Having dealt with most of the points raised by various speakers last night, I do not intend to detain the House very long. There are just one or two matters to which I wish to draw attention. Several speakers on Opposition benches have directed attention to what they described as the reduction in the Estimate year by year. I would like to emphasise that the amount of money being expended in the Gaeltacht is not being reduced. The gross expenditure—that is, the actual money being expended in the Gaeltacht—has been increased from year to year, as the following figures will prove. In 1937-38 the gross expenditure was £126,527; in 1938-39, £143,427; in 1939-40, £177,786; in 1940-41, £212,487; and the current estimate is for £242,068. That shows a progressive increase year by year and not a reduction, as has been alleged by speakers on the other side of the House.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 54—Gaeltacht Services (Resumed).
Mr. Brodrick
What does the Book of Estimates give in that case?
If the Deputy would examine the Book of Estimates more closely he would not need to put that question.
Mr. Brodrick
I see under "Gaeltacht Services" a decrease from £100,000 down to £96,000 and then down to £88,000.
The Deputy overlooked the facts which I will give the House in a few minutes, if he will allow me to proceed. There have been increased receipts and on that account it is not necessary to bring in an increased Estimate, not only to maintain the services but to increase them. Our gross sales of tweed, knitwear, toys, etc., have shown a corresponding increase. In 1936-37 the sales were £32,028; in 1937-38, £39,229; in 1938-39, £46,382; in 1939-40, £84,151; in 1940-41, £134,408; and for the current year, £155,000 is estimated as likely to be received. Again, there is a progressive increase, if we take these items separately.
On the question of tweeds, some Deputies referred to the improvement in quality. There has been no improvement in the quality of the tweeds. No improvement was possible, as the tweeds are now and always have been manufactured of absolutely pure wool, and it is impossible to improve the quality of wool. That being so, there has been no improvement in quality: what has been improved is the design, the patterns, workmanship and anything that could be improved by human endeavour.
Wool is wool: that is not a very safe thesis in the drapery trade.
There was a complaint that the range of patterns was not varied enough. Despite certain limitations and difficulties, 27 new ranges have been added this year, involving 378 shades; and that, in my opinion, ought to satisfy even the most fastidious tastes. Our sales of tweeds have been very satisfactory. For the past five years they were £13,360, £15,020, £14,457, £28,391, and for the year just ended, £45,400. That again shows a progressive increase.
In regard to knitwear, the sales have gone up from £17,079 in 1936-37 to £62,800 in 1940-41. I next come to toys. This is another important and new section of the industry. As I have already explained to the House, the factory in which the toy industry was first established was burned down some time ago and it became necessary to erect a new one in its place. That was done in probably a record time by our own staff. It was done in the course of about six months, and a few days ago we entered into possession. The sales of toys have been very satisfactory. The first year for which there is a record was the year 1938-39—the opening year—when the sales were £2,905. In 1939-40, sales went up to £10,488, and in the year 1940-41, they reached £24,600. That is a very valuable addition to our industries. Perhaps the most satisfactory aspect of it is that a foreign market is being developed for these toys and that, I think, ought to satisfy Deputy Linehan on the question of price. If our prices were not satisfactory these markets would not be available to us.
On the question of wholesale price, it is satisfactory.
Wholesale or retail. If the wholesale prices were not satisfactory the cross-channel people would not buy.
The wholesale prices are satisfactory, but the retail prices are not.
I have no control over the prices charged by retailers.
Is any profit being made on the toy factory?
I could not answer that question straight away. The price of the toys is made up of labour costs, the cost of materials and a certain percentage added to cover overheads; but in our peculiar system of bookkeeping it would not be very easy for me to answer straight away whether this particular section of the industry is making a profit or not.
It is a very important matter.
I can assure the Deputy that it is not being overlooked. The next important item I have to deal with is one which was subject to considerable discussion last night—the question of seaweed and kelp. Deputies, particularly those representing maritime constituencies, are aware that a large quantity of seaweed is used every year by farmers as what I may describe as a substitute for farmyard manure, and this weed is considered by the Department of Agriculture as equal to farmyard manure.
Because of its bulky nature and its weight it cannot be transported over long distances inland. The cost of transport would kill it straight away. Some Deputies pointed out that some 25 years ago or so larger quantities of it were used, and they were anxious to ascertain what could be done by way of transport now. I think 25 or 30 years ago very few of us were thinking in terms of motor cars or motor transport. People were able to transport it then. The roads are at least as good now as they were then. The question of transport is in no worse position to-day than it ever was.
Seaweed is also being used for other purposes. In recent years two new firms have come into the industry, one at Ballina and, more recently, one at Kilrush. These firms are taking considerable quantities of seaweed and drying it and I understand it is being used as an admixture in cattle food.
The question on which there was most discussion last night is the question of kelp, the production of kelp and its use as a fertiliser. Many years ago, when the factory was in operation in Galway iodine was being extracted from kelp. Unfortunately, owing to competition from Chilean Nitrates Syndicate, that factory was unable to remain in production. The owners were driven out of business because of the drop in the price of iodine. That being so, kelp must now be used mainly as an admixture in manure because of its potash content. The Irish Fertiliser Manufacturers' Association made an offer of £3 16s. 6d. a ton for kelp, having regard to its potash content of from 16 to 18 per cent., but my Department has entered into an agreement on much more satisfactory terms with a certain firm in the West of Ireland. In accordance with the terms of that agreement all the kelp produced will be utilised. It will be taken from the producers at what may be considered a reasonable price, having regard to the use to which it is to be put, that is, for the manufacture of manures, and the price which the farmers can afford to pay for it. Incidentally, on that subject, I think it was Deputy Childers who asked a question as to what it would be likely to cost at Athlone. Having regard to the cost of production, transport, etc.—and incidentally, I take it, the firm concerned would expect a reasonable margin of profit—by the time it would reach Athlone the selling price would probably be in the neighbourhood of £9 to £10 per ton.
For what percentage of potash?
It is purely hypothetical inasmuch as I am not aware that the firm has sold any kelp to Athlone for that purpose, but I take it they would be reasonable.
What percentage of potash?
Sixteen to 18 per cent. potash.
I beg the Deputy's pardon. I thought he referred to profit. Sixteen to 18 per cent. would be the potash content.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary happen to know—it may well be he does not—is it in the form of muriate or sulphate of potash? That is a matter the Parliamentary Secretary may not know at the moment. It is a technical point.
I am not in a position to inform the Deputy on that technical subject. I do not think there is anything to add on the question of potash except to say, as I told the House last night, this matter was the subject of a conference on the 28th November, 1939, something more than 18 months ago, so that we did not wait until last night to have the matter examined. Deputy Brodrick was anxious when I began to-day to ascertain why the Book of Estimates does not show an increase this year. The Appropriations-in-Aid would be the answer. They have been growing. I will give the figures for the past few years as an indication. In 1937-38, the Appropriations-in-Aid were £40,574; in 1938-39, £51,738; in 1939-40, £75,594; in 1940-41, £131,220, and this year, we estimate £153,600. These were the receipts, as the Deputy may know, from the sales of the various commodities and the more these are increased the less necessity there is to draw upon the Estimate. In addition, I am afraid Deputies are inclined to forget that mine is not the only Department dealing with the Gaeltacht. Practically every other Department of State has dealings there. I will give some figures which will illustrate to the House the amount of money that is being expended in the Gaeltacht in addition to the amount provided by Gaeltacht Services: The Department of Education expends £72,365 in the Gaeltacht; the Department of Agriculture, £145,960; the Land Commission, £221,070; the Office of Public Works, £201,276; the Department of Industry and Commerce, £172,674. In addition, there is, of course, the Department of Local Government and Public Health which expends a very large sum in old age pensions which has been roughly estimated at something over £1,000,000.
I think I have said sufficient to indicate to the House that the interests of the Gaeltacht are not being neglected or overlooked. I think, on the whole, the industries are showing a very happy trend. In recent years there has been an interesting development, and I doubt very much, despite all the criticisms that may be levelled at Government Departments—and sometimes I am as sharp a critic as anybody else in that respect—despite the many handicaps under which the Department obviously has to labour, there has been satisfactory progress shown during the past few years, particularly since the industries were reorganised by my predecessor some five or six years ago. Our business has been growing. New industries are being examined. At least, the prospects of having new industries established are being carefully examined, and everything that can be done is being done to induce people who would be interested or who might be interested to establish new industries in the Gaeltacht. We go out of our way to make arrangements with any such firms who might be interested. I think I have covered every point raised by the various speakers.
I would like to ask a question in regard to toys. I think the Parliamentary Secretary was labouring under a misconception as to what I meant last night. I did not question the wholesale price. I questioned the retail price. First of all, I want to put two questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. Does he really consider the toy trade is a luxury trade, because I think it is not? It could not be called a luxury trade because the poorer people in the community will buy toys at Christmas as well as everybody else. I questioned the retail price, and I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to investigate it. I am satisfied the Gaeltacht people are charging a proper wholesale price. I would also ask the Parliamentary Secretary is it a fair price to charge 6/6 for a rag doll, stuffed with sawdust, 15 inches high, with a papier maché face?
Of course, I am at a disadvantage.
I understand that.
I do not know that the particular doll to which Deputy Linehan refers was one of our products.
It was.
It may be or it may not be.
I know it was.
All toys made by my Department are branded "Erris Toys". I am glad the Deputy has drawn my attention to that, so that it may go forth and that the general public will know Gaeltacht products, because they are all branded "Erris Toys", and any toy carrying that brand should be sold at a reasonable figure. In my opinion, they are being sold too cheaply, and, as I indicated last night, I would much prefer to see the toys perhaps a little dearer, but to ensure that the profit would go to the workers who are manufacturing them.
We do not go in for a very cheap toy. That is, perhaps, a side of the industry which will have to be considered. There are very cheap toys on sale, some of them imported from outside, perhaps, and we shall have that matter considered with a view to seeing whether or not a small cheap toy can be put on the market. With regard to the question of whether a toy is a luxury or not, I think that in these days anything that is not essential to support human life or to maintain us, is really a luxury, so that from that point of view toys may be regarded as a luxury. In saying that, however, I do not want to argue that the price of toys should soar to such an extent as to be beyond the reach of a poor child who, perhaps, has more need of toys than the children of wealthy people. I should be long sorry to see the children of the poor deprived of their toys which, as I say, would be probably a greater source of delight to them than to the children of the rich. At any rate, the question of the production of a cheaper toy, which could be sold at 6d. or something like that is being examined.
I should like to be permitted to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a couple of questions. First, I should like to say that if such vast profits are being made on the Gaeltacht toys, then the Parliamentary Secretary should provide for an extra supply, because thousands of merchants will romp into the Gaeltacht if they think they can gain these immense profits. However, I never saw these immense profits lasting very long. I must say that I think this textile business has improved out of all knowledge, and the officers of his Department, in my opinion, who were responsible for the design and production of textiles are deserving of high praise. Will the Parliamentary Secretary, however, be a little more careful in future, in speaking of wool being wool, because there are all sorts and qualities of wool, and one of the things which has made his textile business so much more successful is that the quality of the wool employed has been materially improved in the last few years. Secondly, would the Parliamentary Secretary not consider communicating to the House, at regular intervals, the profits and losses on this industry? That is a very important matter when one comes to determine the value of a business. I do not think the House would be desperately shocked to hear of a small loss being made in one year if we could be assured that we were making a profit over the whole period. I think we would be gratified to hear of any profit at all, because, admittedly, under the conditions under which the enterprise is being carried on, modern efficiency is not the first desideratum but rather the desire to provide work for the people in these areas. We should not lose sight, however, of the profit and loss of the enterprise because, otherwise, we might get into very deep water as, I think, we did in the past.
Secondly, I should like to say something in regard to the kelp potash which was referred to. Here is a manure which, by volume, contains 16 to 18 per cent. of potash. Now, that is not as useful as sulphate of potash or muriate of potash which we employed pre-war, but it is very useful none the less, and particularly for the flax crop, the beet crop and the potato crop, in that order of importance. It is a useful manure for every crop, but for these three particularly. Is the Parliamentary Secretary going to get from the Department of Agriculture the £1 a ton bounty paid on this manure that is paid on manure manufactured from African phosphate rock? I ask that because I think he ought to. And I think the Parliamentary Secretary should tell us now what we may look forward to in regard to that matter and, secondly, what actual price is going to be paid to the men for the kelp they burn. The all-important thing, if you want our people to produce something, is to tell them, positively and with certainty, what they are going to get. There is no use in telling them that they will get a good price and that the kelp will all be taken from them. You should tell them that on the day the kelp is burned they will be given a certain price at a certain place.
I should not like the Parliamentary Secretary to be led astray by Deputy Dillon's reference to toys. Deputy Dillon is speaking of the people selling toys, while I am talking about the people buying them.
I would like to be permitted to ask the Parliamentary Secretary a question.
Yes, but it should be brief. The Deputy should not be led astray by bad example.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to examine the question of the carrageen industry in the Glenbeigh district of County Kerry. About two years ago, officers of the Industrial Research Council made investigations and carried out experiments in that area and found that a certain type of weed growing on the rocks down there was poisonous. They allocated a small grant for the eradication of that type of weed from the rocks along that part of the coast, and rendered great service to the carrageen business there and to the industry in general. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would carry out further investigations in that direction with a view to further development and improvement of the industry in that district?
I should like to ask a question before the Parliamentary Secretary concludes.
The Parliamentary Secretary has actually concluded. The Deputy may put his question, but briefly.
It is just a question on the production of potash as a fertiliser. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that he has examined this very carefully over a period of months, and I should like to know whether or not he has any hopes of producing potash extensively. Can he give us any idea as to the quantity that is likely to be produced under the scheme?
In answer to the Deputy who has just sat down, and any other Deputies who may be interested, the kelp is being purchased by a well-known firm in the West of Ireland, which has been engaged for many years in the manufacture of manure, and I take it that whatever bounty is going will be carried with the potash made from kelp as well as the manure that is being made from phosphate rock, to which Deputy Dillon referred. Now, we purchase all the kelp that can be manufactured. By arrangement with this firm, the kelp, when purchased by us, is being re-sold to that firm and being utilised by them in the manufacture of fertilisers. I could not, at the moment, say exactly what amount is likely to be produced this year.
Even an approximate amount?
As you have seen in the Estimates, we have arranged for the purchase of at least 800 tons, but if more is forthcoming it will be bought. Whatever amount is produced will be purchased, and the price has been fixed at £5 10s.
You might as well have gone to the £6 when you were at it.
Well, perhaps, but even going on to the £6, I take it that the cost would be passed on to the consumer who is ultimately the Irish farmer, and his interests have to be had regard to when fixing a price. I should like to correct an impression which might be created by Deputy Dillon's remarks about excessive profits. I do not think it is correct to describe the small margin of profit which appears in our accounts to cover overhead costs as excessive profits. We are not out to make profits. We have no interest whatever in making profits from these industries. Our main object is to make money available for the people engaged in the industries. The goods have to be sold at a certain figure, otherwise they would not be sold at all. If they are sold at a reasonable figure, there is no question of excessive profits. The whole idea of establishing the Gaeltacht industries was inspired more by a desire to improve the social welfare of the people rather than to make profits.
I did not suggest that that you are making unreasonable profits.
The Deputy used the expression "excessive profits" and he said that he did not think that any manufacturer who went in for excessive profits was likely to be left without competition for any length of time.
Deputy Linehan had said that excessive prices were being charged for toys. I said that if that were so, it surprised me that hundreds of people did not go in for retailing these goods, and that I thought competition would correct any tendency to make excessive profits.
I am sorry if I misunderstood the Deputy. I thought he was referring to the profits made from the manufacture of these toys. In regard to the point raised by Deputy John Flynn, we shall have that matter examined. I think it is more a matter for the Industrial Research Council, but whatever Department is concerned with it, we shall have attention drawn to it.