to be tackled, and that it is a matter of policy. The Minister can say that we have no policy in the matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may discuss the matter of civil aviation.

Mr. Briscoe

I thought the Minister was trying to rule me out. On the same basis that I have got your permission, if you like, to discuss the policy of civil aviation, surely we can discuss policy and everything else on the Vote for the Minister's Department.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has got permission to discuss civil aviation and he wants to extend that permission indefinitely. We will discuss civil aviation now, and we will decide the other point when it arises.

Mr. Briscoe

With regard to civil aviation, the Minister has done absolutely nothing. I give him credit to this extent, that I understand that recently conferences have taken place between his Department and representatives of the Aero Club for the purpose of seeing what facilities could be accorded to them to develop a scheme. I would like the Minister to explain why it is that he has given the Club such limited facilities. I would like to know why it is that the Minister—not the Minister for Industry and Commerce but the Minister for Defence— is giving such limited facilities to this Aero Club for the use of a hangar and with regard to flying machines at Baldonnel.

Mr. McGilligan

Is Baldonnel under my Vote?

Mr. Briscoe

No, but the Minister knows very well that if he had any policy with regard to civil aviation he would have made some effort before now to acquire existing grounds as suitable landing places. If the Minister has any policy on this matter I would be glad if he would give us some indication of it, and what the lines are that he intends to develop on. I would like to know if any chance is to be given to people in this country who qualify as pilots to make a living in their own country, or whether we are going to continue the present position that people who have a leaning that way and qualify as pilots will have to go abroad to seek a living. I come back now to the Minister's functions with regard to electricity supplies in general. Will the Minister inform the House when he expects to be able to give us the information to which I referred a few minutes ago? He says that when the particular report comes to hand it will be discussed. Under the Act he is supposed to bring that report to us at certain stated intervals.

Mr. McGilligan

What are they?

Mr. Briscoe

Every twelve months.

Mr. McGilligan

What twelve months?

Mr. Briscoe

The Minister had all this out with me before. A couple of years ago I had down, practically every couple of weeks, the same set of questions asking the Minister when he was going to lay on the Table of the House certain reports and balance sheets which it is incumbent on him to lay on the Table of the House regarding the working of the Electricity Supply Board. At that time the Minister said that the first two years' reports would be discussed together, as the first year was the formation year. Subsequently, the two reports came separately. Now the time has elapsed when the two reports should come before the House.

Mr. McGilligan

What time? Would the Deputy quote the section of the Act under which he makes this contention.

Mr. Briscoe

I will not, because I have not got it all in my head. The Minister knows that, and he is quick enough to take advantage of a person to try to show he is not conversant with the Act.

Mr. McGilligan

Is there a stated time before which we must produce the report?

Mr. Briscoe

Once every twelve months.

Mr. McGilligan

When do the twelve months begin to run?

Mr. Briscoe

From the time the previous balance sheet was presented.

Mr. McGilligan

Is that in the Act?

Mr. Briscoe

Are we to take it that every single Act for which the Minister is responsible that goes through this House has a catch in every section and sub-section, and that the Act is not what it appears to be, or what it is described as, but is actually a Chinese puzzle? If that is the case, we might as well not discuss anything here. I say that there is a section in the Act which I think is Section 12 — the Ceann Comhairle will correct me if I am wrong, because he has the Act there.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not Section 12.

Mr. Briscoe

The Ceann Comhairle has the Act there. If the Minister says I am not correct, I shall have to leave the matter at that, and look up the Act before he replies, to see if I am correct. The Act says that he must bring the balance-sheet to the House once every year — whether it is twelve months or nine months after the presentation of the last balance-sheet does not make much difference. The balance-sheet must be presented within twelve months after the last one has been presented. I wonder if the Minister disputes that point. I say that it is up to him to give us some information on that matter. I should like to hear from the Minister a more detailed statement regarding the policy he is to follow in the future regarding trade loans. He stated on a former occasion that his experience in this respect was so bad that he was considering the question of allowing the Act to lapse altogether. If the Minister considers that the present system is a bad one, will he state what other means he proposes to try to stimulate or help industry in this country. I should like to hear the Minister give us an outline with regard to his civil aviation policy, if he has any policy. I should also like to hear him deal with the matter raised by Deputy Hogan regarding the people who have been displaced from employment or whose livelihood has been interfered with in connection with the Shannon Scheme. I should like if he would state what can be done by himself in that matter, or if nothing can be done, if he would at least express sympathy and give an indication that some means will be taken to provide for these people.

Mr. Hogan (Clare):

I desire to raise a point of order. I do not raise it in any irresponsible way. The Minister stated, when I was endeavouring to make a case for certain people who were disemployed in connection with the Shannon works, that he had no legislation under which he could com pensate these people. I do not say that the Minister is deliberately misrepresenting the position, but I put it to you, A Chinn Comhairle, that the position is this: the Minister states that he has no power under any existing legislation to pay certain compensation. With the limited resources available to me, I cannot bring the authorities here to show that he has. Does the duty devolve on the Chair to say whether there is or is not legislation under which compensation can be paid and to rule accordingly?

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not gather what the Deputy wants me to decide. This point of order arose when the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was in the Chair, and I presume a ruling was given.

Mr. Briscoe

I do not think a ruling was given.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy stated himself that he was not in at the time.

Mr. Briscoe

When the point that Deputy Hogan is raising was being discussed, I was here.

An Ceann Comhairle

A ruling was given on a particular point. Does the Deputy desire me to rule now on the general question?

Mr. Hogan

Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle

As to whether it is the function of the Chair to decide whether the Minister has or has not power under a statute to do a particular thing.

Mr. Hogan

Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle

Obviously, that would be impossible for the Chair.

Mr. Hogan

Then I could now proceed to argue the case of the Killaloe fishermen?

An Ceann Comhairle

I think that would be impossible also.

Mr. Hogan

The Chair will then have to say that there is no legislation under which these people can be compensated. Otherwise, how can I be cut out? Either there is legislation or there is not. If there is, I am entitled to proceed. If there is not, some authority has to show that there is no legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy was not allowed to proceed?

Mr. Hogan

No.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not know what the Deputy wants me to say.

Mr. Hogan

I want to have the position clarified. When a Minister stands up and, for the purpose of avoiding discussion or otherwise, says that there is no legislation under which he can act, and the Deputy concerned says that there is, but has not, in the limited resources available to him, the opportunity of bringing his authorities here, is it the duty of the Chair to say that there is not, in fact, legislation under which a particular Minister — not necessarily the Minister for Industry and Commerce — can act?

An Ceann Comhairle

Discussions on the Estimates and on all other matters are presumed to take place with bona fides between the parties concerned. If a Minister states that he has not authority under a statute to do a particular thing, that is prima facie evidence to the Chair, and to the House, that the position is so. If a Deputy desires to make the point that the Minister is mistaken, that he really has the power which he thinks he has not, it is open to the Deputy to demonstrate that to the Chair. It is open to the Deputy to cite the section of an Act which appears to him to give the Minister the necessary power in the particular case. If there is conflict between him and the Minister as to what the Act precisely means, the Chair is prepared to allow that discussion to proceed up to a certain point. It is not the function of the Chair to construe what the Minister's powers under a statute are, nor is it the function of the Chair to say that the Minister has the power which he takes the responsibility of stating he has not.

Mr. Hogan

If it is the function of a Deputy to show that there is legislation under which a Minister can act, surely it ought to be the function of the Minister to demonstrate that there is no authority under which he can act.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is not for the Minister to demonstrate the absence of something but for the Deputy to demonstrate the presence of something. That is the position.

Mr. Anthony

I feel that while the Department of Industry and Commerce has, in many respects, been in advance of some of the other departments of State, and has to its credit a scheme which is a tribute to the imagination and ability of its official head, Deputy McGilligan, we should, from the very fact that the Minister has able and efficient assistants, have expected from this Department much more than mediocre and half-hearted measures. It is, therefore, with the object of stimulating the Minister and his Department to further sustained efforts in certain directions, for which the State has already provided the machinery, that I wish to offer some criticisms on the failure, in some respects, of this Department to satisfy the requirements of our people. I am not, for the moment at any rate, going to attempt to follow the involved and rather confused mentality of Deputy J.J. Byrne, because the more experience I have of this House the more confused I become in trying to follow his contributions to any debate here.

When we find that in the matter of home assistance alone we have something like 84,000 people in receipt of relief, that over half a million is being paid out in that respect, and further, when we have regard to the increase in unemployment, surely it cannot be said, having regard to the fact that the Minister has at his disposal the machinery to initiate reproductive work, that his Department has been the success which we would all like to see. The Minister, perhaps, may reply that it is not his function to create or give employment, but I submit that he should take the initiative in this matter of creating employment, and if he has not, as he may suggest, the machinery under his control to do so, he should seek for powers in the Dáil, and I believe that they would be readily granted to him.

We have on occasions suggested, and I repeat the suggestion now, that the authority and prestige of this State should be actively used in promoting new industries and in reorganising and expanding existing ones. We have suggested the national organisation of our essential industries. On the discussion on the proposed tariff on flour and on the discussion of the motion in my name in regard to the flour-milling industry, we suggested that it was the function of the State to see that that essentially national industry should not pass into foreign control, and, incidentally, we also suggested that the Minister should take appropriate action to see that this key industry was controlled by Irishmen and financed, as far as possible, by Irish capital.

Again, we have had the spectacle of a Food Commission being set up in 1926 to regulate prices and to prevent profiteering. So far as present indications go, and so far as present experiences show, no result whatever has accrued from that Commission. The prices paid to the farmer to-day do not bear a proper relation to those charged by the retailer to the consumer. We have suggested from time to time that that is one of the problems which the Department of Industry should take in hand and, if possible, control. We find, for instance, in the case of one commodity — eggs — that the farmer gets something like 6d. or 8d. a dozen, whereas the retailer charges the consumer from 1/- to 1/4. The same applies to butter and milk. The position in regard to the flour-milling industry is one which should engage the attention of the Department of Industry at the earliest possible moment. Very disquieting paragraphs have appeared in the newspapers recently indicating that it is the intention of those who control that industry at the moment to rationalise it.

In that bland and innocent way of his, Deputy Byrne suggests that rationalisation is a good thing for industry. He suggests, and no one will dispute the fact, that rationalisation aims at efficiency—efficiency, as translated by Deputy Byrne, at the expense of those engaged in the industry; efficiency which may, in the long run, be at the expense of the people of this country. I do not know one Deputy in this House, whether he comes from Cumann na nGaedheal or Fianna Fáil, who will go down to his constituents and make the type of speech which Deputy Byrne made in this House this evening. I have yet to find a Deputy, Fianna Fáil, Cumann na nGaedheal or Labour, who is willing to stand up at a public meeting and tell the people that it is a good thing for the country that one of our principal industries— in the sense that it is an important and key industry, not in the sense that it gives a great deal of employment — should be controlled by a foreign firm which is supposed to have such great concern for the industry that it will not reduce the number of persons engaged in it, and will see that it is maintained here as a national asset.

I cannot help repeating that Deputy Byrne and those who think with him must be very innocent and must not have regard to what occurred even on the other side of the Channel as a result of the combine in this industry. When the industry resolved itself into two or three great combines or trusts they agreed to divide the spoils between them; in other words, they said: "Let us rationalise." In the process of rationalisation one great flour mill in the City of York, employing over 1,000 persons was scrapped. Surely, neither Deputy Byrne nor the Minister will, or can, tell me that when an English combine has so little compunction in closing down an English mill to suit its own purposes, in other words, to pay better dividends, it is going to keep alive mills in this country. Surely we cannot expect this foreign combine which now controls the flour-milling industry here to have more regard for the mere Irish than it has for its own countrymen. Deputy Byrne was indeed very entertaining.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has not yet mentioned what he wants the Minister to do.

Mr. Anthony

I am just indicating where Deputy J. J. Byrne entertained us with some figures in which he paid a big tribute to the Minister for the increased employment, for instance, in the hosiery industry, the clothing industry, the boot and shoe industry, and the readymade clothing industry. I want to show the things that the Minister could have or might have done during the year under review. We find that the estimated annual requirements in the Saorstát for woollen and worsted tissues approximate to 6,200,000 square yards. The highest figure which the home sales ever reached was in 1918, during the war period, when the mills found a market at home of £1,684,000, equal to 3,100,000 square yards. We find a somewhat similar story in regard to the hosiery trade. For the year 1929 more than £1,000,000 worth of hosiery was imported, and in that year you had a tariff on imported hosiery. I am not an out-and-out believer in tariffs at all. I have raised my voice on occasions here against some tariffs which I considered unnecessary, but we have the tribute paid by Deputy J. J. Byrne to the Minister in regard to tariffs, not caring whether they were revenue producing or trade protecting. That is the kind of logical criticism we have so frequently from the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches, but more particularly from Deputy J. J. Byrne. He spoke about the clothing industry and congratulated the Minister on the fact that there were 3,500 persons extra engaged in the readymade clothing this year. What are the real facts and what are the powers of the Minister and the potentialities of this industry? We find that in the case of clothing, not including boots, shoes and hosiery, no less than £3,200,000 worth at wholesale prices, was brought into the Free State from Great Britain or Northern Ireland in the year 1929. Goods of half this value produced at home in 1926 provided employment for 6,600. So much for Deputy J.J. Byrne and his statistics. We have the same story in regard to boots and shoes, another tariffed industry, all going to show — and I feel that I will get this reply from the Minister — that these tariffs have not served the purpose for which they were applied.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are not discussing that now. I do not understand how the Deputy is connecting all this with the Estimate. We are not discussing tariffs, and I am not sure that it is relevant to give the Minister any credit at this particular stage for the tariffs imposed by the House.

Mr. Anthony

I accept your ruling, but Deputy J. J. Byrne was congratulating the Minister, and I wanted to show his involved and confused mentality. It is not due to the Minister or to his Department that we have a steady increase under certain heads, and that we have certain decreases under other heads. I want at least to show that he undertook, when the flour position was under discussion some time ago, to keep his eye on the situation, or, as they say in Deputy Sheehy's county, to keep his eye on Russia like the "Skibbereen Eagle." I am wondering has the Minister anything to report to us on the present position of the flour industry, a position upon which he decided to concentrate his attention. I do know that in my own area, where there are some mills, a good deal of dissatisfaction is felt at the position created by recent developments. I must express my own disappointment that the position in the way of rationalisation was allowed to develop to the extent it has. I do hope that the Minister in his reply will indicate what the position is at the moment, and how far his Department has kept its eye on the situation.

Mr. Connolly

I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to a matter concerning the Shannon Scheme. That is in regard to extending the Shannon power system to country towns throughout Ireland.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister is not responsible for that.

Mr. Connolly

I presume he would have some function in the matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

He has not.

Mr. Connolly

I presume he can supply the money, and that would be an essential factor in the matter. I might be permitted to ask whether he would assist us in that direction in the near future. I feel that the position, in general, in regard to the matter of tariffs and the Department of the Minister is satisfactory. I do not know if I could refer to the question of navigation on this Vote; that is in regard to the navigation of the Shannon. Is the Minister responsible in any way for the existing services carried on by the Shannon Navigation Company? It has been alleged, I do not know whether rightly or wrongly, in my part of the country, that to facilitate navigation the waters have to be kept at a very high level in some of the areas. As a result of having the waters maintained at these high levels for the navigation of deep draught boats, extensive flooding has been caused in these localities, particularly where the lands are low-lying. That system of navigation has been initiated lately for deep draught boats. I think some provision might be made by which boats of a lighter draught might give the necessary service to this part of the country.

If it were necessary to compel those companies to provide light draught boats it would do away with a great deal of the flooding. Something like five and a half feet of water is required in the lock.

An Ceann Comhairle

What has the Shannon navigation got to do with this — has the Minister any function in that matter?

Mr. Connolly

Well, yes, in respect of trade and industry.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Minister say whether he has any function?

Mr. McGilligan

Under one of the Shannon Navigation Acts I am given certain powers with regard to navigation, and I was told to build certain works in connection with navigation. It was said that these works were not carried out properly at the time. To a certain extent I have responsibility, but of a limited type.

An Ceann Comhairle

Could the Minister change the type of boat?

Mr. McGilligan

He might change the type of lock.

Mr. Connolly

If the Minister would make representations to these companies to provide light draught boats it might save a great deal of expense and loss caused to the farmers in the area at present. On the other hand, if it is not possible to do that I think that transport has now become so modern and up-to-date that, perhaps, this water system may be regarded as obsolete. If the country as a whole has to suffer extreme losses for the purpose of facilitating this particular company, it might be well to review the system of modern transport in the interests of people requiring transport. Those particular areas and small towns in the district could be served by modern transport. It is in the power of modern transport to deliver goods now almost as cheaply by lorry as by water. That is a thing that concerns us very much in the midlands. I do not think it is possible to overestimate the losses endured by the farmers in this particular area all along the Shannon, North Longford, South Leitrim and Roscommon, where the lands are suffering from incessant flooding.

I do not attribute this thing in any way to the initiation of the Shannon Scheme. This trouble has been there for years and years. Previous to the setting up of our own Government there were vested interests in connection with all those companies and the interests of the farmers or the other people in the area were ignored. Now that we have our own Parliament here and that we have people sufficiently interested to look after the interests of the landowners and the farmers, it is, I think, about due that the whole situation should be reviewed from the point of view of enabling the farmers to use their lands to their greatest possible capacity. There may be insinuations made that the Shannon Scheme caused the flooding. I have the opinion of a number of farmers who have given me to understand that since the electrification of the Shannon the flooding disappears very much faster than heretofore. The opinions I have obtained are to the effect that there is a difference of six inches in the flooding now as compared with the time prior to the setting up of the Shannon Scheme.

As to the question of giving farmers compensation for losses sustained in any one particular area or areas, my own opinion is that that would be impossible so far as any Government is concerned. The same situation would arise in a very short time again. There would be a renewal of compensation claims. There is one thing that would relieve the situation very much, and that would be if those firms using the Shannon for the transport of goods could be induced to put on boats with a three and a half feet draught instead of a four and a half feet draught. In my opinion that would give considerable relief to the farmers in the district.

I have heard Deputy Briscoe refer to civil aviation. The Deputy asked the Minister to supply ways and means for civil aviation. In my opinion this country has not yet reached the stage when so rapid a system of travel as aviation is required. Our methods of business have not been so developed as to require that any sums of money should be devoted by the Government to aviation. The country is sufficiently small for any member of the community to get into a Ford motor car at any time in the evening and arrive here in the metropolis four or five hours later. That is a thing we can do with for a considerable time to come. I cannot understand why there should be such stress laid on matters such as civil aviation that do not concern the welfare of the country so very intimately. There are things very much more important. There is just one thing that I want to press on the Minister, and that is that he would by direction or otherwise induce the Electricity Supply Board to facilitate the towns throughout the country in the matter of Shannon power——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has made two points which were not within the bounds of order, and he ought to be satisfied.

Mr. Goulding

There is one matter to which I would like to direct the Minister's attention. It is in connection with the imports of second-class harness into this country. I understand that as a result of the reorganisation of the British Army a considerable quantity of second-class harness has been thrown on the British market. The sale of this harness has been discouraged in England, and it is being dumped over here now. The coming of the motor car to a great extent has driven the Irish harness makers out of existence. The Irish harness maker is now depending for his livelihood on the making of cart harness. As a result of this importation of British Army second-class harness the existing harness makers in the country are being deprived of their livelihood. The Minister should take some steps to prevent the import of this harness. If the British people will not allow this harness to be sold in England, surely we should take steps to prevent its sale here to the detriment of our own harness makers. Harness makers in country towns fill a useful function, and it is too bad that there should be driven out of existence these very useful and necessary trades.

Mr. Moore

In the Minister's statement on Friday he gave pride of place to his statistical section. In that he was probably well advised, because in the opinion of many people it is the one bright spot in the Department of Industry and Commerce. Certainly everyone will bear testimony to the efficiency of its work. I want to ask him if his attention has been called to the way in which agricultural statistics are obtained, particularly in regard to the exportation of live stock. I have heard it asserted on very good authority that these statistics are quite unreliable. The information is obtained from drovers to whom the animals have been handed perhaps only half an hour previously. They are not concerned as to whether the animals are bulls, cows, heifers, calves, store cattle or any other description. They are simply asked a question by an official at the North Wall, who is responsible for furnishing the information to the Department of Industry and Commerce, or an official at some other port, and they reply, "They are so and so or mostly so and so"— information that as a rule is not at all accurate. It is taken from quite irresponsible people, and there is no appreciation on the part of the person giving the information of the importance of the information he is giving. I think it is worth while calling the Minister's attention to it, and to ask him if he is satisfied that what I am saying is not the case, as, of course, it would be a very serious matter if statistics that are made so much use of both in this House and throughout the country were so unreliable as my statement would indicate.

The Minister gave us very interesting information about the Geological Department and in another of his statements he mentioned that his representations had been a good influence with the Contracts Committee. He told us how much the Department has been able to do in getting the Contracts Committee to give preference to Irish goods wherever they are available. I propose to connect that fact with his statement referring to the work of the Geological Survey wherein he laid emphasis on the fact that they have recently been surveying the Connacht coalfield, preparing certain maps of minerals, and so on. Connecting these two matters I want to call his attention to a statement that was made here to-day by the Minister for Finance as to the respective quantities and cost of Saorstát coal and foreign coal purchased by the Board of Works during the financial year ended the 31st of March, 1931. His reply to my question was that the total quantity of coal purchased by the Board of Works during the financial year ended the 31st of March, 1931, was as follows: Saorstát coal, 2,120 tons; foreign coal, 11,370 tons. I may tell you that I have got the impression that the reply was a very guilty one. It bears the impress of guilt because there is only part of the information asked for given in it. "The foregoing figures," it states, "are exclusive of supplies for the army, prisons and for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs outside the Dublin district which, though purchased under contract made by the Commissioners of Public Works, are paid for out of the votes of the consuming Departments." He also excludes information regarding coal supplied to the Gárda Barracks throughout the country for which information I am referred to the Department of Justice. I think it is not a too farfetched inference to say that the reply indicates that the Minister did not like to give the full statistics as to the quantities of Saorstát coal and imported coal which are purchased by the Board of Works and supplied by it to the different Departments of State. It does seem curious, presuming representations from the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that the discrepancy between Saorstát coal and foreign coal should be so great, the Saorstát coal amounting to only about one-sixth of the foreign coal used. According to other information that I have been able to get it seems that in the Gárda Barracks throughout the country there is not one ounce of Irish fuel used. It is an extraordinary thing that if we have a geological survey which is doing excellent work, preparing statements as to the coal supplies available and all that sort of thing, and when we all know we have plenty of other fuel, that we cannot afford to allow such a big consumer as the Gárda Síochána to use Irish fuel. It seems to me that the Minister could very well look into that department of industrial activity and see whether everything is as right as right could be. It would be a great surprise if it were the case that the Government Departments must depend on imported coal for their fuel supplies.

There were two important omissions, I thought, from the Minister's statement as to the activities of the section of his Department that deals with trade and industry. He did not state that any new industry had been established, although he indicated that his Department was active in bringing those with money and skill together. He did not state that any new industry was established or about to be established. Three or four years ago he told us that cement and artificial silk were engaging the active attention of his Department. Apparently nothing has been achieved in either direction and, though I quite admit that it is not the function of the Government to establish new industries, it would be rather disconcerting to learn that, notwithstanding what the Department is able to do in the way of supplying information and other services, it is not able to induce people to start new industries. If we have reached the limit of our industrial activity, if the State cannot induce capitalists to start industries here, and if the State is not prepared itself to start new factories, that is a very big fact that we will have to reckon with. The economic position then, I think, would have to be reviewed in an altogether different light from that which has been the case up to the present. There is a further omission from the Minister's speech. He did not make any remark as to how far his Department interacts with the general public in obtaining support for Irish products. Is that altogether outside the function of the Minister's Department, or is the Minister satisfied that nothing can be done there? It is by far the most important opening that there is for encouraging industrial output in this country, and if the Minister can do nothing there, then it is rather unfortunate for his Department.

I would like if the Minister would tell us whether, in the case of hosiery, he is satisfied that that industry is getting on as well as might be expected in the present situation of the country. I think the imports of hosiery are something like £1,000,000 a year. That is an enormous sum to be going out for goods which obviously can be produced in this country as well as in any other country. Many people are concerned to know whether the present tariff on hosiery is sufficient to preserve or to encourage the development of that industry. Could the Minister tell us whether it is the case that supplies of foreign hosiery are being dumped in the Saorstát, thus making it quite impossible for any growth here of that important branch of manufacture? It would seem a line of activity which deserves very special attention on the part of the State, and I think the census return for 1929 does not show very much of an improvement on that for 1926.

We used to be told that peat offered a great opening for industrial development. Has the Minister considered whether there is anything in that statement or is it another of our illusions that must disappear? We believed at one time that there were by-products of peat that could be developed, and that under a sympathetic administration there could be a great deal done to exploit the peat deposits of the country. We might be told now whether the Minister's Department has considered that subject or not.

With regard to rationalisation, it is very interesting to hear from Deputy Byrne that rationalisation means increased employment and increased output. That was no ordinary chance statement. It was made in a very dogmatic fashion by one who asserted that he was an authority on the question, and that very few of those who talked about it knew anything like as much as he did. Except on the question of flour, the Minister has never stated what the attitude of his Department is to the question of rationalisation. Are we to understand that the State is acting as an organ for rationalisation of industry, that in the case of woollens, for instance, hosiery and other things, it is using its influence to develop rationalisation within these fields, or do the Government regard that question as outside their scope, except in regard to flour on which, of course, they have taken up a very pronounced attitude?

Mr. McDonogh

You, sir, have my sympathy in having to listen to the drivel spoken here. I wonder why Deputies do not try to know something about a subject before they talk about it. They talk about shipping cattle. Are they aware that every beast shipped out of this country is examined by a veterinary surgeon thoroughly and branded before it is shipped? They talk about coal. Irish mining is a beautiful myth. There is no such thing as a commercial mine in Ireland. If Deputies consumed some of the Irish coal they would know what it is like. All this drivel and waste of time should be put a stop to. It is an extraordinary thing that Deputies who do not employ any person should come along and lecture Deputies who do employ people as to what they should do. Why do not Deputies on the other side start some industry or do something except talk about Deputies over here and say that we do not know anything and do not do anything? It is about time that that sort of thing was stopped.

Mr. Moore

Is Deputy McDonogh such an ignoramus as to think that veterinary surgeons act as statistical officers? Really he ought to learn something before he stands up and makes such an idiotic speech.

Mr. McDonogh

I know what I am talking about, but you do not.

Mr. McGilligan

I am very much in line with Deputy McDonogh's last comment, particularly in relation to the Deputy who preceded him. Deputy Moore has spoken of how disconcerting it is to him to find that although industrialists, capitalists and people with information about industry are brought together, in the end there is no industry. That must certainly be disconcerting to a Deputy with the mentality which Deputy Moore revealed. Let me take one thing to which Deputy Moore referred. The most efficient part of my Ministry is the Statistics Branch. The Deputy went out of his way to praise it. Having done that he went on to state, in the good old phrase which came as a preamble, that he had heard on good authority that these agricultural statistics were most unreliable. Who is the good authority? I can counter that statement by saying that I have heard on better authority that they are very reliable and that will carry as much weight as the Deputy's statement. Who are those reliable authorities to whom the Deputy opens too willing an ear in order to get anything that will damage even what he described as the best section in this Department?

Mr. Moore

I am not at liberty to reveal it.

Mr. McGilligan

It is like another occasion on which I was told by a Deputy that somebody had put something to him. I asked for the name of the person and I was told that he was introduced as one of a group, and that the Deputy did not get the name. Those unnamed individuals can go round to cranks where they know that anything derogatory they say will be well received, and that is brought in here "on good authority."

Mr. Moore

You are wrong.

Mr. McGilligan

I will deal with the question of agricultural statistics any time it is raised specially, and when I hear what is the allegation that is made as to the unreliability and from whence that particular statement proceeds. I do not think that I should be asked because Deputy Moore heard from somebody whom he describes as a "good authority," something with regard to these things, to go into details as to how the statistics are produced, collected and compiled. Does he think that officials of the type which he knows to be in the Department of Statistics would allow a system to prevail which would enable figures to be got in the way he spoke of? The thing is ludicrous. Prima facie the case is against the Deputy, until he gives us some better statement than he has given.

Mr. Moore

Will the Minister say whether it is correct or not that drovers, having brought cattle to the North Wall, are asked to describe the cattle?

Mr. McGilligan

Drovers may be asked amongest others, but that the statistical returns are founded on the statements of drovers of the particular type referred to I deny entirely. It is impossible that such a system should have grown up. It is not possible under the particular officials who are engaged on statistical work, and who are probably amongst the most careful as well as the most acute-minded in the service.

Mr. Moore

Surely the Minister will admit that it is his duty to describe how these statements are checked or corrected? I have asserted, and he has not denied, that irresponsible men like drovers who have only half an hour previously been engaged to drive cattle to the North Wall are asked to describe the cattle. I have asserted that, and he does not deny it, and it is his duty to say how the statements are corrected or checked.

Mr. McGilligan

I neither accept the statement nor deny it. I say that if drovers are queried their statements are checked definitely. The Deputy might as well refer to certain other statistics collected, and a particular class of individuals could be mentioned on whom no great reliance could be placed. It is when the checks that are imposed upon these people are examined that the whole question as to how the statistical material eventually comes out is understood.

Mr. Moore

It is not good enough.

Mr. McGilligan

Is it good enough for the Deputy to come here and say "I heard it on good authority?"

Mr. Moore

On excellent authority.

Mr. McGilligan

Even on excellent authority. I want to know where it comes from.

Mr. Moore

I am not at liberty to tell you.

Mr. McGilligan

I leave the Deputy to it until I hear something better than any statement of that type which the Deputy simply brings in with a preamble of "the good authority." I do not recognise the Deputy's "good authority" until I have reason to know who they are. On the face of it, the statement is ludicrous.

Mr. Lemass

Does the Minister know the method by which they are collected?

Mr. McGilligan

I have a fair idea.

Mr. Lemass

I suggest to the Minister that he does not.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Minister be allowed to make his speech?

Mr. Lemass

The Minister has conducted a conversation with most of the other Deputies who spoke.

An Ceann Comhairle

He did not.

Mr. McGilligan

With regard to rationalisation Deputy Moore wanted to know the Department's attitude to it. I think the Deputy has just the view that rationalisation is a big word to play about with, that it is a satisfactory mouthful in a debate. What is the meaning of it? Did he ever hear me describe the work of these Advisory Committees in the different industries, how we try to get the people together when we thought the unit too small, and when we tried to get different groups to concentrate on a particular type of fabric when there were seven or eight different types? Would all that come within the heading of rationalisation in the Deputy's vocabulary? Rationalisation means better output and better production in every way, and production in a more rational way. That is the full aim of the Department. We go in for rationalisation in every way in so far as we can induce members of the Advisory Committees to better their establishments, which again is rationalisation, and then we will bring all the pressure we can to bear upon them to achieve that end. The Deputy was disconcerted because industrialists will not start here, and then thought that possibly the State should start factories.

Mr. Moore

No.

Mr. McGilligan

He said it was a big thing but it was not to be out of his mind—at least I was to be criticised if I put it out of my mind. We have started some things here. There was what could be called a disconcerting reception given to these. I shall take one that certainly was an aid to industry — the electrical scheme. It did not get very much of a reception from the Deputy's Party at the beginning or any other time. That was one thing we started on lines almost approaching State lines although the method we adopted tried to get away from the worst elements of State control. There is at any rate an atmosphere in this House in favour of the establishment of factories under State management or some type of State control. We have never had any indication given that the details have been thought out, that anybody was prepared to put up a scheme or to indicate in relation to particular industries the precise way in which they think Government factories might be instituted.

The Deputy has spoken of three industries — hosiery, cement and peat. With regard to hosiery I spoke at length on that in the autumn of last year. I described that as one of the best tariffed industries. I went into detail as to the amount of goods classed as hosiery that were still coming into the country and set that against the home production and gave details of the increased home production, as soon as the tariff was put on.

Mr. Lemass

Not an increase all round. In the case of underwear anyway there has been a decrease.

Mr. McGilligan

I am talking of hosiery.

Mr. Lemass

That is a class of hosiery.

Mr. McGilligan

I went into details on these things. I am referring to the fact that I did allude to them previously. I said that as far as what is ordinarily known as hosiery was concerned there was a biggish import of two types of goods, one a type of cotton wear which certain people want and will not be prevented from buying, and to prevent the purchase of which would certainly be imposing somewhat of a burden on the poorer classes of the community. In addition to that there is artificial silk hosiery coming in, and coming in against the tariff, and will continue, the manufacturers say, to come in against the tariff, not until a further tariff is put on, but until fashion changes. As far as the Advisory Committees are concerned, I have not heard any statement either that the tariff has not been effective or that it is not as effective as would be the case if there were a bigger tariff. I have heard some people say that we should set out to prohibit either artificial silk stockings coming in or the type of cotton stocking or sock that is brought in. Very few people hold by that, and nobody in this House has stood up to defend that.

Cement and peat are two things that have got greater consideration departmentally than possibly any other things. Cement stands out on its own as a thing that has been specially considered. There have been numerous applicants who have come along with views on the subject. People have got all the information that could be given, and very voluminous information can be given as to where the raw material is to be found, and the fullest costings have been made as to prices of establishments, the workers to be employed, the amount of electric current to be used and the resulting prices for the product made here. Up to date we have not been able to get anybody to engage in that industry. The Deputy says that it is one of the things as to which he has always been led to believe there is an abundance of raw material here. It is not so much a question of abundance as where it lies — where the different elements are situated, where they can be located together in one spot, and eventually what is going to be the price paid under the very best conditions of, say, a monopoly, as compared with the price at which the imported article can be sold here. Up to date we have not found anybody, native or foreigner, willing to embark upon the industry under the most favourable conditions, say, of a monopoly. That may disconcert the Deputy. So will a whole lot of other economic facts when he gets to know them.

Peat has been the subject of very considerable inquiries. Peat may have two or three uses — a use as a fuel, a use as by-products, and a use even as a fabric. All these have been examined. Again natives and foreigners have looked into it. The best decision I have been able to reach in the matter is that until there is an application of a very cheap supply of electricity to certain workings in connection with peat very little can be done, except to allow it to be used in the ordinary way for fuel purposes for the poor. But if anybody wants to make inquiries about peat or cement, particularly cement, I can promise all the information that would satisfy anybody. All the details of that particular matter are known and can be put at the disposal of anybody who seems likely to engage in that industry. I suppose in the end, when everybody else fails, the State ought to take it up. We will see how that will work out.

As to Deputy Goulding's point with reference to harness I have nothing to say on this Estimate. I do not know how the Deputy intends I should deal with it. He did not indicate any special way, and if he had indicated any way it would be outside the scope of the Estimate.

Mr. Goulding

Stop the dumping.

Mr. McGilligan

I cannot stop dumping under my present powers of administration — the powers which can be discussed on the present Estimate.

The Shannon navigation has been adverted to. For that I have some slight responsibility, which I hope to shed very soon. But at present I do not know what can be done beyond the point of asking the company who utilise the Shannon navigation to use boats of a lighter draught. If the interests of navigation are to be adverted to and looked on precisely, and if the other navigation levels have rigidly to be kept, then there is going to be increased flooding in certain parts of the country. It seems to me that there is a possibility, however, that navigation in certain areas may prove not to have any great utility, and, there, examination may reveal that lower levels may be kept. In that event flooding will certainly be lessened. I should like definitely to confirm what Deputy Connolly stated with regard to the effect of the Shannon works on flooding in particular areas. So far from its having caused any further damage, testimony has been borne that in considerable areas of the country the old-time flooding caused through the waters of the Shannon has been lessened to a very considerable extent. As a matter of fact, the better regulation of the two upper loughs as well as these navigation levels led to a runoff being achieved at better periods of the year.

Mr. Connolly

My statement with regard to the Shannon scheme was to improve things with respect to flooding.

Mr. McGilligan

I am confirming what the Deputy said. There are outstanding questions with regard to flooding around Lough Derg which is alleged to be due to the Shannon works and about which engineering inquiries are going on. Deputy Davin criticised the Trade Loans Act, and what he called the Department's policy of standing still in transport matters. In these two things and everything else considered vis-a-vis unemployment there has been certain activity. Certain employment has resulted. A wage fund of a certain big amount was created for a period in which the Act in its application to certain cases ran. In the end, this year the State has to pay the amount of £175,000 less whatever amount may be recovered by the sale of the assets in the hands of the State previously belonging to the companies which were guaranteed. I am asked what is likely to be the amount realised by these. I cannot answer that.

Mr. Lemass

Will a return be given to the Dáil?

Mr. McGilligan

It can be asked for when a complete sale has been effected but it would be undesirable for me to state the best prices I expect to get on articles sold by me. I would either have to exaggerate, with a particular type of open bluff, or else state the true thing and diminish the actual return. There are six companies for whom moneys were guaranteed. In two of these cases, nearly the full amount of the loan had to be met by the State. In the first case on the list, Allihies Copper Mines, an instalment of £2,000 was paid and in the second case, a small instalment of a few hundred pounds was paid, but on the whole we have to meet pretty definitely the full amount of the money guaranteed and in addition the interest that had accrued. What I am expected to say with regard to these cases I do not know. Deputy Lemass gave his view of the reasons he had heard for the failure of some of the cases. In the case of the Allihies Copper Mines the reason was clearly and distinctly that the bottom dropped out of the copper market and Deputy Lemass's only complaint apparently in this matter was that we should have preserved the machinery in the hope that copper would again pick up and that the mines would be run. The best information we could get was that there was not the slightest possibility of the price of copper rising to a point which would make the working of these mines economic. If we did not sell we would have to pay so much per annum in keeping the machinery in order as well as so much per annum for rentals arising out of the leases. It was a well-worked concern. Nothing can be said by way of criticism of the management. It was simply that the market went and that the company went after it.

The second concern was a small one, but its trading results were never satisfactory. They were unfortunate right from the beginning. Here certain allegations of unsatisfactory conduct can be made against the management. We had the greatest trouble and found it almost impossible to get them to comply with the Department's requirements. Owing to the bad state of the company's finances and trouble between the management and ourselves we decided to see if we could save anything from the wreck. We may save something, but it will be very small.

In the matter of the Irish Freshmeat Company, Deputy Lemass said that he understood a loan was given contrary to the views of the Advisory Committee. I said that was not a correct statement. When the guarantee was first applied for the Advisory Committee asked for a special meeting with myself and the Minister for Finance, to which we afterwards brought the Minister for Agriculture. They told us they had considerable difficulty with the case because they said if they were to view it purely and entirely as a business concern they would have great hesitation about the first application. We inquired where the hesitation arose and they told us certain things. We interviewed the directors of the Company and got them to advance upon certain lines which we considered met some of the points raised by members of the Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee, on their own, put to us that they understood there were certain other considerations which precluded them from judging this purely in the ordinary, rigid, businesslike way. For instance, they said, they knew there was considerable agitation with regard to the packing industry. There was considerable national feeling over the livestock trade, as opposed to the dead meat trade, and they asked us was that particular feeling to be weighed in their considerations or were they to rule it out. In the end, the particular point of view we expressed to them was that that second matter was a matter for us. Their business was to rule more or less on business lines and if they liked to send me a case which was line ball or even a case that they would not ordinarily recommend I would deal with it myself. In the end, I took responsibility for it because the Advisory Committee sent me the case simply saying that the interview had shown their mind. I, and the Minister for Finance, aided by the Minister for Agriculture, decided further to make representations to the company with regard to the management and particularly with regard to working capital if we were to guarantee this money.

The Deputy raised the point that he understood one of the causes of failure was the commission on the purchase of cattle given to people who were salaried directors. If that were a factor in the failure of the company it was a very small point. The big point on which this company broke was its marketing arrangements. They found themselves entirely in the hands of distributing firms on the other side with whom they thought at one time they had alliances of a particularly friendly nature. I cannot say if they persist in that view. It never became clear to us that these distributors had treated them in a particularly friendly fashion. At any rate, this company broke down pretty definitely on the marketing side.

The fourth company was not a company merely, as Deputy Lemass described, for the sale of milk through the city, although, even if it had been, the consideration which Deputy Lemass referred to it could not, I think, have fairly weighed with me in coming to a decision on that line. Under the Act I am not given any specific function with regard to deciding whether or not there are other concerns of the same type in a particular neighbourhood. I might have to take that into consideration if I thought the concern to which I was going to give money was likely to go down in the struggle. But if I got an application from a concern — there being numerous other ones in the district — and if I thought the concern I was going to give money to would win out, I could not conceive it my duty to refrain from giving the guarantee. At any rate, this company, setting itself out in a certain way, proposed to develop trade of a particular type of Grade A milk, and also a trade in sterilised milk delivered in bottles. At the time they put up the application one could not say that there was any other development of that particular type of trade in Dublin. The application was advised on by the Committee in the ordinary way, and finally the guarantee was given. The trading results from the start were uniformly unsatisfactory, and by the early part of 1929 there was not sufficient resources to enable it to repay the debentures which fell due for repayment. That we might have passed over if there was any prospect of the business succeeding, but by that time they had accumulated losses of a large amount, and were not able to meet the claims of various creditors, so there was nothing to be done but to close down this company.

Very little can be said about the fifth company, the Wicklow Ochre Grinding Co. It had good prospects. There seemed to be a ready sale, and even the economic geologist who was called in to advise stated that the ochre seemed to produce results of an excellent marketable quality, of a particular type, for which there was a demand. Nevertheless, although it started with rosy prospects, and under probably as good auspices as I have met in connection with any trade guarantee loan, the market did go against it almost from the start, and by April, 1929, it found it had not sufficient cash resources to meet the creditors' claims. We did not see any prospects of a reasonable life ahead of it, so we came in with our claim. In connection with that case I do not want to say anything more at this point, except to refer to the amazing view held by Deputy Lemass with regard to legal advice, that legal advice is wrong when judgment goes against you. The Deputy will have a long trail of disappointed lawyers at his door if he takes that as his motto in dealing with lawyers throughout his life.

The Glass Bottle Co. is probably one of the trade loans about which there has been most discussion. It can be stated of this company in some respects that it started with everything in its favour, and in certain other respects had dreadful handicaps to meet. In its favour was this, that it was in a tariffed business. When it really got going under new auspices it was the only concern of the type in the country. There is no doubt but there is a consuming population for the type of product it had, sufficient to give a good economic life to one bottle factory. In addition to that there was the effect of the standard bottle order upon the factory's products. It had a special advantage by reason that the marking of bottles could be done quickly and much more cheaply than it could be done on bottles from outside. These things were all in its favour — the tariff, the single concern, the fact that there was a unit of consumption, that is, sufficient consumption to make at least one economic unit in the country. Against it was the accumulated load of debt or capital liability. It struggled for a certain number of years before it had to go into the hands of a receiver. It had trouble with machinery. I am convinced that it had trouble of a serious type with the workers. There was friction between the management and the workers, and allegations of misconduct by one party against the other. In the end it was just a question whether it would peter out by reason of the strike or of certain machinery falling in. The strike won, but only in a very limited way. The strike took place, and when negotiations were going on with a view to the men going back to work, one of the tanks collapsed.

It is quite impossible, seeing all the money spent on this concern, to put any more money into it. Whether any new factory will ever arise in the locality I do not know. It is a locality which by reason of labour troubles has got a very bad name. It does not appeal as an area in which a bottle factory should be started by anyone coming into the industry, although the blame will have to be allocated hereafter in the proper way. With regard to this company in particular, I cannot say anything about the assets, because negotiations are still going on with regard to a sale, and also negotiations to see whether it is not possible to get some new company to take up the business.

Deputy Davin, in addition to alluding to this case, referred to the firm of Ailesbury. I am not going to say anything about that at the moment. As far as I am concerned, Ailesbury's is still in existence, and while in existence it would be wrong to say anything which might prejudice the firm. I do not think any discussion on the lines more or less pressed by the Deputy could be regarded as anything but unsatisfactory. While the firm lasts better let it last and leave it alone. If anything does happen it will appear in a further list.

Mr. Davin

Is there any foundation for the rumour that the Edenderry factory might close down?

Mr. McGilligan

What is the good of asking that question? Merely asking will only give further force to the rumour. I have nothing to do with the management. I only know if instalments of the loan are not being paid, or if the interest is not being paid. I know that there is a particular situation with regard to that matter in connection with Ailesbury's, and that no action has been taken against Ailesbury's. I do not want to be asked questions about that, because I do not want to answer them. Neither would I answer with regard to other loans outstanding, because bringing them into this House raises certain doubts about their future. Better leave them alone.

Mr. Moore

If it is closed down will Deputy Lemass be held responsible?

Mr. McGilligan

If it can be proved that the Deputy has anything to do with closing it down, certainly. Deputy Davin has grave suspicions of that.

Mr. Davin

Deputy Lemass has not done his best to keep it open as he promised, I understand.

Mr. J.F.X. Murphy

In connection with the Glass Bottle Co., will the Minister say if there are any negotiations going on to get other people to take over the bottle factory?

Mr. McGilligan

I can say that there were. Whether they are continuing at the moment I do not know. The situation changes rather rapidly with regard to that case.

Mr. Murphy

My reason for asking the question is that there is a tariff on black bottles. I think if this factory is going to cease to exist, the tariff on black bottles should be removed.

Mr. McGilligan

When it is clear that no black bottles will be manufactured the question of a tariff will have to be dealt with. I have been asked what is the policy with regard to this Act. It has been put to me that it is not going to be continued, and I have been asked what legislation I intend to produce to take its place. I am not so sure that it will not be continued. If it is continued it will be continued only in reference to certain applications before us. I do not want to enter into any new period of activity with regard to this Act. The operations under it convinced the Department two years ago that, in fact, this was not the proper way to meet whatever difficulties there are in the way of industrial revival in this country.

Mr. Davin

Hear, hear.

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy Davin may not "hear, hear" to this: It was started because it was understood the banks were not giving proper facilities to industry in this country. If the Act is dropped it will be dropped as an appreciation of the fact that the banks have not merely done all they could, but possibly they erred on the other side by doing more than was proper for industry in the country.

Mr. Davin

They certainly did for industry with a vengeance.

Mr. McGilligan

As to the question of any legislation being introduced to take the place of the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act, I have not in mind any legislation which I would bring in to replace that Act. Taking into consideration all the cases that came before the Advisory Committee, and the cases put through my Department that never went before the Advisory Committee for various reasons, it is clear this particular type of legislation is too cumbrous. If there is certain industrial activity which has to be furthered by State aid, it had better be done by the special application of money to that particular industrial activity, just as was done in the case of sugar beet, and just as might have to be done in the case of cement, or any of the things that were spoken of in this debate.

It might be of interest if the figures with regard to applications made under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act during the years since 1924 were made known. There were, in all, 770 applications received. Of that number 623 were not considered by the Advisory Committee. The 623 cases can be sub-divided in this way: there were 206 determined to be completely outside the scope of the Act, and 408 were not proceeded with by the applicants when certain questions were asked of them with regard to their previous industrial history, their capacity to finance themselves, and when we sought other detailed information from them. A few applications were withdrawn, and one or two of the others are still under consideration with a view to seeing whether they can be brought within the terms of the Act.

There were 147 applications considered by the committee. The committee did not recommend — they positively failed to recommend — in 99 cases. They did recommend in 48 cases, and of these 48, 18 received a guarantee; 16 were not proceeded with again when inquiries were made. Certain applicants preferred to withdraw when they had revealed to them the particular conditions under which trade loans would be given. There were 9 applications withdrawn. There were only 3 cases in which the Advisory Committee sent recommendations to me with which I could not agree. As I have indicated, 9 were withdrawn, and a couple are still pending final decision. I have the feeling that the Act has not found the conditions which we thought were present when it was introduced. Even if there may be a few cases hereafter of the type to which the Act might be regarded as suitable for application, we can deal with them by a special vote or as individual cases. Deputy Davin, touching on the question of transport, asked me if railway amalgamation was a success.

Mr. Davin

A failure.

Mr. McGilligan

"Success" is the word I took down. Most assuredly I can say it has been a success. The Deputy gave me four tests. He asked me if I could say that amalgamation brought about better employment, more employment, better dividends, or if it lessened fares. It has brought about all of the first three things. It has brought better employment than there would have been if there had been no Railways Act; it has brought about more employment than there would have been if there had been no amalgamation; it has certainly brought better dividends than could have been obtained if there were no amalgamation. Has it lowered fares, the Deputy asked me. I do not know whether it can be said that the Railways Act has lowered fares. It set out to do that in the first instance, but the stress of competition has brought fares to a much lower standard than the Railways Act intended. Fares have been greatly reduced since prior to amalgamation. The amalgamation did not prevent any fall in rates or fares that would have been brought about in the ordinary course of events.

Mr. Davin

How can the Minister suggest that it gave more employment in view of the fact that the number of employees on the railways has been brought down from 17,000 to less than 14,000?

Mr. McGilligan

The number would possibly have dropped to 10,000 if there had not been amalgamation. How many branch lines would have survived the stress of competition at the present time if there had not been amalgamation?

Mr. Cassidy

They would probably all have survived if the long-promised Traffic Act had been introduced.

Mr. McGilligan

They would have been in the same position as the Deputy's pet subject, the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway, which is kept alive by a Government subsidy, and the employees of which are being paid wages to which the traffic does not entitle them.

Mr. Cassidy

The Minister appears to be proud of what has taken place in regard to the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway, due largely to his own action.

Mr. McGilligan

Whether I am proud or not of what has occurred there will be made clear at the proper time when that particular subject comes under the consideration of the House. What I am stating now is that in that area people are being paid wages which the traffic on the railway does not entitle them to get, and they are getting the wages out of a Government subsidy. I say that that would have been the case in connection with a great many of the railways of the country if there had not been amalgamation.

Mr. Cassidy

If there had been a Traffic Act at the proper time that would not be the position to-day.

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy Davin wanted to know if railway amalgamation has been a success, tested from the point of view of employment, more employment, dividends and lessened fares. The Deputy is himself in the railway world, and he knows the consternation there was in the railway world when the Railways Act was introduced. The Deputy's Party, although they did not accept it wholeheartedly, welcomed the Act as a step in the right direction. The directors have told us what economies they have found it possible to bring about by reason of amalgamation.

Mr. Davin

At whose expense?

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy Cassidy talks about a Traffic Act, and he stated that if a Traffic Act had been introduced all would now be well. If a Traffic Act were introduced it could have, in Deputy Cassidy's view, kept certain traffic on the railways. That traffic is not there. If that traffic is not there must the railways always keep the same number of employees as they had when there was plenty of traffic?

Mr. Cassidy

Does the Minister maintain that there is less passenger traffic now?

Mr. McGilligan

There are fewer passengers on the railways than there were last year, or in any year back to 1924. There has been a decrease year by year.

Mr. Cassidy

On the railways?

Mr. McGilligan

Certainly.

Mr. Cassidy

That is due to bus traffic.

Mr. McGilligan

I was asked if railway amalgamation has been a success. Taking into consideration the conditions in which railway amalgamation was determined upon, and having in view the continuance of those conditions, railway amalgamation must be counted a success. A Deputy asked what was the next step that was referred to by the President in the course of a statement in 1924. The Deputy mentioned that the President referred to another step that might have to be taken if railway amalgamation did not prove to be the success that we thought it would be. I may say that the conditions have changed. Who, in 1924, when we were discussing the Railways Bill, envisaged or could have envisaged the present traffic conditions? To take what was said in 1924 in relation to certain circumstances then existing and to criticise that statement in the light of present-day conditions is not fair.

Mr. Davin

Who created the circumstances?

Mr. McGilligan

Take the railway situation in 1924 and the attempt made to deal with it by means of the Railways Act. Anybody who takes the then existing circumstances into consideration and who looks at what has resulted from the Railways Act — the economies achieved — must count it a success, and as big a success as the authors of that scheme ever dreamed it would be. Tribute in that connection has been paid by the directors, by everyone concerned or who knows anything about the railway world. What are the new circumstances about the growth of traffic on the roads? At one time I brought in legislation to allow the railways to run vehicles on the roads. What was the view of the House then? That it would be scandalous to give the railway companies full freedom to run on the roads in competition with the private individual, because it was then stated that these railways, huge financial concerns, could, with all their cash and bank reserves, crush out the private undertaker. We had to put limitations in the Road Vehicles Act on the railway companies, and it is those limitations that have prevented the railway companies from getting the full effects of the permission we gave them to run on the roads. That was the view of the House at the time the Road Vehicles Act was introduced. Deputy Cassidy wants us to drive back the traffic on to the railways. He complains that traffic has been allowed to go away from them.

Mr. Cassidy

I complained that you have allowed the transport system, as far as the roads are concerned, to get into a chaotic condition.

Mr. McGilligan

The word "chaotic" is nearly as big a blessing to Deputy Cassidy as the word "rationalisation" is to Deputy Moore.

Mr. Cassidy

Of course we are not all university professors.

Mr. McGilligan

It covers absence of thought on details. What does the Deputy mean by "chaotic conditions"? The public at the present day are getting transport at a rate that they never got it before in the history of this country.

Mr. Davin

Subsidised by the ratepayers?

Mr. McGilligan

And, as far as passenger traffic is concerned, they are getting it at less than cost.

Mr. Davin

Who is paying for the roads?

Mr. McGilligan

As to the roads, there was a particular scheme with regard to financing them that we accepted about 1926. We took the old money that was paid by the ratepayers for roads in 1914 and increased that by the difference between what the farmer got for his produce in 1914 and what he was getting in 1926, and said that in relation to his earnings the farmer-ratepayer was not paying more for roads, say, in 1926 than in 1914. If that calculation was a mistake then, to the extent of the mistake, we erred. But that was the principle of the calculation. Every other item of road expenditure had to be borne by the vehicles that plied on the roads. When we found that taxation was not sufficient to meet the Bill we raised the taxation. That is my answer as to who pays. As a matter of fact people are getting transported throughout this country now at an unbelievable rate, at unfair rates, rates not merely unfair to the railway companies but to competing transport services — unfair to bus traffic itself.

Mr. Davin

Uneconomic?

Mr. McGilligan

That is a thing that will have to be met, but as far as the public are concerned they are reaping the benefit of all this. I hold that the ratepayer is not losing but that the individual bus owners are losing and, to a certain extent, that the railway people are losing. It was not my intention that they should lose. When I introduced the Road Vehicles Act I intended to put them in a stronger position, but the House was not satisfied to do that.

Mr. Moore

Why are the bus owners content to lose money?

Mr. McGilligan

They are not content to lose money. They are very discontented at having to lose it.

Mr. Moore

I thought that these bus services were voluntary?

Mr. McGilligan

They are, and that is shown by the fact that quite a number of them go off the road and into bankruptcy.

Mr. Davin

They do not know whether they are making money or losing it.

Mr. McGilligan

Quite a number of them do not, but they come to that knowledge after a bit. I have been asked by Deputy Lemass to indicate transport policy in advance of legislation. His complaint is that, although I have Transport Bills in preparation, I will not tell the House — at least that I had not done so — what our transport policy is. He went on to say that he presumed I was not going to tell the House. I do not intend to tell the House that now. It would be most undesirable.

Mr. Lemass

What do the Bills deal with?

Mr. McGilligan

That is indicating policy.

Mr. Lemass

Does the Minister propose to introduce a Bill to give effect to any of the recommendations made by the tribunal that was established at the time of the lock-out on the Dublin Tramway system?

Mr. McGilligan

It would be indicating policy if I were to answer that question.

Mr. Lemass

A decision to do something is policy on the part of the Government.

Mr. McGilligan

What is policy except to take a decision and to implement it? That is the difference between the Deputy indicating his Party's policy and my indicating policy. When I indicate policy people have the feeling that it is going to be carried out. When the Deputy indicates any policy they know that it is nothing more than another jaunt at the crossroads.

Mr. Lemass

The tribunal established by the Minister to inquire into the transport problem in Dublin made a number of recommendations. Is the Minister going to introduce any Bill arising out of the report made by that tribunal, or does he consider a mere decision to do nothing is something which can be described as policy?

Mr. McGilligan

Again the Deputy is asking me to declare policy in advance of a Bill. I will not do that. The Deputy will get that policy when the Bill comes along. If the Deputy had any sense of responsibility he would realise that on such a matter as transport you simply cannot declare policy before you bring in legislation.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister could declare that he was going to consider the report of the tribunal which he set up.

Mr. McGilligan

On that, if I were to give the Deputy an answer that had any satisfaction in it, it would be a declaration of policy. I ask the Deputy to consider quietly when he goes home to-night, would it be wise to indicate policy before legislation is introduced on such a matter as transport where you have certain financial interests involved.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister, in his original speech, said either too much or too little. He said he was considering a Bill to preserve the railway system, and then changed his mind. What does he mean?

Mr. McGilligan

I apparently said too little for the Deputy to satisfy him and too much for him to understand. I do not see what he is after.

Mr. Lemass

Members of Cumann na nGaedheal, with their superior intelligence, can understand that. To me it does not make sense.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not see what the Deputy is after. Would he quote my words?

Mr. Lemass

What the Minister said is in the Official Report.

Mr. McGilligan

I asked the Deputy before to read the particular extract and he read an extract which did not prove that he was accurate in his quotation. He is quite inaccurate again. I said that previously I had considered certain legislation and that I was advancing along certain lines up to a certain date last year; that I then went along another line of policy, after consultation with the railway people. I stated that clearly and distinctly, to stated with. If it is necessary to get it home to the Deputy, I reiterate it now. I said it was part of my duty to preserve the railway systems of the country. I say that again. Is that either too much or too little for the Deputy? At any rate, it is as much as he is going to get.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister has changed that policy.

Mr. McGilligan

How has he changed it?

Mr. Lemass

That is what you said.

Mr. McGilligan

No. Let the Deputy take two things—X and Y. X is my policy before Christmas of last year. My present policy is Y. I said that after I had considered certain things and after I had had discussions with the railway people, I made up my mind as regards certain matters, and that I was now advancing along Y. I have already referred to the legislation I have in hands and intend to introduce, and I am not going into any further detail in regard to it. Deputy Hogan asked me about landowner cases. He made the remark that they have never received any unemployment insurance benefit. I have countered that statement over and over again, and I repeat that the only way to tackle the question is to take a precise case. If a precise case is raised we can have all the details and all the merits in connection with it brought forward, and we can discuss it. The Deputy also brought in civil bill officers. It is the first time I have heard of these gentlemen in this connection. I should like to get particulars of any case of a civil bill officer who has contributed to the unemployment insurance fund and who has been refused benefit when, in the Deputy's opinion, he should have got it. Then we can have it all out. As regards the submerged lands, these are matters that have been under consideration for a long time. I gave a lengthy answer to a Deputy on this particular matter three days ago, and discussed with him the details of certain arrangements that have been projected in connection with the prevention of flooding rather than paying compensation for flooding that had occurred.

Deputy Briscoe raised a point about the electricity accounts. He also pretended to quote from the Act. His knowledge of the Electricity Supply Act of 1927 is that I must produce within a year certain accounts. That is not accurate. The Board have to produce to me certain accounts within a certain period, and I am "as soon as may be" to produce them to the House. Is that correct?

Mr. Fahy

That is quite right, but would the Minister give his interpretation of that?

Mr. McGilligan

Suppose I appointed the last day in the year as the day on which the Board were to produce the accounts to me — that I gave them the widest latitude possible — and that by that date the Board had not given me the accounts, what should I do?

Mr. Lemass

Is it a fact that they have not done so.

Mr. Fahy

If the Minister is asking me how he should enforce the law, I reply that I do not know. However, the Act distinctly says that the Board "shall" do as directed. I leave the House to judge whether that is not the law as laid down by this House. If the Board refuse to carry out the law, I presume the Minister has power to compel them.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy knows the power I have. If the Board make a reasonable case to me that for a particular year they could not produce the accounts before the particular date, does the Deputy say I should dismiss them?

Mr. Fahy

No, but the Minister should have told the House that the Board had put up that case and that he could not get the accounts within the year.

Mr. McGilligan

If the Deputy had not interrupted me, I would have told him that. The Board have made the case that with regard to the accounts of last year they have had considerable difficulty. Notwithstanding that, I am not specially satisfied with the particular reasons they have given, but all that can be discussed when the accounts are laid before the House. I have had many promises as to when the accounts are going to appear. The last promise I got was that these accounts would be in hand, if not this week, then certainly next week. That does not mean that they will reach this House, because I have certain consideration to give them. Undoubtedly, there has been delay. It will remain to see how far the delay is excusable.

Deputy Davin asked for determination from me yesterday as to how far there ought to be a national policy with regard to industry — whatever that phrase means. What is the Labour policy with regard to industry? I read an interesting correspondence during the year between members of the Labour Party and the Fianna Fáil Party as to which of the Parties had failed to insist that some of the new profits of tariffed industries should be passed on to the workers. Is that the attitude of Fianna Fáil and Labour with regard to tariffed industries? In the case of all industries which have been tariffed, the tariff has been imposed mainly because the industries are in an infant state and need protection. We imposed tariffs which, in the main, without exception, in the beginning, imposed an extra cost on the consumer, by the very fact that they gave less profits originally to the manufacturer. In those circumstances, Labour is determined not merely to ask for its full pound of flesh but to have something else passed on to it, without regard to the fact that it is an infant industry which is concerned. Is that the best that Labour can offer us as an industrial policy for the future?

Mr. Cassidy

What industry is the Minister referring to?

The President

Gas.

Mr. Hogan

Has the Minister abandoned the live-register figures?

Mr. McGilligan

The live register figures are no index to unemployment. They are an index to unemployment in the insurable trades. That is the beginning and end of everything I ever claimed for them. They are substantially accurate in so far as the business to which they refer is concerned. For any other purpose, the books are useless. The Deputy himself stated the reason — that the books may indicate people in employment but who are not in insurable employment.

Mr. Hogan

A small percentage.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy says a small percentage but I say a big percentage. That is where we differ.

Motion to refer back, put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 76.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Broderick, Henry.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Carney, Frank.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cassidy, Archie J.
• Clancy, Patrick.
• Colbert, James.
• Corkery, Dan.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Maguire, Ben.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mullins, Thomas.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.)
• Smith, Patrick.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Níl

• Aird, William P.
• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Carey, Edmund.
• Coburn, James.
• Cole, John James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Crowley, James.
• Daly, John.
• Davis, Michael.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Finlay, Thomas A.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• O'Reilly, John J.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reynolds, Patrick.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Shaw, Patrick W.
• Hassett, John J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Jordan, Michael.
• Kelly, Patrick Michael.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Leonard, Patrick.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• Nolan, John Thomas.
• O'Connell, Richard.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• White, John.
• White, Vincent Joseph.
• Wolfe, George.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Cassidy and Davin; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.

Question declared lost.

Main Question put and declared carried.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.35 p.m. until Thursday at 5 p.m.