Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 17 May 1940

Vol. 80 No. 6

Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 55.—Industry and Commerce.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £209,223 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, 1941, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála, maraon le hlldeontaisí-i-gCabhair.

That a sum not exceeding £209,223 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, 1941, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

In presenting this Estimate I propose to give a brief account of the activities of the Department of Industry and Commerce for which I am responsible. In the present circumstances my observations must have the general effect of reflecting the impact of the European war on our trade and industry. The House need not be reminded that among the first steps taken to deal with the uncertain conditions likely to be occasioned here by that unhappy conflict was to detach from the Department its Emergency Supplies Branch, to expand it and to erect it into a new Department of State in order to deal with the fundamental problem of the raw materials required to maintain our economic activities in time of war.

Since its establishment we in the Department of Industry and Commerce have maintained the closest liaison with the new Department of Supplies. Trained staff has been loaned to it by us and this partial transfer of staff has facilitated intimate working and collaboration and avoided overlapping. Both Departments have naturally the same general object, namely, to preserve and, wherever practicable, to increase productive activity during a period when inevitably the danger of diminished production has to be faced and countered.

I need scarcely say how in its early stages, at least, the course taken by the war was the unexpected course, so that though there was some disorganisation in the normal trend of supplies, this was by no means as serious as was anticipated. On the other hand, the rapid change in the situation, which has taken place in the past few days shows how impossible it is to predict the course of these sanguinary events and their effect on our supplies from overseas and on our industries; this difficulty will not by any means be lessened by the fluctuating fortunes of a struggle, now so perilously close to our shores.

Although the full figures of the Census of Production for 1939 are not yet available, there are indications that, on the whole, the volume of industrial production in 1939 was somewhat increased as compared with the volume of production in 1938, and that on the average taken over the whole year there was an increase in the number of persons employed in industry. Indeed after the initial psychological dislocation occasioned by the transition from a peacetime to wartime environment one of the immediate effects of the outbreak of war was that Irish industrial plants secured more than normal orders from firms wishing to anticipate the later failure of supply and rising prices. This gave a certain spur to many industrial activities, even though production was hampered by the difficulties to which I have already referred in respect of supplies and uncertainty of delivery dates. Nevertheless with but a few exceptions most industries have been able to carry on fairly normally so far as supplies or the necessary raw materials are concerned. It does not require any prescience, however, to recognise that, in the light of the situation as it has now developed, supplies in the coming months may be much more seriously affected than heretofore and the position in respect of employment become more difficult. It is imperative that everyone of us should recognise that fact and so far as his skill and opportunities permit, provide for the use of himself, and, so far as may be, for others, substitutes for materials and commodities such as coal and timber which within a short time may be very difficult to procure. That is an aspect of the present situation to which I may refer again later.

Perhaps there is no statistical evidence —if such statistical evidence were acquired—that could more effectively bring home to us the effect the war has had on our industrial activity than is to be found in the trend of employment and unemployment during the 12 months of 1939, as indicated by the net contribution incomes of the National Health Insurance Fund and the Unemployment Contribution Fund respectively. The contribution income of the first of these, that is, of the National Health Insurance Fund, during the first two quarters of 1939 showed increases over the corresponding quarters of 1938, but in the third quarter there was a small decrease and in the fourth quarter a considerable decrease was reported. The contribution income of the unemployment fund, likewise, showed increases, during the first two and also the third quarters of 1939, but also a substantial decrease in the fourth quarter, that is, in the quarter of the year immediately following the outbreak of the war in Europe.

Is the Minister able to give the comparative quarterly figures?

Not at the moment, but I may, perhaps, later.

It would be important to have them.

Taking last year as a whole, the net contribution income of the National Health Insurance Fund indicated that the volume of employment was somewhat greater in 1939 than in 1938; whereas, according to that of the unemployment fund, it was somewhat less. It should be stated that the income of the unemployment fund upon which the calculations of the volume of employment are made is derived from contributions paid by employers and workers in, generally speaking, industry and commerce only, while the national health insurance scheme covers not merely these groups, but also agriculture and private domestic service.

On the average, the number of persons on the live register during the year 1939 was approximately 4,776 greater than in 1938. The increase was due mainly to the disturbing influence of the European war, and of the uneasiness and general málaise which preceded its outbreak, to the slackness in the building trade, and to the number of Irish people who returned, under exceptional circumstances, from Great Britain in the course of last year. I have already indicated to the House that, in my opinion, the number of persons who so returned, and who appeared on the live register towards the end of the year, amounted to some thousands. These, it should be noted, are distinct from the migratory class who normally return to this country about that period. At the end of 1939 the total live register was some 10,000 more than at the end of 1938. As the natural result of the abnormal factors operating to increase the number on the live register in the manner I have indicated, sudden and extraordinary demands were made upon the Vote for Unemployment Assistance, with the consequence that it became necessary to obtain from the Dáil a Supplementary Vote of £220,000, of which there remained an unexpended balance, at the end of the year, of £15,567, subject, of course, to final certification.

I cannot pass, of course, from the subject of employment without adverting to the question of labour disputes. We have had them this year, even as in other years; but this year they have been much more serious in the risks and strains to which they have subjected our whole economic system at a time when it is the duty of employer and worker alike to strain every nerve to maintain employment and increase production. This is a subject for grave national concern. Strikes in certain basic industries and services, upon which other industries and services are dependent, are naturally more serious in their consequences than strikes in secondary or tertiary industries where the economic disturbance is confined to a limited section of productive effort. This applies particularly to shipping, dock, and transport services, as well as to industries which supply essential materials to other industries. The strike arising out of a dispute in the timber trade, for instance, had serious consequences for others than those immediately participating. The building trade, in Dublin in particular, had for various reasons been passing through a trying time, particularly since the outbreak of the war, and those engaged in that trade, could ill-afford to have what employment remained to them put in further jeopardy; yet that trade was brought almost completely to a stand-still by the timber strike, with a consequent intensification of suffering, loss and anxiety to those who have to earn their bread by it.

The fact that strikes should occur now, in the abnormal conditions which affect so adversely our ability to carry on and maintain so many of our undertakings, calls for most serious consideration, not only by this House and by the Government but by all parties concerned. I beg most earnestly that such consideration should be given to it in a spirit of patriotism and good citizenship. It may be that the existing legal and administrative machinery for dealing with industrial disputes is inadequate, and that the Government may be compelled to introduce new legislative proposals to reduce the industrial disturbances, of which I complain, to a minimum—at least during the war period—but I should prefer that in this matter, employers and workers should themselves take the initiative and come together to consider and solve the problem. Organised employers and workers in other countries have done so. Why cannot our people devise means by which industrial peace here can be better preserved and the threat to production and employment reduced during this period, which is for us, as for every small nation like us, one of grave national peril?

Why not the Government take the initiative? Have they not sufficient signs of good-will in all directions?

I should like to be as assured of the good-will as the Deputy seems to be, but I should prefer in this matter, that, rather than there should be legislative coercion, the people who are intimately concerned, and whose profits and livelihoods are affected, should try to come together and see if they cannot enter into a mutual pact that, for the period of the war at least, while giving due consideration to the interests of the consumers, strikes will be avoided.

Why not the Government take the initiative to invite them?

I cannot leave the question of industrial disputes without referring to what I regard as a question of major policy for the country at large, and that is the general question of our industrial costs. As the new industries created by Government policy in the last eight years began to be established, it was understandable that costs of production would, in the early stages of the new concerns, be above the normal. But, as my predecessor, the present Minister for Supplies, so often stated publicly, there nevertheless has remained an urgent duty resting on industrialists to bring their production to such a state of efficiency that the products of the tariffed industries can be sold in fair competition. No less is due to the people who have made sacrifices to establish those undertakings. High tariff protection has, no doubt, been necessary in the infant stage, but now that the European war has occurred, there is a greater urge than ever to cut all costs down to the lowest point. Surging costs, surging profits and surging wages will, in the long run, lead only to catastrophe. Workers above all, when making claims for increased wages, should bear in mind that an increase in wages with production costs and consumers' costs rising correspondingly, does not in the end improve their position as a class.

As I have said on other occasions, industrialists in respect of profits and workers in respect of wages cannot escape from the dominating fact that this is primarily an agricultural country and that the agricultural industry is compelled to sell its products in an outside market, a market indeed which is now to be rigidly controlled in regard to price. Recent statistics have indicated a serious movement of population from country to town, and this must be regarded as an unhealthy sign. Some ultimate balance between profits and earnings in the agricultural industry and in other industries must be settled before anything like a position of economic equilibrium can be attained. This observation, which is true at any time, is in our present circumstances of greater import than ever. I have no doubt that its significance is fully appreciated by all thinking people who are concerned with the economic progress of our country, and among these I place as not the least of all those who, in a desire not merely to do something for themselves but to advantage their country, have invested their savings in Irish industries.

In these times it is consoling to think that the investors to whom I have referred have the satisfaction of knowing that their home investments are likely to be as stable and as safe as any on earth. I wish I could hold out bright hopes that in future many more opportunities for such investment would be afforded them. If it were not for the war they might have been, for at the time of its outbreak the Department of Industry and Commerce had before it for consideration a number of proposals for new industries. Unfortunately, with regard to a great number of them, I cannot say that in present circumstances the prospects of their materialising are good. Many of them were dependent on the introduction of alien specialists, and for this reason, and because of the difficulty of obtaining the necessary plant and raw materials, progress has been very largely held up.

Accordingly, for our further industrial progress in the immediate future we must turn our thoughts to the exploitation of such mineral deposits as we may possess. In order to avoid raising false hopes, I should say at once that these are by no means so varied or as rich as is sometimes believed. Such as they are, however, there are a number which I think in present circumstances may be profitably developed, and these are having close consideration in my Department. The facility with which practical plans for their development can be evolved will depend very largely upon the passage of a Bill to amend the Mines and Minerals Acts, which has been in preparation for a considerable time, and which is now almost ready for introduction. This applies particularly to projects for expanding our coal-mining industry. While I am on this subject of our mineral resources, I may mention a noteworthy development in mineral production which took place during the year 1939, as a result of which the Cement Company, which was formerly operating on imported gypsum, is now operating wholly on gypsum mined in County Monaghan.

The most urgent need in present circumstances, however, is to increase our production of native fuel, particularly turf. Turf development has proceeded actively under the Turf Development Board during the year. The board has now in its possession four large bogs—Clonsast, Tullymore, Turraun and Lyracrompane. Three of these are now in actual production. When in full production the Turf Board estimates that these three bogs will produce about 150,000 tons of turf annually, and will provide employment for between 500 and 600 workers. It is proposed to erect a turf-burning electricity generating station on the Clonsast bog. Plans for this project have already been prepared, tenders for the plant have been received and are under consideration, and it is the Government's intention to require this project to be pushed forward to completion with all possible speed.

The Dáil will recognise that the present emergency conditions confirm the wise foresight of my predecessor in office in this matter, and clearly manifest the necessity for reducing the country's dependence on imported fuel. But the work of the Turf Development Board in applying and developing machinery for the winning and harvesting of turf represents what I may describe as the long-term process for the exploitation of our peat deposits. It is a process which cannot readily be adapted to meet emergency conditions, for it involves large-scale treatment of extensive bog areas, and it is a fact well known to engineers that this matter of bogs cannot be rushed. They have to be tackled systematically, the drainage system to be applied to them has to be very carefully planned and skilfully executed, and they require time to consolidate before the turf winning machines yield economic results. We are trying, under great difficulties, to expedite the processes here, but I should hesitate to say in that connection that it is yet clear that we shall succeed.

Accordingly, if we are to deal with the emergency shortage of fuel we must rely on producers of hand-won turf to make good the possible, or, I should say, the probable deficiency in imported fuel. I urge most earnestly all owners of turbary in their own interest, and in the interest of the country as a whole, to use every effort, and to take every opportunity to increase very considerably their production of hand-won turf. If they do, I have no doubt that they will be handsomely rewarded by the ready sale of their product at greatly enhanced prices. The demands for coal for war-like purposes will be such, that there will be very little to spare for ordinary industries or for domestic use in this country. The individual in this country who is then in a position to sell turf may be able to command for it, if not its weight in gold, at least the equivalent of what its weight or more than its weight would be worth if it were first-class coal. Even more markedly than during the four years of war, 1914-18, the present conflict is being waged on the high seas, a fact which has presented many delicate and difficult problems in relation to our shipping services.

I have found myself compelled to exercise certain powers under the emergency legislation to control the transfer to and from the Irish shipping register, and to control changes of ownership and the general movement of Irish registered ships. Technically, questions relating to ownership and transfer, which were formerly only of routine importance, now involve what might be called almost high questions of policy. My principal object in exercising my statutory powers has been to ensure that Irish shipping is maintained and used to the best advantage for the carriage of our imports and exports. It has to be borne in mind that in normal times besides traffic between this country and Great Britain, only a small proportion of our imports and exports from and to other countries is carried in Irish-owned and controlled vessels. Irish shipping companies do not engage in the deep sea trade, and with the exception of bulk commodities, such as grain, oil and timber, deep sea traffic comes to this country for the greater part in the form of consignments carried by liner services. In normal times this proved to be the most advantageous method of carriage, and, in any event, hard commercial facts created a position which could not in pre-war times have been altered, except at very great cost and very great risk.

In this connection Deputies, no doubt, are aware that deep-sea shipping everywhere was for many years before the war a depressed industry, and that in certain countries which had, for their own reasons, subsidised such shipping, a most intolerable burden was cast upon the public funds. So far as the present situation is concerned, I should like to emphasise that I am prepared to examine with the greatest sympathy any proposals for the expansion of Irish shipping, but I must make it clear that such proposals must emanate from sources already engaged in or familiar with the industry, and be based on the adequate provision of private capital. I may say that certain Irish shipping interests are engaged at the moment in considering the possibility of expansion, and I am in close touch with them, and will assist them in every way within my power.

I should now advert to the position of our air transport, in respect of which I can say, that after a short interruption on the outbreak of hostilities, when all air traffic between this country and Great Britain was stopped, our services have been resumed, and are being largely availed of by the public. It is expected that air prospects will receive a fillip from the war conditions which may, in the end, help towards the more rapid development of our air services than might otherwise have been expected. In anticipation of that the new Dublin Airport is on the way to completion, and has, in fact, been in use for some time past. War conditions have, however, seriously interfered with the development of experimental trans-Atlantic flights. I have to say that there now seems to be no prospect whatever that flights by any company will take place this season.

I may mention also that under the recently passed Tourist Traffic Act a tourist board has been established and, as I explained to the Dáil when introducing the Estimate, its work, in the circumstances created by the war, must be largely of a preliminary nature, preparatory to the large-scale programme which, let us all hope and pray, the circumstances in which we find ourselves at the conclusion of hostilities, will permit. The Insurance Act of 1936 has been brought into operation according to plan. Parts I, III and IV have been in operation for some time past. It is proposed to bring Parts II, V and VII into operation on the 1st July, 1940. The Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1938, which was enacted to make possible the recent amalgamation of insurance companies, has been brought into force. This amaglamation proposed the transference of life assurance business and industrial assurance business of four Irish offices and five English offices to a new company, in which the Minister for Finance holds the controlling interest. Finally, I should inform the House that the control of prices legislation, which was formerly my responsibility, has been transferred to the Department of Supplies, while the Bread (Regulation of Prices) Act, 1936, was similarly transferred in January last.

Surely the Minister retains some responsibility for the Prices Commission?

We endeavour to maintain close contact in regard to that matter.

The House was informed beforehand that the Minister's Department did.

On behalf of Deputy Hickey, I move:

That the Estimate he referred back for consideration.

I listened with very considerable interest to the speech made by the Minister, and if it were the speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in prosperous peace days, one could understand the routine and relatively indifferent view of our economic position to which the Minister treated the House. The phraseology was extremely interesting. It was eloquent and terse, but there was no appreciation of the very serious economic position that confronts the country to-day, nor did we get even a glimmer of hope that Ministers realised their responsibility to face up to that serious situation.

Not once in the course of his speech did the Minister give any intimation at all that any steps were to be taken to put tens of thousands of unemployed people into productive employment. The highlight, apparently, of the Government's industrial development, is the possibility that if people produce turf by hand, while they might not get its weight in gold, they might get its weight in the equivalent value of first-rate coal. That will be great consolation to the unemployed, that they will be asked to pay a very fancy price for coal in the form of peat, which is the only commodity they can manage to substitute for fuel. Not once do we get any advertence by the Minister to the fact that there are to-day registered at the employment exchanges, approximately, 88,000 persons, all satisfying a very severe test that they are actually unemployed. Nor do we get any advertence by the Minister to the fact that recently, under the guise of an Employment Period Order which was, in fact, a money-saving Order, 31,700 persons have been cast off the employment exchanges and left to fend for themselves in any way they could, the Government pretending to believe that these 31,700 persons could obtain employment, although they knew perfectly well there were still left on the register 87,000 persons, who were unable to get work and whom the Government would be glad to deprive of unemployment assistance if it were shown that work was available for them. When we think of the unemployment problem we have to take cognisance of these two facts—that we have 87,000 or 88,000 persons registered at the employment exchanges, and a further 31,000 inhumanly deprived of unemployment assistance, permitted to register at the exchange but denied any sustenance whatever from State funds. An aggregation of the two figures gives us an unemployment problem of about 120,000 persons. Even if that were the end of the sea of destitution that exists to-day, it would not be so utterly bad, but when we remember that there are over 80,000 persons in receipt of home assistance and thousands of others working on the notorious rotational schemes on which they get wages at the rate of 4/6 or 5/- per day for three or four days a week, and only for a few weeks in the year, we get some picture of the serious unemployment problem confronting the country—a problem to which the Minister did not once to-day make any serious advertence.

I suppose it is easy for people who keep to the main roads and who meet folk well endowed with this world's goods to become inured to the sufferings of other people and to fail to realise the deep and widespread strata of poverty that exists. Let me quote two letters from different parts of the country which will give the Minister some picture of the position. A person from my constituency writes:—

"I am writing to ask you if you can get me an increase in my home assistance. I have 7/- at present, but I am unable to exist on it. I am not able to get anything more than 7/- This is how I spend it: Rent, 1/6; an ounce of tobacco, 1/-; 1 lb. sugar, 5d.; 1/4lb. tea, 8d.; quart of oil, 4d.; matches, 1d.; 1/2lb. margarine, 4d.; turf, 1/-; two loaves, 1/-; milk, 7d."

That makes a total of 6/11 out of the 7/- home assistance which he receives. Nobody will pretend to believe that a pauperised standard of life such as is portrayed by these figures in any way accords with the high-sounding phrases of the Constitution. But how can the Government reconcile the directive principles of social policy in the Constitution with the coolie standard of life of that man?

Here is another letter which I received—a still more revealing letter. I hope some of the Donegal Deputies are present:—

"I would be thankful if you and your Party in the Dáil would do something for the people in East Donegal. It is useless making any protest to the present Government. I cannot tell you the number of people who are workless in County Donegal, but I do know there is a very large number in East Donegal. It is terrible to see the number of men and boys going to the labour exchange to sign on for 6/- a week, and some of them, indeed, are only receiving 2/- or 3/- a week. Mr. de Valera promised us at the election meeting at the Market Square, Letterkenny, that if he got elected, and had a strong Government, there would be plenty of money for the poor people. I would like to know where it is. Where is all the work promised to the people in the State able to work? Where is the work now? Where is the dole for those who cannot get work? There is none. Flour, bread, milk, tea, sugar, and other articles of food are all gone up in price, but the Government has failed to give us work or the means of buying our maintenance. Will you call on the Government now to lower the price of food or increase the unemployment assistance so that we can buy what we need at present prices? Personally I believe it would be much better to give us work. We do not want doles if we can get work so that we can earn our living. There is no work here, and no sign that the Government intend to do anything for the unfortunate poor. The writer of this letter was always a firm supporter of Fianna Fáil. I admit now that I and hundreds of others were taken in badly by that Party. We have asked them to help us out of this poverty and dirt, but they paid no heed. Let them remember that it will be too late for the Government to try to mend their hand on the election platforms. They will never get another chance from us here again."

That is a picture of a disillusioned man—a man struggling to get work and who cannot get it. He is one of the victims of the Minister's Employment (Period) Order which throws men into a market already flooded, making no provision for their maintenance. That situation would be bad enough, but as the writer of that last letter has said, the position has been rendered worse by the appallingly high prices that obtain at the present time.

We get declarations from members of the Government of their determination to set their faces against the workers receiving any compensation for the rise in prices, but no attempt is made by the same Government to prevent prices soaring rapidly. If the Government are genuinely concerned with keeping wages at present level, they might have a better superficial case to make if they could show that they were keeping prices at former levels. So long as prices are allowed to rise, and rise rapidly—and to rise, apparently, with Governmental benediction—the workers would be fools if they did not struggle by every possible means—by industrial action, if they think that necessary—to secure compensation for these increases. We had last September a very spectacular demonstration by the Minister for Supplies in pegging down prices to the level which obtained in August of last year but, since then, we have seen one commodity after another removed from the scope of the stand-still order. The commodities have been allowed to run up to such a high level in price that to many of the working classes, and to the unemployed section of the working classes in particular, they are just a luxury. If anybody wants to get a picture of the movement of prices between 1933 and 1940, or between 1939 and 1940, he can get it by reference to official statistics. These show that, in 1933, a stone of household flour cost 1/11; to-day it costs 3/-. In 1933 bread cost 4½d.; it is now 5¾d., and, in most places, 6d. Coal, which cost 2/6 per cwt. in 1933, costs 3/4 to-day, and prices have gone up since these statistics became available. Sugar, which cost 2½d. in 1933, is now being sold at a minimum of 4½d., and, in most places, at 5d. Milk, eggs, potatoes, butter, bacon, in fact every commodity used in a working-class household, has shown a very substantial increase not only between 1933 and 1940 but, according to the Government's figures, between mid-February, 1939, and mid-February, 1940.

When any one of these commodities is increased in price that puts that commodity further away from the hands of a working-class wife, further away from the stomachs of working-class children. Yet, in the face of that fact, we get declarations from the Government, a mere echo of the Banking Commission's Report, that the Government intend to set their face against any attempt by the workers to secure compensation for a rise in prices. The millers may get rich, the bacon curers may get rich, those who are going to produce turf now are to be encouraged to get rich but, so far as the ordinary consumer is concerned, when the consumer becomes a worker, the Government is going to set its face against any attempt by that section of the community to secure compensation for an increase in prices.

The rapid increase in prices has had a serious effect for the 120,000 unemployed people who are trying to live to-day, whether they get unemployment insurance benefit or unemployment assistance. When the unemployment assistance benefit was introduced in 1933 the cost of living was then substantially below the level in operation to-day, and although the cost of living has risen rapidly in the meantime the Government apparently intend to make no effort whatever to raise the scales of unemployment assistance in respect of those for whom it would seem they are completely unable to provide work. The present rate of unemployment assistance, which amounts to 14/- per week in every portion of the country which is not a town with a minimum population of 7,000, means that the unemployed who are compelled to live on that scale are being forced down to a destitution standard of existence. The maximum rate of benefit is 14/- and that is the maximum amount which will be paid to a man with a wife and five or six children, so that, if you take the family as being a man, wife and five children, you get seven people trying to live on 14/- per week or, in other words, on 2/- per day. Two shillings per day to provide a family with three meals per day for seven days in the week will enable the family to spend about four or five farthings on each meal. Fancy spending four or five farthings on each meal when eggs cost 2/8 a dozen, with coal at 3/4 per cwt., with bread at 6d. per loaf and with household flour at 3/- per stone. Yet that is the pauperised standard of life to which we condemn these people.

Mr. Morrissey

It would be less if you deduct the rent.

I was going to pass on to that. When you allow four or five farthings per meal, and if they spend that infinitesimal sum on a meal there is no money for rent, no money for clothes, no money for furniture, no money for fuel, no money for light. There is no money for school books. There is no money to provide any of those other necessaries of life that they have a right to expect in a civilised community, and a still better right to expect from a Government which told them at one stage that the enactment of the new Constitution was going to be a passport to rescue from their past misery and poverty, and a speedy transportation to comfort and prosperity.

In a situation of that kind, with 120,000 of our people involuntarily idle, compelled to exist on such a low standard of life, the Minister for Industry and Commerce comes to-day and does not make the slightest reference to their plight or hold out the slightest hope that during the coming year there is going to be any amelioration of their desperate lot. The Minister made reference in the course of his speech to the position in the building trade. Not once did we get from the Minister any indication as to the steps which were to be taken to remedy the very serious unemployment position which exists there. In answer to a Parliamentary Question which I submitted recently I got from the Minister the information that, whereas on the 2nd January, 1939, there were 7,800 building trade operatives registered as unemployed, in December of the same year the figure had risen to 10,000. The most remarkable fact about these figures is that it is not merely the builders' labourers who are losing their employment, but there is a very substantial increase in unemployment in practically every grade of craftsmen associated with the building industry. For instance, in that period, the number of additional carpenters unemployed was 500. More than twice the number of bricklayers were idle in December than in January of last year; more than twice the number of plasterers and tilers were idle; more than twice the number of plumbers and glaziers were idle, and painters and builders' labourers contributed their quota to the growth of the unemployment problem in the building trade.

These figures cannot be explained by the existence of a strike during that period at all, but yet unemployment in the building industry has gone up by over 2,000 in a period of 11 or 12 months. We have not got any indication from the Government as to what is to happen to that large number of unemployed. The position would be rendered much more serious were it not for the fact that every day in the week building trade operatives are applying to their union for facilities to go to England to engage in work there, because they see no hope that, with the present flooded unemployment situation in respect of building trade operatives, they can possibly be absorbed into employment here. The Government, and the Minister in particular, ought to tell us what are the Government's proposals for dealing with a serious situation of that kind. It was thought, of course, at one time, that the development of our new industries would provide regular employment for a very large number of persons, and that the number of persons employed would expand considerably. I welcome every development of our industrial possibilities, every expansion of our existing industrial development, but my conception of our industrial development is that, having imposed very substantial tariffs to assist industries, having introduced schemes of licences, restrictions and quotas, the Government appear to have rested there, and not to have insisted on the fullest possible exploitation of those industries in the national interest. The result is easy to see. What we are doing now is that we have started a number of industries, and we are allowing them to carry on as they have been carrying on for years, producing probably 20, 30, 40 per cent. of the country's requirements, but doing nothing whatever to expand production, to supply the entire national requirements. The community is being robbed in a most shameless manner by being compelled to pay tariffs on the portion of those commodities which is not produced here, while the native industry is not being adequately supervised or efficiently directed to produce the entire demands of the country.

Cases have come to my notice, and I am sure to the Minister's notice, where firms which have been a long time in existence, in which there is a substantial amount of State capital, are still carrying on in a manner that I do not think could satisfy the Minister of their efficient direction and extensive exploitation of existing possibilities.

Many of these industries are producing only a fraction of the national demand for the commodity in the production of which they are engaged, and there seems to be no drive whatever by the Department to insist that if the community, on the one hand, are going to give them tariffs and are going to content themselves under restrictions and quotas, they, on the other hand, must regard that as a sacrifice by the community to enable them in the shortest possible space of time to become as efficient as possible and to produce the entire national demand. I think it is an intolerable situation if we are going to allow, with perfect equanimity, to continue here a position whereby about 20, 30 or 40 per cent. of the national demand for a particular commodity is to be supplied by the home firms, while the community is salted in the payment of high tariffs on what comes in. I am all in favour of saying to a new industry: "If you get a high tariff or restrictions and quotas, you, on your part, must make a contribution towards producing the entire demand of the nation for that particular commodity", and that is probably one of the quickest ways in which the overhead costs of existing industries can be substantially reduced and a cheaper product put on the market.

The Minister made a reference to-day to the contributions received under the National Health Insurance Acts, but I should like to say to him that the quotation of figures of increased sales of stamps can be very misleading and can give a very lop-sided view of the real economic position. It is not itself a good test to say that we sold more stamps this year than last year, or in any previous year. The most effective test is the number of stamps put on a card each year in respect of each worker engaged in industry, or in service. I asked a Parliamentary Question recently to obtain information of that nature and I got information from the Department which is disturbing in its tendency. I asked a question to ascertain the average number of contributions paid annually by (a) insured men, and (b) insured women, under the National Health Insurance Acts for each of the eight years 1931-1938. I got the information that, in 1931, 38.7 stamps were paid in respect of each man insured under the National Health and Unemployment Insurance Acts.

That means that that person in that year had affixed to his card 38.7 stamps, whereas, in 1938, the figure had dropped to 35.8 stamps, showing that, in respect of each man in employment, there was less regularity of employment between 1931 and 1938 and that, consequently, employment is much more inconstant in 1938 than in 1931. These figures also show that the tendency from 1931 to 1938 in respect of men has been entirely downwards, whereas, in the case of women, they show that the tendency is to remain stationary and, at times, to increase. So far as male employment is concerned, however, there is less regular employment now than in 1931 and, in fact, there has been a constant decline in each of the years. These figures disclose a better picture than figures of the income from the sale of stamps of the constancy of employment in industry, which is as important as the extent to which persons are engaged in industry.

I had hoped that the Minister to-day would have told us something about the Government's intentions in respect of the Transport Tribunal's report, but we got nothing very illuminating on that subject from him. When his predecessor came to this House on the 7th December, 1938, he asked the House to pass a motion to enable him to establish a tribunal to inquire into transport, and the House gave the Minister the authority to establish such a tribunal. Pressed then as to when the report was likely to be received, the Minister said he hoped to have the report after the Recess in the following February, that is, February, 1939. I understand that the tribunal took a much longer time to complete its task than was apparently intended in the first instance, but we are now in May, 1940, which is a long time since February, 1939, and yet not a single member of the House has seen the report of that tribunal. We have not had any indication from the Government, although it has had the report for several months, as to what action it intends to take to implement either the whole or portion of that report.

I wish the Minister would have taken the trouble to have read the statement presented to the Railway Wages Board recently by the General Manager of the Great Southern Railways. I think he would realise from that statement that there is an urgent necessity for putting the railways into a position to meet the present unfair transport competition which they have to contend with to-day. Although the Minister has the report of the tribunal for a long time, although the position of the railways is serious, and will probably tend to become still more serious, we have no intimation by the Minister that he realises the urgency of the position sufficiently to ask the House to pass the necessary legislation to implement the report of the tribunal, which cannot have failed to appreciate that legislation is necessary to assist the railways in their present plight. The Minister might tell us what steps the Government propose to take in that connection. It is very urgent, from the standpoint of those who find employment in the railway industry and from the standpoint of the railways, which are a national asset and a nationwide undertaking, that some steps should be taken at once to make the House, the railways and the railway employees, aware of the intentions of the Government in respect of that industry.

The main consideration which arises from a study of this Vote is what the Government's policy is in respect to unemployment. We had no indication from the Minister that the Government has any plans and no indication that the Government has any real appreciation of the magnitude and seriousness of the situation. In fact, all the indications are that the Government, by its own actions, will tend to aggravate a serious unemployment position, because, looking at the Estimates for Public Services, for this year, we find that in all the Departments, which, by their activities, provide employment, especially in rural areas, there has been a substantial cutting down of the expenditure formerly available for this kind of work. The policy of the Department of Lands which we discussed for the past few days and which is crystallised in a decision not to acquire any further lands for division means a consequent contraction of improvement work and this will all tend to contribute its quota to the aggravation of a very serious unemployment problem.

Keen students of economics like the Minister ought to realise that there is no more criminal waste than to have people unemployed when there is so much work available for them to do. None can deny that there is an abundance of work to be done in this country. Our agricultural possibilities are indicated by the fact that we have to issue an order to compel people to till 12½ per cent. of their land, at a time when we could probably sell all the produce which this country could ever produce. Our industrial possibilities are relatively unscratched and the national estate to-day is in serious need of enrichment and the amenities of public life are seriously in need of augmentation. With all that work to be done, we have the spectacle of 120,000 people craving for an opportunity to work and yet denied that opportunity in a land which, if properly organised, is capable of giving each and everyone a decent standard of livelihood.

Every unemployed man and woman who contributes nothing to the pool of national productivity is sustained by the income of that pool. They can contribute nothing to the pool, but it is necessary, in the national interest, to sustain them from the produce of that pool and they can be sustained only at the price of making less available for other people who have to draw from that pool. If we had the economic good sense to organise the nation in such a manner as to provide them with regular employment, the pool would become bigger, productivity would increase and the standard of life for them and for the masses of the people would rise considerably. The Government, and especially the Taoiseach, believed at one time that that was the way to solve our unemployment problem.

The Taoiseach believed at one time that all you had to do with the unemployment problem was to apply the Fianna Fáil wand to it and that all difficulties would disappear. It is worth quoting now some of the Taoiseach's speeches, or portions of the speeches, he delivered in the House on 29th April, 1932, a couple of months after he had come into office, and to compare his high hopes, as then expressed, with the sad lack of performance to-day. Referring to unemployment, the Taoiseach said:—

"I am quite willing to admit that one of the principal things we were elected to do was to try to deal with the unemployment problem. We are quite willing to do it, and we stand or fall by our ability to do that work or not to do it."

The Taoiseach must have been picked up a number of times since, if he stood or fell by his ability to solve the unemployment problem, because we had about 90,000 people registered at employment exchanges at that time, and we now have a very substantial human interest on that investment in idleness in that we have 120,000 unemployed people registered or deprived of registration to-day. The Taoiseach went on:—

"I want to repeat what I said outside. I said that, looking around the world and trying to understand what were the causes of unemployment in different countries, I came to the conclusion that there was less reason for unemployment in this country than in any country of which I know."

We had then 90,000 unemployed, and now we have 120,000, although the Taoiseach did not know in 1932 why we had 90,000. He stood aghast at the fact that we had 90,000 unemployed, and he has less remedy now for the 120,000 unemployed than he had for the smaller problem eight years ago. The Taoiseach then went on to examine the country's resources and said:—

"Let us look around at the circumstances in this country. What do we see? We see a country capable of producing food for far more people than are in the country. We see resources of various kinds, all the resources necessary to provide for the material needs of the human beings in this country; we see the hands that could be put to these resources for the purpose of working them up and making them available for the material comforts of our people; we see that those resources which could be so readily utilised have not received any attention."

All these factors are present to-day as much as they were eight years ago, but, having diagnosed the economic complaint in 1932, the Taoiseach did nothing whatever to apply a remedy. Referring to the wealth of the country, he said:

"I say that we are a solvent community. We have a potential capacity to produce wealth. We have the capacity to meet all our needs. All we want is to begin properly."

If eight years is not sufficient time to prepare for a beginning, I do not know what is, because there has been no attempt to begin since then, and no apparent indication that the Government intends to do it now. Referring, then, to the possibility that he might not be able to do it within the existing system, he said:

"It may be that under the present system we cannot do the full work we would like to do, but we are going to try. I am going to say this, that if I try within the system as it stands and fail, then I will try to go outside the system, and I will go to the country and ask them to support me to go outside the system."

That was eight years ago. The Taoiseach is still going outside the system, in theory, at all events, but, in practice, he is still within the system, and a greater victim of the system than he dreamt he ever would be in his life. Then, we had a reference to burdens and the Taoiseach told us:

"Our purpose as a Government is to see that these burdens rest heaviest on the shoulders of people who are best able to bear them."

The highlight of the speech was in the end when he referred to hair shirts. He said:

"Members on the opposite benches said that I went into the hair shirt policy. My answer was that theirs was the silk shirt policy for some and the hair shirt policy for others. If there are to be hair shirts at all it will be hair shirts all round."

However much the unemployed man may have to content himself with a hair shirt or a porcupine shirt, there is one thing certain, and it is that the millers and bacon curers of this country have not hair shirts, but silk shirts on them, and expensive silk shirts, provided for them by those who cannot buy hair shirts and provided for them with the full approbation of the Government.

The Minister for Supplies recently thought that he would contribute something to the discussion of the unemployment problem. He went to a meeting at the Red Bank Restaurant in Dublin and he delivered himself, according to the Irish Press, of this speech:—

"It was necessary to stress the urgency of the problems arising out of unemployment. If it persisted, their economic system could not survive. If unemployment persisted, it did not deserve to survive. There were obviously major defects in their methods of commercial organisation and their financial system, if they were unable to provide an adequate livelihood for every man willing to work. If, within the limits of the present system, they could not cope with unemployment, then the system should be changed."

The Minister for Industry and Commerce is responsible for our unemployment and economic problems. He ought to be able to tell us when the change is likely to take place which was foreshadowed by the Taoiseach and foreshadowed again a few months ago by his colleague, the Minister for Supplies. Will the Minister tell us to-day what steps he has taken to make the change, what steps he has taken in the manner indicated by the Taoiseach and by the Minister for Supplies, when the change is going to take place, and what is going to be its outcome, whether it will be for better or for worse, and when it can be expected? These are questions which obviously need to be answered, if speeches of the kind made by the Minister for Supplies are not made for the purpose of deceiving a credulous audience.

I see no aspect of Government policy to-day calculated to make any impression whatever on our serious unemployment position. If the Government has one policy it is the policy of Micawber—waiting in a tired and indifferent manner "for something to turn up," having no plan of its own, no proposals of its own, no scheme of its own to make any serious contribution to the unemployment problem. Recently, we had passed through this House a Bill dealing with town planning. It would be much better if the time had been spent in dealing with national planning. Our towns could be left alone; they could have been planned afterwards, when the people had been rescued from the slums and from the destitution which they are enduring in the towns and cities.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister even now. Whole countries in Europe are uprooting their whole economy, uprooting their whole financial system, all for the insane purpose of war. Is it not possible for us, in our circumstances, with a problem within our shores as serious as war— the ruin and demoralisation of tens of thousands of our people through continued idleness—to uproot our existing economy in the interests of peace and prosperity? Even now—now more than ever—it is necessary to think nationally, and I would urge on the Minister that he has goodwill in this House and outside it for a serious effort to plan our national requirements and to work on a co-ordinated scheme for the elimination, as far as is possible to do it, of unemployment and the misery and destitution which inevitably follow in its wake. It seems to me that considerable progress might be made on those lines with goodwill, and progress must be made unless we are going to witness a continuance and an aggravation of a very serious situation which, if it gets worse, may well cut deeper into our national independence than it happens to be cutting to-day.

I do not wish to see a serious aggravation of our unemployment problem, and to see our unemployed people compelled by sheer poverty and starvation to come out in the streets and demonstrate in a manner calculated to create disorder throughout the country. I would say to the Government that it would be much wiser for them at this stage to realise the drift of our economic life, and to take steps at this stage to make a plan to meet the developments which I fear will arise unless a serious effort is made to grapple with the existing circumstances.

The Government might well establish some kind of economic council—a thing which the Taoiseach used to believe in at one time—to survey the country's requirements, to ascertain its needs, to mobilise its manhood and use the undoubted credit-creating possibilities of the State to finance schemes of national endeavour and create permanent national assets for the country. Of course, I know that—being new— advocacy of a line of policy such as that will probably beget all the hostility of conservative minds throughout the country, and of all those who have not yet felt the pangs of hunger and of destitution. If, however, hunger were an infectious disease instead of being a mere impersonal economic malady, many of those now sitting quietly by, while tens of thousands of our own people suffer the pangs of hunger, would be compelled to take much more energetic action than they are taking to-day.

I would say to the Minister, who has indicated the grave national consequences which are likely to ensue from the present international events that I share his view, to a considerable extent, but I think that he is making a grave mistake when he is not drawing from those great international happenings of to-day a remedy—or an attempted remedy—for many of the problems at present with us and which will be aggravated by a continuance of these international complications. I would plead with the Minister to think along those lines, as it seems to me that there is hope along those lines. By pursuing the present policy we will still have all the unemployment we have at present—and probably more—and probably a greater measure of poverty and destitution that we have to-day.

Mr. Fred Crowley rose.

Is the resolution by the Labour Party being seconded?

I will second it now and reserve what I have to say until later on. I think that Deputy Norton has covered a great deal of ground and I wish to give a chance to other people to put in their points of view.

I wished to speak after Deputy Norton, if I thought the Labour Party were not seconding the motion. Would that make any difference to Deputy Crowley?

I never heard a more disappointing presentation than that to which we have listened to-day. The Minister appeared to me to be like an old village character sitting down alongside the fire smoking some of the cut plug that is to be cheaper now, and giving an odd great puff suggestive of immense satisfaction but meaning nothing in the world. He rather suggested to the House that he was going to give an outline of the Government's plan, in so far as industry and commerce were part of a plan to assist us in the present situation. The only plan which managed to manifest itself in the Minister's words was that there was the closest possible co-operation with the Department of Supplies. That was the first puff. The next puff of satisfaction was that the 1939 Census of Production figures showed an increased production. "It is true," he says, "that they are not all available, but, at any rate, due to the fact that there were more than normal orders placed with people, due to the war situation in the end of the year, we may take it that industrial production was increased."

The facts, however, are—and he goes back to them later on—that we have the Minister for Industry and Commerce last year saying that last year —that is, 1938—was the first year for a number of years for which the increase in industrial employment was not recorded. We have the figures for the Unemployment Insurance Fund for 1939—that is, the following year— showing a fall in the number of people contributing. Yet, we get the second puff of satisfaction, that industrial production was increased last year. There is nothing in it but a puff.

The next puff is that supplies may be worse, but that we can develop our substitutes; and the principal substitutes are those for timber and coal. The next is that the trend of employment was up in the first and second quarters of last year and it was the war which hit it in the end. In so far as we have anything showing us the trend of employment in the country in actual figures, it is the obverse side. The only evidence we have of the condition of employment in the country is that during every single month of last year there were more people paid unemployment assistance, and more people were regarded as unemployed, than in the year 1938. If we take the City of Dublin, those paid unemployment assistance in the city, in January, 1939, were 2,384 more than in the previous year. The figures I am quoting now are for each of the months of 1939 and represent the increased number of persons in Dublin in receipt of unemployment assistance, over the year 1938. In February there were 2,691 more; in March, 2,573; in April, 3,000; in May, 3,073; in June, 2,855; in July, 2,804; in August, 2,498; in September, 2,029; in October, 2,308, and in November, 2,303. There is a double figure for December which cannot be worked out but, at any rate, it represents an increase which may be 1,500 or 2,500. In so far as the number of people living on unemployment assistance in the country is an indication of the position of employment in industrial and commercial life, the facts we have before us suggest that this is just another puff of nebulous satisfaction. We do not know what it may be founded on or what the necessity is for puffing it out in the particular point made by the Minister.

Notwithstanding all that might be dealt with in speaking to the Dáil at the present time, the Minister passes on to speak of strikes. All I want to say in regard to the strike situation is this. The Minister has seen enough of the strike situation, and of the spirit actuating the people of the country to know what the people in the country require, whether they be workers, representatives of workers, employers, or people with capital in the country. He knows sufficient to be aware that there is no section of the people of the country which is not waiting for the Government to take the initiative in creating an atmosphere that will enable all sections to sit down to formulate plans and come to practical conclusions that will stabilise things, and bring us industrial peace, or provide us with machinery for bringing about that state of affairs.

Would the Deputy obtain assent for that proposition from the Labour Benches?

Would the Minister just wait until I put forward the suggestion I have to make to him? References such as were made by the Minister to-day are references calculated rather to prevent his acting as the person with the power of initiative in his hands, or as a person equipped with an office and a personality to bring them together, a person apart from whom they can hardly find any other to bring them together. So far from helping them, he is making it more difficult for them.

As another contribution towards the solution of this problem he suggests that there are surging costs, surging profits and surging wages. What in the name of goodness does that mean? That is another of the puffs. It is nothing more than a puff of smoke, smoke that is not very clean or fragrant, because I do not see what good it can do, while it might conceivably do harm. If there are surging costs, surging profits, or surging wages, they must be connected with some industry, or some two or three industries.

There again, in circumstances in which the Minister realises that every day that passes tends to create difficulties for manufacturers, instead of creating difficulties, as the Minister really is doing, he should be sitting down, in the favourable position which he occupies, to discuss with manufacturers, importers and workers' representatives the cause of the excessive costs that he suggests exist, not in a spirit of waving the big stick and getting other people to do their work properly but in the spirit of coming amongst them to help them to endeavour to remove some of the difficulties which contribute to these rising costs. If there are excessive profits these can be much more easily and satisfactorily discussed inside the Minister's Department in the present difficult circumstances than anywhere else.

The Minister did indicate last year that there was considerable expansion in respect of certain industries as a result of their being able to get persons with a high degree of skill and he hoped that the plans then in existence would materialise during the year. We now find that all these plans have gone by the board, that the alien specialists may not be available—I do not know why—and that plant and raw material will not be available for these industries, so that our prospects of contributing in that way to improve the unemployment situation are somewhat remote or have disappeared. What are we driven to? "For our further industrial progress in the immediate future," the Minister says, "we must turn our thoughts to such mineral deposits as we possess"—with the suggestion afterwards that these are not at all varied or as rich as some ancient Fianna Fáil literature might suggest. In turning to them, he said the principal thing we have to think of is coal, that our most urgent need is fuel, that, thanks be to goodness and the great foresight of his predecessor in office who in certain years spent more than £500,000 on turf development, we can have some substitute for imported fuel. That substitute will not, however, come from the direction in which the £500,000 pounds was spent but from those people whose work has been cut down since the Government began to tamper with the turf industry, that is, those who win turf by hand. That is, as I say, the performance which the Minister has given the House at a time when everything that could possibly be said or done to keep the House informed as to what is the real position of our industrial life should be put before the House by the Minister.

Last year we were told by the then Minister that the position in regard to unemployment in the country was realised. In column 24 of the Debates of the 28th March, 1939, I quoted a statement in which the Minister said:—

"Notwithstanding the increased industrialism in recent years, the population continues to decline, and with 100,000 persons on the live register we have a grave problem of unemployment, which are indications of the magnitude of the task which still confronts the Irish Government in its efforts to save the race."

That was in the early part of 1939. If we had an unemployment problem then, surely we have an unemployment problem now. For every month in last year there were more people registered as unemployed and more people receiving unemployment assistance than the year before. Certainly in the early part of this year the figures were the same. In January, February and March, 1940, the figures were higher than for the same months in 1939. We are not without a subsequent review of the situation by members of the Government since then. The Minister for Supplies, when he was down in Cork in February last, addressed himself to the question of economic policy during the war. If there is any Estimate on which it is desirable to discuss the economic policy during the war it surely is the Estimate for the Department of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. What disappoints one is that, while from the Minister's opening sentences we had expectations that we were going to have a review of the situation in a frank and open way, the Minister ran away from it. I was particularly anxious to hear the Minister, because the Minister for Supplies, speaking in Cork, seemed to run away from the position in the same way, although he emphasised in a much more definite way that there were possibilities before this country, even during a war, for industrial expansion. He reflected on the fact that economic planning during a war was "a hazardous business," and that there was always a certain amount of uncertainty which would deter business people. He went on to say:—

"We can do something to lessen the uncertainty by careful planning, by conserving and developing internal resources.... It has already produced a certain inertia amongst the business community."

He referred to the fact that a war was on—it had been on for six months at the time—and said:

"Now, however, it is becoming clearer that despite the difficulties caused by the war, we can do more than hold the ground we have won. The war has created genuine opportunities of improving our position if we have the wisdom to avail of them. The point I want particularly to stress is that this is a period of opportunity. If we are to take full advantage of it, however, there must be general recognition of the fact, a general desire amongst all classes to co-operate in making the best of it, a general realisation that the policy of ‘every man for himself'...."

In February last, after six months of war, the Minister for Supplies, in addressing business men in Cork, said that it was a period of opportunity, that there should be a general recognition of that fact, that there should be a general desire to co-operate, and that if it was a question of every man for himself, then difficulties would be created that would bring about subsequent disorder and distress in the country. Going on to speak, he said:

"Undoubtedly, it is the duty of a Government to propound policies, to co-ordinate national effort, to encourage desirable enterprise, and to restrict activities which may be against the general interests."

That is to say, that in this period of opportunity the Government had a responsibility to propound policies and to co-ordinate national effort. He went on:

"A national plan in the fullest sense means a programme of action which all sections of people understand and approve, and to the fulfilment of which they consciously co-operate. It is my hope, here this evening, to contribute to the understanding of what our national plan must be in present conditions."

The immediate objective of a plan, he pointed out, must be to deal with the unemployment situation. The Minister for Supplies, after saying what a period of opportunity this was, after admitting Government responsibility, and after admitting that a plan was necessary and that the people must understand it, so that they would be able to co-operate, slithered off into the same kind of road that the Minister for Industry and Commerce slithered into to-day, namely, that it is for individual industrialists and for private business enterprise to seek out the possibilities and the opportunities which the situation affords. The Government cannot do it, and the only suggestion of any difficulty that lies in the way of business people taking advantage of those opportunities is the size of industrial costs, the possibility of increased wages and the difficulty of strikes.

The Deputy is now dealing with the Minister for Supplies.

I am dealing with the speech which the Minister for Supplies made in Cork. The speech is reported in the Cork Examiner in its issue of the 20th February of the present year. The Minister, in the course of that speech, said that this was a great opportunity: that not only could we hold the industrial position to which we had advanced, but that we had golden opportunities, even for developing our export trade, but that all that would require a plan which the people must know, so that they may be able to co-operate generally. Otherwise, as he pointed out, it might be a case of every man for himself, and that, he said, would only create confusion.

There is a separate Estimate for the Department of the Minister for Supplies.

I suggest to the Chair that if there is any point to be made about that, the Minister for Industry should make it. There was an occasion when the question of the Prices Commission arose. I think it was Deputy Dockrell who wanted to discuss the Prices Commission—I think you, Sir, were in the Chair—and there was this difficulty, that the Prices Commission had one leg in the Department of Supplies and another in the Department of Industry and Commerce. Deputy Dockrell was not allowed to discuss this matter in relation to supplies. It was suggested that he would have an opportunity under this Vote. But I would point out that before you entered the Chair, Sir, the Minister was trying to avoid hearing the point made by Deputy Dockrell.

I am not responsible for the conduct of the House. I want to give the Deputy an assurance, however, that I will not raise any point of order on this matter.

I want to say this, that after an experience of six months of war, all that the Minister can tell us is that he is in close collaboration with the Minister for Supplies. That is all he has to tell us. He dealt with the subject matter as to what might be discussed at this time—that is the industrial policy and the potentialities of increased employment in the country. Two months ago the Minister said this was a very great opportunity, and that industrial development was necessary in order to provide for the unemployment situation here, which, as he said, was very serious last year, and which this year is still more so. But the Minister ran away from putting up any plan. It is the duty of the Government to propose a policy. I suggest that it is their duty, at any rate, to prepare the ground so that industrialists of all kinds and workers might have some idea as to what they are called on to do, to co-operate, to produce and to work. If the Government have that responsibility, they utterly neglected it. The Minister for Supplies felt he had that responsibility in February last, but he appears to have neglected it since, for we heard nothing from him in the meantime. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is now the person responsible for dealing with the matter, and telling the House what the result of the expenditure of this money is going to be. He is responsible for discussing with the members of the House what Government outlook and industrial policy at the moment are.

The Government are making no attempt to face up to the things that the Minister for Supplies faced up to last February, but from which he has ridden off to-day. He suggested that the employment was very rosy in 1939 until after the outbreak of the war. The Minister suggested that industry in the country must avoid surging costs, surging profits and surging wages, that that is to be the industrial policy and that people must come together and solve the possibility of having industrial disputes. If the Government are not prepared to look around them and see what is happening in the country so far as unemployment itself is concerned—see the difficulty under which industrialists are labouring—they ought to get out. The Dáil at the present moment is supposed to be the place where policies have to be discussed and propounded so that they may be understood. The Ministry is simply a screen coming between the Dáil and the facts and any intelligent discussion of their policies.

I want to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce what he expects the ordinary basic industries of this country are going to be able to do this year to increase the employment that will be available? The Minister mentioned the question of coal. Is he aware that in the first place there is a very great difficulty in getting coal just now and that in addition we are paying unnecessarily high prices for the coal we get? All the coal that is coming into the country at present is coming in from the east coast of England, so it is that coal costs an abnormally high figure. In the present circumstances the railway fare from the east coast of England to ports on the west coast is added to the price of the coal. What discussions have been carried on with the British Government or with the British coal owners with regard to the price of the coal that is going to be available here in the coming months? Is there going to be any improvement in the coal supplies?

Surely that is a question for the Minister for Supplies.

Does the Minister for Industry and Commerce want to slither away under the shelter of the Minister for Supplies when he is asked a question about things that are of real account in the carrying on of the industries in this country?

I will answer the Deputy later.

I will be glad to hear the Minister answer me as well as he can; I want to tell him that there are industrialists who are threatened with the stoppage of their industries by reason of the fact that their coal supplies are running out. I want to ask him, further, what is being done to see that better supplies of coal are made available here and whether anything can be done to see that the price of coal is reduced. The price of coal is twice what it was pre-war. If the Minister is anxious about surging costs I would like to know whether anything has been done or can be done to reduce the cost of coal to the people who are using coal here for industrial purposes? In the next place, I want to know whether any consideration has been given to the need for conserving coal supplies here for industrial purposes so that the coal that is available can be used for industrial purposes in circumstances where nothing else but coal could be used.

That is definitely a matter for the Department of Supplies.

I submit, Sir, there are industries in this country that are going to be shut down because coal cannot be got. The Department of Defence has immense supplies of coal. Coal is being used for domestic purposes where it could be supplemented or substituted by turf. Can the Minister help the House to an intelligent discussion as to whether anything can be done by the way of using substitutes for coal? I submit if anyone should be in a position to deal with that it is the Minister who is responsible for the carrying on of the industrial enterprises that we have.

The Minister spoke to us about turf. In 1936 turf was one of the very bright ideas of the Fianna Fáil Government. If anybody looks at the volume of laws printed that year he will see the law book was swelled with bright ideas, and one of these was the Turf Act. But like the Labourers Cottages Act, nothing at all has been heard since about the Turf Act. It was contemplated that arrangements would be made under that measure by which the use of coal in certain areas would be prohibited. I wish to know if out of the sky-end of the blue about November next a Ministerial Order will come to restrict in some cases, and in other cases to prohibit, the use of coal and to make compulsory the use of turf instead in certain areas in the country?

I am raising the point now because unless the Minister can tell us what is happening with regard to improving coal supplies we may find ourselves in the position that the consumption of coal may be reduced for domestic purposes and in some cases stopped altogether. Now is the time to raise these questions and to discuss them. Now is the time for the Minister to tell the country that the emergency can only be solved by the use of ordinary hand-won turf. There is now a chance of making provisions for substituting hand-won turf.

The Minister should now give the country some idea as to the future possibilities of getting coal supplies. Is the Government going to restrict the use of coal in the country for domestic uses in some areas and in other areas prohibit it altogether so as to conserve its use for industries for which only coal will be the effective fuel? Is he going to see about that so that industries are not to be completely stopped in the country? The Minister has left completely undiscussed the problems of some of the main industries in the country.

There are many industries in the country in grave difficulty because of the problem of securing raw materials. All we know from the Minister for Industry and Commerce is that he is in close touch with the Department of Supplies about it. Surely there are aspects of the raw material situation which bear on the employment situation here and which are to be discussed here. No industrial people for many reasons like to have the details of their industrial life discussed in public. They do not want the details of their business to be discussed because that would create a certain amount of want of credit. In the second place they do not want their industrial matters discussed politically because the position of the Government is so closely connected with industry at the present time that they are not sure that the Government will not feel that any criticism of their activities is a criticism of the Government.

There has in fact, however, been very serious delay both on the part of the Department of Industry and Commerce and on the Department of Supplies in facing up to the question of supplies of some of the raw materials. A certain amount of hope was raised in people's minds when they saw the Minister for Supplies and the Minister for Agriculture going to London recently, and it is a peculiar thing that, in this discussion here, nothing has been said as to why they have not gone back. That, of course, may be because of the changes in the British Government. Naturally, there are many things that would require to be discussed here if we knew what was the result of their conversations, but it is not so easy to discuss these matters now when the detail of supplies, apparently, is under discussion between our Ministers and the British Ministers. We would have been very glad to have seen these discussions taking place a long time ago, and we consider that the fact that the discussions are now taking place after such a long delay is, possibly, handicapping our industries at the present time and may continue to handicap them in the future. We do not want to say anything that might, perhaps, be embarrassing, until we see what are the results of the interchanges between the Ministers of the two countries.

Last year, however, the serious position with regard to unemployment was discussed pretty generally, and I particularly raised the question of the unemployment situation in the City of Dublin and the fact that, year after year for some years past now, young people are leaving school to the extent of, say, 5,000 boys a year, in the city area, without any prospect of getting into employment of any kind. I raised the question as to whether an inquiry should not be held into the whole of that position, with a view to having the facts in regard to it elicited and some kind of plan considered that would link the industrial or commercial situation here directly up with that problem. Nothing at all has been done, however, and the situation still continues unimproved. I think also that the scheme of employment offices, as directed towards linking up people with employment, has definitely collapsed and that the work of dealing with unemployment assistance payments that is now being dealt with in these offices has simply turned these employment offices throughout the country into purely relief machinery —machinery for paying out unemployment assistance or for passing men through to relief work, and that it is completely divorced from the ordinary industrial and commercial life of the country. I think that that is a very great tragedy, and it seems that it is being left there without any examination or review of any kind.

When we consider the number of unemployed that there are in the country, and when we consider the youth position in the country, the whole attitude of the Minister, in the presentation of this Estimate, is not only disappointing, but alarming. It is alarming that, after a number of months of war and after a year's preparation for that war by the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Minister should come to the House now and have nothing more to say to the House than he says now. It gives me the feeling that the Department of Industry and Commerce has been simply dazed by the present situation. We criticised the previous Minister at the time of the outbreak of war. He had a committee preparing for the war for 12 months, but apparently the only achievement of that committee was in connection with the laying in of a supply of flour. He put a fine on flour users of the country of about £153,000 a year, in order to pay the millers for laying in a supply of flour. No plans were made to put in a four months' supply of sugar in order to bridge over the gap in the current year, and therefore leave us without the necessity of importing any sugar until the end of 1941. That involved a cost to the country of about £1,250,000. Nothing was done to change the policy with regard to the quota on fertilisers. During the months that the war has been in progress, huge sums were levied on the farmers in the form of higher prices for the manures that were brought in simply because the quota arrangement was not taken off.

In the matter of preparation for the war the Government, through the Department of Industry and Commerce, have failed entirely, and the Minister's presentation of what he thinks about his Department and his Estimate simply drives it deep into my mind that he and his Department are going to fail completely to face up to the present situation, that he is not doing anything, nor is the Minister for Supplies helping him to do anything, to see what are the opportunities that the war situation is going to afford this country for industrial development, and that he is not going to secure that the industrial position we have here will be maintained and that, as a result of that, with all the various dangers and troubles that the present position will bring about for many people, the unemployment situation is going to be allowed to grow bigger and bigger. Again, following the old vicious circle, to which I referred in the debate on the Budget, the Government, in calling for more money from an impoverished industry for the purpose of dealing with unemployment, is only going to make the situation worse.

I think that some attempt should be made to review the situation in the House, even if it were to mean postponing the discussion of this Estimate for a week or two more so as to enable the House to get some idea of what the Minister sees in the present situation, what he has done, and what he thinks is to be done to enable us to guard against the dangers that are ahead. The Minister has given us no idea at all about this matter. He reminded me, in his statement, of an old man sitting in the corner smoking and puffing out a few puffs that are only just smoke. He gave us no idea of what position industry would occupy within the next few months, how industry is to be helped to bear the taxation that has been imposed, or how employment is to be given to so many people who are unemployed at the moment.

I wish to touch on a few aspects of the debate, and I am glad that Deputy Mulcahy has raised one of them, and that is with regard to the serious shortage of fuel and the possibility of replacing coal with turf. I shall give some figures to the House which are rather interesting at the moment. At present over £5,000,000 are paid for household coal in this country, for which the consumer pays, on an average, 71/- per ton. I appreciate the fact that it is less in Dublin, but taking the price in the western and midland towns, it works out that we are paying £5,000,000 for 1,500,000 tons of household coal. Within the last fortnight or three weeks the price of coal here has increased by 3/6 to 4/- per ton, and I think it is safe to say that, if we can get the coal at all in September and November next, we will be paying £6,000,000 for that 1,500,000 tons of coal. I am not touching for the moment on the coal necessary for steam-raising, or gas, or the other matters for which anthracite is used. But £2,000,000 per year is paid for that coal at present. I am vitally concerned with the £6,000,000 figure for household coal.

I really thought the Government were going to avail of this opportunity to press for turf development, and that the Minister to-day would make a definite statement that they were going as far as possible to replace household coal by hand-made turf. The calorific value of ordinary turf as compared with coal works out that the average coal gives you 12,000 British thermal units, as against 7,000 for reasonably good turf. In other words, less than two tons of turf are equal to one ton of household coal. The average production of turf in this country, as computed by the Turf Development Board, has been about 3,000,000 tons per year. In order to replace 1½ million tons of coal you would need an additional 3,000,000 tons of turf. Let us see what will happen if the Minister says now that he will go in for turf production and produce sufficient turf to replace coal and not allow any imports of coal in September or November.

I am satisfied that 3,000,000 extra tons of turf will meet the demand. The position will be that if we allow for hand-made turf the same price based on calorific values as we are allowing for coal—that is to say, if instead of £4 per ton for coal, a price which coal will reach in September, we allow £2 for turf—we get £3,000,000 expended in distribution, storage, carriage and profits to the merchants, and another £3,000,000 to be distributed in wages amongst the actual producers on the bog side.

I want to point out that any money paid on the bog side for hand-made turf represents 100 per cent. wages. You have no machinery to deal with; you have no animals to deal with; you just simply use a spade with a wing. The distribution of that £3,000,000 would give £60,000 per week for 50 working weeks, or £2 per person per week to 30,000 people for 50 weeks. If you reduce the wages to £1 10s. per week, it will give employment to 40,000 people for 50 weeks. I do not think that that is a dream; I think it is quite a possibility. As a matter of fact, when the Government started the turf scheme in 1932, I went around and urged people to go ahead with that scheme. It so happens that the rural areas in which most unemployment prevails coincide with the turbary areas. I am not trying to exaggerate the unemployment in the country; in the circumstances it is not so bad. But I certainly say without any hesitation that there are 30,000 unemployed or partially unemployed in the bog areas alone. I put it to the Minister seriously that he should make a pronouncement as to what his intention is regarding turf production, particularly in view of the fact that the turf-cutting season is at hand. Surely, we do not want the people placed in the position in which they were in 1933, when they were encouraged to cut turf which, owing to the whim or humour of some person, was allowed to remain on their hands. That is one side of the question.

The other side of the question which I wish to emphasise is that a very eminent professor has been experimenting in this country for the last five years on the extraction of wax from peat. I have not had any information directly from him, but I supplied turf from Kerry for the experiments, and from what I gather the experiments have been successful. If that wax extraction happens to be successful, it will mean that the wax we get from the Continent for boot polish, floor polish and other polishes can be eliminated. It will mean the establishment in this country of a factory for extracting wax from peat. Apart from that, there is a high percentage of cresols got from peat, and carbolic acid, which is got from cresols, is used for disinfectants and sheep dip.

We started out very well with peat development about 1932, but I am satisfied that it never got a fair trial. We should have expended quite a large sum of money on peat development, apart from machine-made turf. In addition to the experiments carried out in the extraction of wax, we should have carried out experiments in the extraction of cresols, and as to the possibility of using producer gas as a motive power for driving our lorries. There has been a producer plant made in this country worked by a Diesel engine and it has given satisfaction. It is not a very elaborate plant and it is worked from gas extracted from turf. I suggest to the Government that they should concentrate more on turf production. I do not think it is any use expecting the people in the turbary areas to produce turf except the Government do what has been done for the beet growers, the wheat growers, and the butter producers, and that is to give some form of protection, as was mentioned by Deputy Mulcahy.

I do not know what protection I asked for. I asked for information for them.

Mr. Crowley

I am suggesting protection in the form that the imports of coal should be limited; that a guarantee should be given that, if a reasonable amount of turf is available next November, coal imports should be restricted, so that the turf would not be left on the hands of the producers.

I hope the Minister understands that I made no such suggestion.

Mr. Crowley

I am sorry that I interpreted the Deputy wrongly. Coming back to the £2,000,000 paid yearly for steam and gas coal and anthracite, I say that if experiments had been carried out for producing a suitable type of fire box and boiler it might have been possible to replace the steam coal coming into the country.

Another matter on which I wish to touch is the woollen industry and I make an earnest appeal to the Minister for the extension of that industry. The output of wool in this country works out at about 13,500,000 lbs. per year. Of that, we are only using 2,500,000 lbs. in our own factories. In 1927, we imported 7,000,000 square yards of woollen and worsted cloth; in 1938, we imported 10,000,000 square yards. At the same time, the production in our woollen mills was only 4,000,000 square yards of woollen and worsted cloth. There is plenty of room therefore for extension of our woollen industry.

I should like the Minister to do everything possible to prevent the inroad of artificial silk and artificial wool in our woollen industry, the imports of which are gradually pushing woollen goods off the market in this country. In Germany, a sum of £8,000,000 has been expended to produce synthetic or artificial fibre with all the appearance of wool. The standard selected by the Germans is that the nearer the synthetic fibre approaches the characteristics of wool the better the fibre is. Yet in this country, where we produce 13,000,000 lbs. of wool, we are only using 2,500,000 lbs. in our own factories and getting away from woollen cloths. There is something radically wrong there when on top of that we are importing 10,000,000 sq. yards and only manufacturing 4,000,000 sq. yards.

I appeal to the Minister for an extension of the woollen industry. I agree that there is no use in making an appeal for that industry without putting forward some suggestions as to how it is to be done. The quota system is not water-tight. I hold that the wholesale clothing factories have no right to dictate to the Government what the policy of the woollen manufacturers should be. They have gone a long way to do that. I am not saying that they did that within the last six or eight months, but over a period of two or three years they definitely had the ear of the Department to an extent that was not wise. The wholesale clothiers should be compelled, if they want to import cloth to satisfy the Minister that they cannot get the same quality here or a suitable substitute. Every protection has been given to wheat growers and to beet growers and to other branches of industry. Ample protection has also been given to factories that were started here; the wholesale clothiers got 60 per cent. protection, while the duty on the woollen industry has wavered from 20 per cent. in 1929 to 30 per cent. in 1937 and 15 per cent. in 1938. At no time when a crisis arose in the woollen industry were any of the woollen manufacturers called in to consultation. It is the height of absurdity to make rules and regulations for an industry and not to consult the heads of that industry. In England no regulation or rule that vitally concerns the industry is made without the heads being called into consultation.

I also suggest that, as far as possible, manufacturers should know where they stand for, at least, 12 months ahead, that tariffs should be stationary for 12 months, and that wholesale clothiers should be compelled, before they import a yard of cloth to prove that they cannot get similar cloth in this country, or a suitable substitute. I suggest that the Minister should closely examine the question of £6,000,000 being paid for imported textiles. In that figure of £6,000,000 for artificial silk and other synthetic fibres the Minister will find that inroads are being made into the woollen industry which should not be allowed. I emphasise the fact that while the Austrian Government spent about £3,000,000 and the German Government about £8,000,000 trying to produce fibre like wool, here we seem to be getting away from the woollen fibre and falling back on artificial wool and other fibres— there is something wrong here.

I wish now to touch on the question of transport. I find that we are paying over £3,000,000 annually for lorries, motor cars, motor spirit, and lubricating oils for same. From the year 1911 to 1938 the working horse population fell by 44,000. It may be that during the present war the position may right itself, and that the horse will regain the place he should occupy. It does seem extraordinary that in Ireland, which is the premier horse country, the horse should be pushed off the road by foreign motor cars and lorries, and by the use of imported petrol for motor transport. I realise the radical change that would be created if we should suddenly replace motor cars and lorries by horses—horses should be utilised to a greater extent in this country. Every horse that is put back on the roads means that a man must be employed to look after him. That would mean extra employment. I am certainly in favour of the establishment of an Economic Council in view of the fact that we expect to pay £6,000,000 in September next for household coal, and £2,000,000 for steam-raising coal, and coal for gas-producing purposes, and we are still importing 10,000,000 square yards of woollen cloth against 4,000,000 manufactured in this country. We also are paying £3,000,000 for imported motor cars and petrol and lubricating oils. For textiles alone we are paying £6,000,000 annually. Only an Economic Council could examine that expenditure and find out how best to deal with it. I make an earnest appeal to the Minister for the establishment of an Economic Council, and if it should be formed I would suggest that the major portion of the members should be captains of industry.

I wish to protest against the increasing practice of depriving unemployed men of unemployment assistance on the ground that they are not genuinely seeking work. God knows, the amount they receive in the way of unemployment assistance barely keeps them from starving. How are they to prove that they have been genuinely seeking work? No employer is going to give a letter to every man who queues up stating that he has been with him seeking work. As the extent of unemployment is increasing, it must be obvious that many of these men must have given up hope of finding work. Is it expected that they are to keep going around every day looking for work while they are half-hungry? Questions have been asked in the House from time to time regarding the rates of benefit paid.

It would require legislation to alter that position.

Mr. Byrne

Am I debarred from referring to it now?

On Estimates legislation is not advocated. Deputies may discuss the administration of the Acts, but not their merits, or new legislation.

Mr. Byrne

In that case I now move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again on Tuesday.
The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until Tuesday, May 21st, at 3 p.m.
Top
Share