Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Feb 1940

Vol. 78 No. 13

Supplementary Estimates, 1939-40. - Vote 57—Industry and Commerce.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. MacEntee)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £60,915 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1940, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála, maraon le hIldeontaisí-i-gCabhair.

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £60,915 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1940, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

The purposes for which this additional sum is required, I think, are fully set out in Part III of the Estimate. I might say, in connection with items I., I.I. and K., that a very large part of the moneys there are asked for because the necessary accounts for payment were not received in the Department and were not presented to the Government during the last financial year.

Mr. Dillon

On those Supplementary Estimates, the debate is confined strictly to the sub-heads in respect of which the appropriations are proposed. In regard to sub-head I., my information is that while the building in New York was satisfactory, the exhibit was unimaginative and poor, and, what is worse, I have been told by persons who went to the Irish stand at the New York World Fair that those who were employed there for the purpose of giving information and answering visitors' queries were most unsatisfactory in that they did not seem to be in the least degree interested in the querists and were rather more concerned to get rid of them than to stimulate their interests and enthusiasm for such exhibits as we had to show.

I think that is deplorable. There is no country in the world in which more importance is attached to cordiality, hospitality and generosity in answering strangers' inquiries than America. Any of us who have been there are much beholden to the most casual persons we met for their overflowing courtesy and anxiety to help strangers. It ill-becomes us when visitors from America enter what must have been to them one of the least sensational exhibits in the fair, that they were received almost with indifference and their inquiries treated in a casual way. I think these things are hard to provide against in advance but I do not think that our failure in that regard should be allowed to pass without comment so that if a similar enterprise were embarked upon in future we would take special precautions to ensure that the staff, whether they be Irish nationals or recruited in the country where the exhibition is held, would reflect credit on this country and extend a fitting welcome to those who are good enough to visit the stand we establish.

In regard to I (1), here I have a worse tale to tell. I am told the Glasgow Exhibition was little short of a scandal; that it presented the appearance of the usual pyramid of glass bottles; that there the reception of guests was not only casual but positively peremptory and that people complained that they did not get a civil reply to their inquiries. I think that is deplorable. It would have been much better not to have exhibited at all than that it should be given to anybody to say that when they interested themselves in what we had to offer they got nothing but a short answer. That can happen. I have had that kind of experience myself at Ballsbridge. It is regrettable to have to say it, but it is better to say it and repair it than to allow it to go on, stick our heads in sand and conceal these facts from us. I have seen Government exhibits at Ballsbridge where the people in charge, though they seem to be full of enthusiasm and interest for one individual, if another visitor goes up they bite his nose off and send him about his business. I think that may arise from the fact that at all exhibits of this kind you get two classes of visitor: one is the person who by his introductory remarks shows that he has keen technical interest in the exhibit and that his interest in it is intelligent and informed. You cannot blame an expert who may be there to demonstrate his exhibit welcoming that visitor with peculiar cordiality.

Then you get the harmless, good-natured blather who comes up and starts clattering in an obviously uninformed way and is manifestly inspired rather by idle curiosity than an informed desire to acquaint himself with the merits of the product. That person gets a short answer. Of course, the man that clatters at an exhibition clatters when he gets home. The technical fellow does not talk. He has only a very limited acquaintance amongst his expert friends and he tells them that it was an interesting exhibit or was not. That is as far as it goes. But when the garrulous visitor who gets his or her nose bitten off, goes home the whole parish, city, county hear how cordially he was received by those Bolsheviks in the Russian stand but that when he went around to "Ireland" where his grand-mother's aunt came from, he got nothing but impertinence. That is not good either in New York or in Glasgow. If that is to be the scandalous conduct of persons who are charged with speaking and receiving on behalf of Ireland at these international exhibitions it would be better that we did not participate in them at all. I am sorry to be critical but it is better to be critical and bend our hand and try to understand the difficulties that we have met with than simply to close our eyes to them and allow them to happen again.

Now, I come to the bogs.

Mr. Brennan

You will get sunk in the bogs.

Mr. Dillon

I am afraid the whole country is going to get sunk in the bogs.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

Can the Deputy substantiate the remarks he has made?

Mr. Dillon

I am going to try to extract information out of the Minister for Industry and Commerce now for the benefit of the Mayor of Drogheda. I believe he is trotting along, with respect to him, like a blindfolded donkey, not knowing or caring what is happening in the bogs but with a kind of pleasant, warm feeling inside that some Fianna Fáil colleague of his is deriving some benefit from the expenditure of public money in Lullymore, Lyracrampane or Kilberry bogs and having some hope that some day a quaking bog may open in the outskirts of Drogheda to rescue him in his Parliamentary decline which is coming upon him so shortly. What are we pouring money into these bogs for and what are we getting out of them? I am told we launched forth into a bog down in Clonsast or somewhere.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

I do not want Deputy Dillon——

Mr. Dillon

Would the Mayor of Drogheda for God's sake keep quiet, and if he wants to bleat let him go up to the Drogheda Corporation and do his bleating there or get up after me, if he wants to talk.

Mr. L.J. Walsh

I do not think it is right for Deputy Dillon to make charges against Government officials without substantiating them.

Mr. Dillon

I understand that we sallied forth on the Clonsast Bog on the assumption that the nature of Irish bogs was the same as the nature of German bogs. I am mentioning Clonsast, which is not referred to in either of these Estimates, in order to provide that a similar error will not be fallen into in either of these bogs as was fallen into in Clonsast. I am informed that the Turf Development Board was misled into the belief that the nature of the Irish bogs was analogous to that of the German bogs and some other bogs in eastern Europe, which are dry bogs, whereas ours, as we all know, are wet. I understand that the boys sallied forth on the Clonsast Bog and announced that they were going to dig a drain. Any Land Commission inspector or indeed any Land Commission ganger could have told them that if you want to drain an Irish bog you must drain the verge of the bog first and then draw your drains from the crown of the bog down to the verge. But that old-fashioned information was not good enough for the Turf Development Board. They were going to drive their drain clean through Clonsast Bog, which they did, and they all stood in amazement at this magnificent drain and went home. They came back in the morning to inspect the glorious drain and discovered the bog had closed it in the night. Any Land Commission ganger could have told them it would do that because it is a wet bog. If they drove 40 drains through the middle of Clonsast bog the bog would close them all. That was not all. They then skinned the bog and bought immensely expensive machinery to glean the turf by machinery. By the time the machinery had arrived on the verge of the bog they discovered the bog had turned into a large black swamp and that it would be impossible for any man, much less a machine, to work on it for the next 40 years. Then, and only then, they sent for a Land Commission ganger, and he said to them: "What else did you expect it to turn into when you took the skin off it?" There it is now, a large black swamp, on which a sod will not be cut for 40 years.

Would the Minister tell me what have we got out of these bogs to-day? Mind you, when we get in Estimates like this here, a sum of £44,000, we think that is the true measure of our expenditure on these experiments, but it is not. Have any Deputies been down at Inny Junction recently? Inny Junction used to be a junction on the Midland, Great Western Railway, in the middle of nowhere. You would not see a living creature within 15 miles of Inny Junction but now you would think it was Piccadilly Circus. There are roads striking out from the right and striking out from the left; yet there is not a living creature within 15 miles of the place. The next stage was that immense barricades of turf began to accumulate on the sidings at Inny Junction. Talk of the Maginot Line! It was not in it with the line of turf erected at Inny Junction. All these roads were built for the purpose of erecting this Maginot Line of turf which was to stock our kitchens and fire our hearths for I do not know how long. But that was not the end of the story. After the Maginot Line was established—

Mr. MacEntee

What are we talking about?

Mr. Dillon

We are talking about the development of Lullymore Bog.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy has been talking about Clonsast.

Mr. Dillon

I have been talking about the money spent on these ridiculous schemes for the past two years. Let us hear now the end of the story. The Minister knows what the end of the story is and that is why he is so anxious to interrupt me. The question was: who would consume this Maginot Line of turf, and it was proposed that some of it should be burned here in Leinster House. Accordingly it was suggested that some of the turf accumulated at Inny Junction should be used as fuel in this House, but it was then discovered that, as a result of purchases of turf already made, the cellars of Leinster House are so full of turf mould that it would take about £1,000 to clear them out. There is at present under our feet in the cellars of this House so much turf mould that it would take about 100 men a fortnight to dig it out. There is an accumulation of turf mould so formidable in the cellars of this House that nobody will attempt the task of digging it out and carting it away, for two reasons, one, that it would take an army to do it and, two, that there is no place into which the turf mould can be dumped. The result is that the Maginot Line of turf at Inny Junction is melting away because there is no place to burn it.

These being the facts, I say that it is entirely reckless to ask the Dáil to sanction this further expenditure on bogs and bog roads of this character, bog roads which are not intended for the accommodation of the ordinary people, but which are designed to accommodate the Turf Development Board in producing huge quantities of turf, the disposal of which presents an immense problem. What are we going to do at Lullymore Bog, or are we going to keep to the bogs on which the Turf Development Board has been operating heretofore? I deliberately say that to tax sugar, tobacco and the necessaries of life that our people have to consume, in order to provide £44,000 to develop Lullymore Bog is a public scandal. Just imagine going to the people and telling them that you are going to pile on their backs extra taxes of the kind incorporated in the recent Budget in order to keep the Turf Development Board in existence and to add to their activities the development of Lullymore Bog. How does the Minister justify it? How does the Minister justify it in the full knowledge that to-day nothing has come out of these bogs which has been of the least use to the community as a whole? The only product that had any merit was these turf briquettes made down at——

Mr. MacEntee

Lullymore Bog.

Mr. Norton

Ticknevin.

Mr. Dillon

Exactly. The only product of merit that came out of these bogs was the peat briquettes which came from Ticknevin. That establishment was allowed to go bankrupt and all the employees were thrown out of work. It may have been impossible to avoid that; I do not know whether that was the Government's fault or not, but it is certainly true that that company was producing something which was capable of being used. Yet it was let to go bankrupt with all the losses that must have been involved in winding up and breaking up that entire organisation. If the Minister had come in here before that firm had got into hopeless bankruptcy and had said that an advance would keep these people afloat until such time as they could become solvent, that might have been a reasonable suggestion to make and there might have been a prospect of the taxpayer getting his money back, but it was allowed to go smash.

Mr. Norton

We gave them £155,000 before they went down.

Mr. Dillon

I take it the Deputy thinks then that it was not possible to save the situation at all. I do not know. I do not know what the management was like, but I do know they were producing something that could be used, even though it may have been hopelessly uneconomic. I know nothing of the inner workings of that company, but, on the quality of its product, I thought a case could be made for it. If Deputy Norton tells me that the company was hopelessly insolvent and had already lost an immense amount of public money, he probably knows more about it than I do. To come and ask us for more money now to finance the operations of the Turf Development Board, knowing what we do of its operations in the past, seems to me to be an act of gross extravagance, especially when these sums have to be raised by taxation on sugar, tobacco and other necessities of life which the poor at the moment are obliged to go without because they are not able to pay for them.

Mr. Linehan

Before supporting this Estimate, there is just one point that I should like to raise. The Minister, in introducing the Estimate, referring to sub-heads I. and I.I., said that the reason for the new Estimate was that the Government was not presented with the accounts during the financial year in time to put them into the general Estimate.

Mr. MacEntee

I did not say that. I said that they did not come in course of payment during the year 1938-39.

Mr. Linehan

First of all, the Minister said that the accounts were not presented. Now he says that they did not come in course of payment during the year. When the original Estimate was being introduced, did the Minister know what the exhibition at the New York World Fair was going to cost us at all?

When he introduced the original Estimate of £25,000, did he assume that that amount would be the total expenditure by this country on that exhibition? Is he coming along now with this additional Estimate, having discovered that it is going to cost an extra £17,000? Does the same thing apply to the Glasgow Exhibition of 1938? Is the Minister now coming along and asking for £1,140 extra, because he did not know what the cost would be, or because bills were not sent in? The Minister cannot have it both ways. What he stated at first was that the accounts were not presented, but he now says that they did not come in course of payment during the year.

Mr. MacEntee

Both mean the same thing.

Mr. Linehan

The Minister first put in an estimate and got it passed, but he now comes along and asks for additional payments in respect of two sub-heads, either because he did not know what the two experiments would cost or was careless what they would cost. Could the Minister tell the House, out of this total expenditure of £42,000, what this country expected to get back from these exhibitions? Was it simply a case that a World's Fair was to be held in New York—which is to be continued this year—and that the Irish Government should have an exhibition there? The exhibitions cost £42,000 and there is no explanation as to what the likely return will be, or whether they will be of any benefit to this country. As far as the Glasgow Exhibition is concerned it is over for the past two years, yet the Minister wants £1,140 extra in connection with it. I do not care whether the Minister says he did not know what the cost was going to be, or that the bills did not come in, it means, at any rate, that two years after the Glasgow Exhibition the Minister is asking for extra money to pay a debt incurred by this State in regard to the pavilion at that exhibition. If the fault was that the Minister who was responsible at the time did not properly estimate the expenditure for the New York and Glasgow Exhibitions, or that Deputies were gravely misled, I do not believe—however praiseworthy many of us might think the idea of having pavilions at New York and Glasgow—anybody would be prepared to spend the amount that the Minister is now asking for on these two objects, without getting some indication that the country was going to benefit from them.

I cannot understand the Minister's attitude towards accountancy in this respect. If any commercial concern was to conduct its business on the principle that they could make an estimate to carry on a particular line and, having expended a certain amount of money on it, then had to go to the directors and say: "We are sorry we did not estimate a correct amount for what we had to spend on that particular branch, and as the accounts were not presented in time we did not anticipate the amount"—what would happen? Even if the accounts were not presented, surely the Minister should have ensured what the total cost would be. I do not believe that this country has gained sufficient benefit from the pavilions at the New York and Glasgow Exhibitions to justify the House voting £18,140 extra for what, on the Minister's explanation, has been a piece of very bad book-keeping. I could not support this Estimate unless I was satisfied that the Minister can explain why it was, when the original Estimate was introduced, that the Minister who was then in charge could not have given some idea of what the total cost was likely to be, or why we should be met with the explanation now, that the only reason for the additional Estimate was that bills were not presented, or were not anticipated at the time the original Estimate was passed. I cannot understand that system of book-keeping.

Mr. Norton

I should like to get some further information in connection with this Estimate. There is an item of £44,000, grants to the Turf Development Board, Ltd., for the development of Lullymore Bog, and for the acquisition of the assets of the Peat Fuel Company, Ltd. Whatever technical experience may have been obtained from the operations of the Peat Fuel Company at Ticknevin, I think every one will agree that, as far as the financial enterprise was concerned, it was a very ill-starred one. A trade loan to the amount of £90,000 under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act was given to the company, and £65,000 was given to it on the basis of a repayable grant-in-aid, making £155,000 of State money sunk in that venture. In addition to that, it is credibly reported that there was a first mortgage bank overdraft of £30,000, making £185,000. It is also stated, with considerable authority, that approximately £25,000 of capital went into the venture, making a total of £210,000, on the experiment of producing turf at Ticknevin. It may be possible to say that some technical advantage has been obtained from the expenditure of that sum of money in the production of turf. One thing is certain, at all events, that the money is gone and that the assets there against the investments represent a negligible proportion of the investments.

I should like to know from the Minister what the position is to be in connection with the purchase of these assets by the Turf Development Board. The Minister has £155,000 of State money sunk in that venture, and possibly £3,000 or £3,500 of that amount has been repaid. What is the State going to get out of the assets, and how does it rank in relation to private capital and in relation to the bank overdraft? Is it intended that the Turf Development Board should continue to operate this venture in the same manner as the Peat Fuel Company? Everybody knows— certainly the staff employed in the place knows—that the original venture was not blessed—but was dammed, one might say—with good luck, and was not helped at all by good management. In the first instance very expensive and very heavy machinery was put in to exploit the bogs. That machinery was scrapped. Subsequently lighter machinery was introduced, but not even the introduction of lighter machinery and substantial State Grants-in-Aid, could suffice to save the company from going into bank-ruptey. If we are going to spend another £44,000 on this venture, I should like to hear from the Minister what programme of development the Turf Development Board is about to embark upon? Is it going to continue the methods that proved such a costly failure in the past? Is it going to continue the same methods of winning turf at Ticknevin Bog? I notice here that it is described as Lullymore Bog, but it is known locally as Ticknevin Bog. The intention is to cover a much wider area of turbary than was formerly operated by the Peat Fuel Company. Are we going to have a continuance of the same type of management and the same methods as proved so costly in the past?

Mr. Dillon

Are the mortgages going to get the £44,000?

Mr. Norton

It is not so long since we had a rather Olympian declaration from the Minister's predecessor in which he visualised 50,000 people getting regular employment there.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear! It was to be the second greatest industry in the country.

Mr. Norton

Perhaps the Minister would like to consult the files for the speech in which the Minister's predecessor said that 50,000 people would be employed there. I never believed that. I do not think it is possible, and while I would like to see peat fuel developed as much as possible, I realise that there are limits to its development. A very eminent engineer recently put a limitation on the development of peat fuel when he said that an examination of the peat fuel found in this country disclosed that there is more solidity in milk than in turf. He gave it as his opinion that there were 12 lbs. of solid matter in 100 lbs. of milk, and only 8 lbs of solid matter in the same quantity of turf. I do not purpose to be in a position either to give approbation to or denial of a statement of that kind, but this very reputable engineer knew the limitations.

If we are going to continue to spend money on turf development, I am not adverse from doing so, so long as the money is prudently expended, so long as the State's resources are reasonably husbanded and so long as there is competent management directing the enterprises in relation to peat fuel development. I think we ought to have from the Minister—it is the first time we have heard him on turf development—a declaration as to the lines upon which he thinks turf development should proceed, but, in any case, we are entitled, on an Estimate of this kind, under which we are going to spend another £44,000 of State money, to know what has happened to our £90,000 under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act and what has happened to the £65,000 grant-in-aid. Are we going to get any of that back, and how do we stand in relation to the other private investors and mortgagees of the peat fuel companies?

Mr. Bennett

I had hoped that the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, learning from the experience the ex-Minister had in the bogs, would have tried to keep out of the bog, but perhaps circumstances were too strong for him. I think the country generally will be against any further expenditure of public money on this enterprise, and I, for one, very much object to any further expenditure. I want to ask the Minister, particularly, if he would separate the items in sub-head M. 6—Grants to the Turf Development Board, Ltd., for the development of Lullymore Bog, County Kildare, and for the acquisition of the assets of the Peat Fuel Company, Ltd. I should like to know how much of the £44,000 is intended for development and how much for the acquisition of the Peat Fuel Company's assets. In that connection, if there are any assets, I think that, logically, the Exchequer ought to have first call on them. We lent considerable sums of money to that company which were never repaid, and we are now apparently going to lend a further big sum of money for the purchase of portion of the assets of this defunct company. A more reasonable proposition might have been that we should have claimed whatever assets of that company there were and presented them, if necessary, to this new company to help them in the further development of the bog. The more one looks at the thing, the more bogged one becomes. I personally should like to get out of the bog as much as I can, but I should like the Minister to give a reasonable explanation of the sub-head and to state the amount to be spent on development, the amount to be spent on the acquisition of assets, and also to whom the money is to be paid.

Mr. Brennan

Two years ago, the Minister's predecessor introduced an Estimate somewhat similar to this. With the changing of names, I do not know whether this is exactly the same bog, or some other bog, but it was certainly the same peat fuel company. At that time, I accused the Minister of endeavouring to throw turf mould into the eyes of people by pretending that we were getting some kind of workable asset, some asset of value, in making a grant towards the Peat Fuel Company. The grant was made, however, and the Minister assured the House at that time—I do not know how far he convinced the House, but he certainly did not convince me—that if we made this grant, there was a very reasonable chance of success, that the possibilities were good and that he hoped in the very near future that there would be an economic production of peat fuel. The result was that that company, and that industry, which, I think, was situated in Turraun——

Mr. Norton

There are two separate companies. Turraun is further west.

Mr. Brennan

That has gone down also, and surely we have learned enough lessons——

Mr. MacEntee

I think I ought to say to the Deputy that the circumstances are by no means the same in relation to Turraun and Lullymore.

Mr. Brennan

The circumstances to the ordinary man in the country are that the production of peat fuel by machinery in this country, in the way in which it is sought to obtain it, does not appear to be a success and does not appear to have any hope of success. What has always struck me about the development of bogs, and the spending of big sums of money on them, is that peat fuel has been examined on the Continent at very great expense and with first-class expert advice and technicians. All that is an open book to everybody. The results have been published and can be read by anybody, but notwithstanding all that, we rush in with the taxpayers' money to buy dud machinery, because that is what we are doing here. We encouraged people to put their money into these enterprises, and, when the money is gone, we buy over the "duds". That is what we are doing now.

We are told in a footnote to this Supplementary Estimate, which is very enlightening, that:

"The provision under this sub-head includes a sum of £18,000, approximately, representing the cost of acquisition by the Turf Development Board, Ltd., of the first debenture on the assets of the Peat Fuel Company."

What are they worth? It also says:

"When the assets are acquired the debenture will be discharged and the cost thereof will be refunded by the board to the Exchequer."

Are we not dealing with a company which has not been able to carry on business economically, which has not been able to produce an economic article, and where is the use in trying to pretend to the taxpayers that it is good business to buy off machinery that will apparently be "dud" machinery and that will be left on our hands to rust? I think it is time the Minister called a halt to this kind of thing, and unless there is some assur ance of success, some hope that at some stage an economic article can be produced, they ought to give the idea up. If people have gone into this business and have put their money into it at the instance of the Government the Government possibly feel that there is an obligation on them to buy them off, but what about the tax payers? I think the whole position with regard to bog development in this country is most unsatisfactory. The Government have burned their fingers more than once, and not with peat fuel but with the taxpayers' money, and they ought to drop it.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not regard this discussion as being at all without value if it brings home to the minds of the people that, though we may have, in peat and other things, natural resources which may be of great value, nevertheless the cost of developing them is not going to be insignificant. We are sometimes told by members of the Opposition and by other interests in the country that the Government ought to solve the problem of unemployment, or ought to provide for the unemployed, not by giving them doles but by giving them opportunities to work.

We are now dealing with a project which it was stated by those who first put it forward would give a considerable amount of permanent employment and be of permanent value to the country. The proposition, when it was put up, if one might judge by the article which it was designed to produce, seemed to be a feasible one and a highly practical one. There is no doubt about it that the company which was operating Lullymore Bog and which was developing the peat briquette business had an attractive article to offer. We have heard Deputy Dillon loud in its praise here to-day, blaming the Government because we had allowed that company to cease operations, blaming the Government because we had permitted it to go bankrupt, because we had permitted the one peat enterprise for which he saw any hope to come to an end. It is well the House and the country, and again those who think that it is as easy as they imagine to produce useful public works and deal with unemployment in this country, to consider what the history of that company has been. It was incorporated in 1934. The paid up capital amounted to £57,004 and additional capital was provided from time to time. Ninety thousand pounds was provided under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act. Then the company raised a further £20,000 upon a debenture ranking in priority to the debentures securing the Trade Loan. In 1937, the Dáil voted £35,000 as a grant-in-aid and in 1938 an additional £30,000 was voted by the Dáil.

Mr. Dillon

As a grant-in-aid again?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, as a grant-in-aid, making a total investment in this venture of £289,008.

Mr. Norton

It was all a State investment?

Mr. MacEntee

£57,000 was private capital. The position with which we are faced in regard to this development is this, that a great deal of money has been put into it, a large amount of experimental work has been done, and the only thing is whether we are going to allow any residuum of practical utility which may remain in the bog as developed as a result of these experiments to be completely dissipated and allow the whole place to fall back into its pristine and original state. I have not taken a firm decision in regard to the matter. What I have decided to do is to put the Turf Development Board in a position to acquire the assets for what they are worth and they have acquired the debenture, which of course gives the assets, for a sum of about £19,000. There is a considerable amount of plant and machinery there.

Mr. Dillon

Who is the mortgagee?

Mr. MacEntee

One of the banks.

Mr. Dillon

We are taking over the baby from the bank?

Mr. MacEntee

No, that does not really represent the true position, because I think that at a break-up sale we could get more than £19,000 for the plant and machinery that are there. I am confident that we shall not lose as a result of the purchase of the debenture—of that I am reasonably certain.

Mr. Bennett

Now the bank is safeguarded and the State loses.

Mr. MacEntee

The bank, as the debenture holder, could come in and realise the property, and would, perhaps, get more than we are giving, but they have met us fairly and reasonably, bearing in mind the amount of public money which has been sunk in the venture.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister told us the history was that there was a State loan of £20,000 and then a debenture took a priority to the State loan.

Mr. MacEntee

A State-guaranteed loan of £90,000; then, in 1936, a £20,000 debenture ranking in priority to the debenture securing the trade loan.

Mr. Dillon

Was that rank given with the consent of the Minister?

Mr. MacEntee

It was. The Deputy cannot ride two horses. He has to be as consistent in his policy as a member of the Government has to be. He has an almost equal responsibility. As I said, this was frankly regarded as an experiment. When it was clear that the initial capital provided was not going to be sufficient, we had to consider how the fresh capital required was going to be raised. We facilitated the company in raising this additional £20,000 of capital to the extent that we allowed this debenture to take priority over ours. That is what was done. Bear in mind that we have got to try out this question. We have got to investigate for ourselves and see what value, in fact, there is in our bogs. That had to be done by one Government or another. It can only be done by undertaking operations on a commercial scale.

Mr. Dillon

Now you are going to redeem the debenture?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, we are going to redeem the debenture, because we are not satisfied that the process which was in fact undertaken there for the development of that bog was the best practicable. I wonder if the Deputy ever considered how long it took to develop some of the mining ventures in Great Britain, how much money was lost in developing coal and iron and steel in Great Britain. Let us try and not deal with a proposition of this sort in a narrow huckstering spirit. It is a venture in which someone has to take risks; there is no person in this country, I think, big enough to take a personal, private, individual risk in the matter, and the State, if the resources of the country are to be developed at all, has to come in.

Professor O'Sullivan rose.

Mr. MacEntee

I would prefer to sit down, and say no more.

Professor O'Sullivan

I will ask it when you are finished.

Mr. MacEntee

I was explaining what the present position was. I had stated that what we are doing at the moment is to complete the purchase of the debenture, and we are taking over the bog and plant. The Turf Development Board will send their engineers down there to survey the bog and see whether it is possible to try to develop it upon more promising and effective lines. In my mind that is still a matter of some doubt. I am not prepared to say in relation to this enterprise that there may not have been defects in the management as well as defects in the process. I do not know, but one thing that has struck me when reading these papers is the fact that the management was never able to realise its estimates in regard to production. However, as Deputy Dillon has said, the company is now in bankruptcy and we are not going to hold an inquest upon them here. The Turf Development Board will consider whether a more promising, a more economic and efficient process for the development of this bog cannot be evolved by them. Whether that is so or not is going to depend upon a number of factors. First of all, this bog will have to be run upon strictly commercial lines. There is going to be no eleemosynary element in it either in regard to the management or anything else. It has got to be upon a basis that we cannot afford to undertake an experiment of this sort merely as something which is going to give spare time employment to a number of people. If a staff has got to be recruited there, it has to be recruited with the idea that it has got to discipline itself and harness itself, so to speak, to the bog.

Mr. Norton

That surely would be a great hobble.

Mr. MacEntee

There is no use of the Deputy talking of carrying out large public works in this country as the Deputy so often talks, and spending and risking hundreds of thousands of pounds upon the venture.

Mr. Norton

The Secretary of the Minister's own Department is one of the Secretaries of this enterprise.

Mr. MacEntee

We are going to be quite clear on this—that for every £ that the State puts into this enterprise it is going to get a clear return for that £ invested. At the moment there is a bog closed down in which there has been a great deal of private money sunk. It has been closed down simply because those who were employed in it were not prepared to give a proper return in the way of work for the money they received.

Mr. Norton

That is a libel on the workers. It impeaches the directors, including the Secretary of the Minister's own Department.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy Dillon in his opening passage drew attention to this item for the Lullymore bog, and made some statements reflecting on the position at another bog at Clonsast. Perhaps he will take the trouble to go down there and investigate and see the work which the Turf Development Board is still doing. I feel that the Deputy, when describing mistakes made, had this Lullymore bog in mind and not the Clonsast bog. I am not saying, of course, that the Turf Development Board have not made mistakes. It would be quite unlike the——

Mr. Dillon

—— if they did not.

Mr. MacEntee

In the ordinary course of things it would be very difficult for them not to make mistakes unless they were acting under divine guidance, because this is virgin work in this country. The development of bogs upon a commercial scale and their adaptation for commercial work is very largely experimental in every country. Deputy Brennan has told us how it has been tried out here, there and everywhere on the Continent. If the Deputy would read any of the authoritative works on this matter he would find this warning—that the whole question of the development of peat has been very largely prejudiced by over-optimism.

Mr. Norton

The Minister's over-optimism !

Mr. MacEntee

In relation to peat development I am not going to be accused of over-optimism. But I am telling Deputy Brennan this that the whole question of peat fuel development has been prejudiced by the over-optimistic opinion which those who sponsored such ventures hold. Of course a large number of people have been bitten——

Mr. Dillon

Yes 50,000 men.

Mr. MacEntee

——by the non-receipt of the handsome returns which promoters told them they would receive for their investment and in that way the whole thing fell into disrepute.

Mr. Brennan

It taught the Minister a lesson.

Mr. MacEntee

That might be. Many honest men have lost and learned. The thing which is characteristic of the Turf Development Board, I believe, since it overcame its teething troubles and since it got fairly established, has been its careful and efficient management. I have said that if Deputy Dillon inspects some of the works which they have undertaken and are carrying through—and they are not at all as numerous and widespread as the Deputy seems to conceive—he will come to the conclusion that these works are always prudently planned and very carefully managed. If there is any possibility of developing the peat resources of the country that possibility rests and depends upon the Turf Development Board being allowed to expand its operations in the prudent and careful way which they have outlined for themselves. Again, as I said. I hope that Deputy Dillon will, upon further consideration, see his way to visit some of these places and if he discusses their policy with those who are responsible for the development of the bogs, and truly ascertains what the results have been, I am perfectly certain he will not come back to the House with the same wild statements he made to-day. The trouble with the Deputy is he has got a very exuberant imagination which is always working at high pressure. He told us to-day about the tons and tons of unuseable turf that are supposed to be stored within the basement of Leinster House. Did the Deputy ever see these himself?

Mr. Dillon

I was informed by an official in the Minister's Department that there were large accumulations of turf mould there.

Mr. MacEntee

By the Department?

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister will refer to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee he will find a full description of this matter there. He will find there the information which I have abstracted officially.

Mr. MacEntee

What quantity of turf mould does the Deputy think was available there?

Mr. Dillon

Let the Minister go down and see.

Mr. MacEntee

Did the Deputy go down and see it himself? The Deputy has told us what the Minister's business is. I should have thought that before the Deputy, who claimed earlier to-day to speak on behalf of the Opposition, got up and made the speech he did on this question of turf, he would have investigated one aspect of the matter which is conveniently under his eyes or under his feet. He spoke about tons and tons of turf which were supposed to be stuffing the cellar of Leinster House. He did not know whether that was so or not. If he had gone down there, he would not have made that statement.

Mr. Dillon

Has it been shifted?

Mr. MacEntee

At least, I hope he would not have made that statement because I believe the Deputy is a very truthful man.

Mr. Dillon

Where did they dump it?

Mr. MacEntee

It is not so easy to shift turf mould as it is for the Deputy to shift his ground.

Mr. Dillon

Are you growing rhododendrons on the sloblands?

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy referred to New York Fair and Glasgow Exhibition, and I should like to say a few words in reply before I sit down. He made complaints in regard to both these ventures. I had not heard any complaint regarding the value of the exhibits at the Glasgow Exhibition or the manner in which they were displayed. I have heard some complaints about New York Exhibition. Not having examined the matter on the ground, I cannot say what substance there may be in those complaints. There may be some substance in them, but the cause may be due to circumstances which it is rather difficult for us clearly to envisage. The two stands at the exhibition were staffed mainly by persons sent out from here. I gather that, on their arrival at New York, they found that a great deal of work remained to be done to get the pavilions opened on the day appointed. They were considerably overworked in getting the necessary arrangements made. Deputies should remember that things did not run smoothly for the promoters of the New York Fair. From the beginning, they met with all sorts of difficulties which, naturally, had their reactions on individual exhibitors. Our staff went out in May, when the hot season was beginning, and they had no time to become acclimatised. Looking at the matter now, I think that we were rather too economical in the numbers we sent out. It is possible that, in the trying circumstances—I am saying this not because I am accepting at their face value all the complaints made, but because complaints have been made by persons in regard to whom I would not be predisposed to assume that they would make them unless there was some substance in the complaints. I believe that such substance as might be in the complaints was largely due to the difficulties arising from change of climate and to the derangement that existed in the opening stages of the Exhibition. I am giad the Deputy has mentioned the matter here, because very little value is to be got out of expenditure of this sort unless we make the people who come to see our pavilions—whether they be experts or mere blatherers, as the Deputy suggested, some might be—satisfied that they have got value for their money. I am quite certain that the officers of my Department have gained a great deal of experience in these matters now. It is a pity that they were not so experienced at the start but, if ventures of this kind are ever undertaken again, there will not, I think, be so many complaints as there were on this occasion. I was going to say something about Deputy Linehan's remarks but I do not think that they are worth comment.

Mr. Dillon

A large sum of money is being voted on this Estimate, but much more important is the precedent which is being established. We guaranteed £90,000 to this company, which placed us in the position of first mortgagees of the assets of the company. We then waived our first-mortgagee rights. We conceded them to a bank, which advanced £20,000 to the company on first mortgage. After we had advanced substantial additional sums, directly and indirectly, the time came when this firm became insolvent. The bank had their mortgage remedy to turn to. In that state of affairs, we go in and, with public money, take his mortgage from the mortgagee, leaving it to ourselves to realise it, although the mortgagee elected to take that security voluntarily and asked us to give it to him.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the Deputy desire to put a question to the Minister?

Mr. Dillon

Is it a sane thing to establish such a precedent? I know a case in which a much stronger claim could be made for the execution of a similar manoeuvre. If this case goes through, there can be no answer to that claim. Where are you to end? How far are public funds to be employed to relieve voluntary mortgagees of their responsibilities? Surely the Minister must know that the proposal in this case is dangerous and undesirable to the last degree, apart from the money involved?

Mr. MacEntee

I agree. We should not do this, and would not do it except for one thing—we do not want the assets and the existing works to be broken up and the plant dispersed. By buying the debenture, we are taking over the existing assets on the bog as they stand. If we allowed the debenture-holder to assert his right, he would probably put up the plant for break-up sale.

Mr. Dillon

And you could buy up the turf machinery.

Mr. MacEntee

I am in a certain difficulty in discussing that aspect of the matter. The Deputy can be perfectly certain that if we could have got the assets more cheaply by allowing them to be put up for public auction, we should have allowed them to be put up.

Mr. Dillon

Does not the Minister realise the danger? It may be that he is getting this property cheaply, as he says, but is it right that the procedure of receivership in matters of this kind, where the mortgagee has already got a concession from the State, should be set aside? Would it not be better that the mortgagee should be told that he could put up the assets, that if the Government choose to buy them, they will and, if not, that he can do what he likes with them? Does not the Minister know that this procedure is wrong? Is the Minister quite frank? I cannot believe that he is standing for such procedure. I believe he is keeping something back.

Mr. MacEntee

I have told the Deputy all that I think it is in the public interest to tell him at the moment. I assure the Deputy I am not keeping anything back.

Professor O'Sullivan

Not much.

Mr. MacEntee

No, I am not keeping anything back, except——

Professor O'Sullivan

Except something.

Mr. MacEntee

Well, the Deputy can have it in whatever way he likes, but I am not keeping anything back.

Mr. Norton

May I ask the Minister whether the bank, as the mortgagee, indicated its willingness to put up the assets for sale at a dispersal sale, or whether the Minister cut in and offered to take over the security?

Mr. MacEntee

I think I have given all the information that is necessary to be given in the public interest.

Professor O'Sullivan

Perhaps I might be permitted to ask a question. After listening to the Minister's speech, might I be permitted to ask him if he could tell us whether this House was ever told by his predecessor—I do not think the present Minister was here during the former debates on the turf question—that these things were to be undertaken as experiments and not as commercial undertakings?

Mr. MacEntee

With regard to this whole matter and this particular venture, of course it was put before the House as an experiment. Let the Deputy bear in mind the history of this matter. There was a trade loan guarantee, and afterwards additional capital was raised by debentures. Then we came to the Dáil for a Grant-in-Aid of £30,000 for this particular process, and the facts were disclosed to the Dáil at the time and disclosed to the Dáil a second time. Of course, naturally, when public money is to be put into a venture of this sort on the basis of a Grant-in-Aid it is quite clear to the ordinary person that it is experimental; otherwise, the question would be: why do you give a Grant-in-Aid?

Professor O'Sullivan

We do not know why you did it.

Mr. MacEntee

It is all very well for the Deputy to say that they do not know why it was done. We will take responsibility for our actions, but after all the real question is: Why did the Dáil do it?

Professor O'Sullivan

Am I correct in gathering from the Minister that he and his predecessor and some members of the same Cabinet—which might be gathered from the speech we have heard to-day—have thrown this money away in what, incidentally, the Minister afterwards described as a hobby?

Mr. MacEntee

No—nothing of the sort.

Professor O'Sullivan

That is what we gathered.

Mr. MacEntee

If we are going to discuss affairs of this sort in a businesslike way, I think that the Deputy should not make such suggestions.

An Ceann Comhairle

Well, in a businesslike way, the Vote will now be put.

Professor O'Sullivan

On a point of order, Sir, may I suggest that I am not aware that, after the Minister has concluded, there is any limitation on the number of questions that may be put? However, as we are in Committee, I suggest that, although the precedent is against it, we have a strict right to make a speech if necessary. We do not intend to do that, but the rules provide for it, and, therefore, I suggest that we should not be limited as regards questions. Otherwise I think we shall have to debate the matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

The practice has obtained for more than 12 years——

Professor O'Sullivan

And occasionally protested.

An Ceann Comhairle

——that, if the Minister is called upon to conclude— no other Deputy offering—the Minister does conclude, particularly on a Supplementary Estimate. Any subsequent questions are subject to the discretion of the Chair. I am confident that the Chair cannot be accused of closuring questions.

Professor O'Sullivan

Well, although we are prepared to give the Minister his black elephant this time, we shall vote on it.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 24.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Alien, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Cleary, Mícheál.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Corish, Richard.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Everett, James.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Friel, John.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hickey, James.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Kelly, James P.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Lynch, James B.
• McCann, John.
• McDevitt, Henry A.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Meaney, Cornelius.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Mullen, Thomas.
• Munnelly, John.
• Norton, William.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Brigid M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Laurence J.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Conn.

Níl

• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George C.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John A.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, John L.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hannigan, Joseph.
• Keating, John.
• Linehan, Timothy.
• Lynch, Finian.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Neill, Eamonn.
• O'Sullivan, John.
• Reynolds, Mary.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and S. Brady; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Nally.

Question declared carried.