Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 3 Jul 1942

Vol. 87 No. 20

Committee on Finance. - Vote 55—Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Lemass

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £179,003 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, 1943, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and of certain Services administered by that Office.

There are nine separate Estimates for which the Minister for Industry and Commerce is responsible, and I assume that the House will wish to follow the usual practice of discussing any questions of policy that arise in connection with these Estimates on the Main Vote. The Department of Industry and Commerce is responsible for a large number of activities of which Deputies are aware, and I do not think it is necessary to give a detailed review of the activities of the Department in connection with the discharge of a number of its routine duties. I think the House will prefer that I should confine myself to matters of more general importance.

The primary function of the Department, in normal times, is to direct the development of industrial activities within the country. Owing to the circumstances now existing, the industrial development movement has been arrested and, in fact, on most parts of the industrial front there is retrogression. The diminishing inflow of raw materials and fuel, the restriction which it has been found necessary to place upon the use of electricity, and the increasing difficulty which industrial firms are experiencing in effecting replacements or the repair of equipment which is wearing out, have operated to slow down industrial activity and have affected the employment given in industry. In some industries the consequences of these adverse circumstances are more noticeable than in others. Apart from the difficulty of obtaining materials, when supplies are procurable they arrive irregularly and, consequently, there is irregularity also in industrial employment and industrial activity generally. Periods of stoppages alternate with periods of whole-time working in many industrial spheres.

The House is, I think, aware of the general attitude of the Government in the matter of industrial employment. We have appealed to employers to retain their workers in their employment even though by doing so they may increase the costs of production and have to obtain compensation for these increased costs in higher prices. In the general view of the Government, it is better to keep as many people as possible in employment, and consequently in receipt of incomes which will procure livelihoods for them, than that we should apply strictly ordinary commercial principles for the encouragement of efficiency and the reduction of production costs. The Government could, no doubt, have given the matter of price primary importance and have insisted upon the concentration of production in a smaller number of producing units, or in some other way, to ensure that costs were kept to a minimum and possible increases in prices avoided. We felt, however, that general social considerations warranted the adoption of the other policy and I feel sure that the House approves generally, although that fact is not always taken into account when views are expressed as to the adverse consequences of rising prices of industrial goods.

Where it is not possible for employers to retain their workers in fulltime employment—Deputies can easily contemplate circumstances in which an employer could not do that—they have been urged to ration the work. By short-time working or by a system of rotational employment it is possible for them to give each of the workers normally employed by them a share of the diminishing amount of work available. In order to facilitate employers in carrying out any such arrangements, alterations have been made in the regulations affecting the payment of unemployment insurance. The waiting period has been reduced and other modifications effected to enable workers disemployed for spells or working on short time to receive benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. At the end of May, the number of firms working short time was 188 and the number of workers affected by that short-time working was 9,780. The number of firms which had suspended workers was 121 and the number of workers affected was 4,200.

General Mulcahy

Are these manufacturing firms?

Mr. Lemass

Manufacturing firms, yes.

General Mulcahy

And there were only 188 affected?

Mr. Lemass

There were 188 firms engaged in manufacture which had adopted a system of short-time working.

While the general position upon the industrial front has been one of retrogression, as I have said, increased activities have, of course, been possible, and it can be said our circumstances have necessitated them, in some other directions. Most notable of these is ship repairing. Since the outbreak of war, two ship repairing yards have been put into production. The Liffey Dockyard Company has been working for some time and is now busily engaged on ship repairing work, employing a substantial number of workers. During the course of the past year the Cork Dockyard, which had been closed for a very long number of years, began activities again. It is now in full operation. There are two or three ships there undergoing repairs and some 250 workers are employed in it. In addition, coal-mining activities have expanded. The output of our coal mines has been increased and the employment which that industry can give is limited only by the number of competent coal mine workers available. There has been some increased activity in the felling and adaptation of timber for various purposes. During the course of the past year new plants began operation for the production of calcium carbide, porcelain electric plugs and sockets, pectin, glue and wool tops.

Resulting from the activities of the Emergency Research Bureau with the co-operation of the various industrial concerns certain chemicals required for industry in substitution of chemicals previously imported are now being produced here. Formalin is being produced by the Industrial Alcohol Company and carbon dioxide by Industrial Gases, Limited, with the co-operation of Messrs. Guinness. I cannot hold out any prospect that new industrial activity during the coming year will be substantial. We hope that this year the steel mill at Haulbowline will be able to recommence production. I think the House is generally familiar with the position affecting that mill. Its construction and equipment were commenced shortly before the war began. It had only been partially completed at the date of the outbreak of war. At that time the merchant mill which was engaged in the production of steel bars was in operation but the equipment of the rest of the concern had not been completed.

Some of the plant required by the firm was on order in Continental countries and could not be procured. The position of the mill was such that it was confined to working upon imported raw material—steel billets which were for a time procurable in Belgium and subsequently in diminishing quantities from the United States of America. The equipment of the mill had never been brought up to the point where it was capable of utilising scrap steel. Ultimately, the difficulties created by the emergency situation forced the company into liquidation and a receiver was appointed by the debenture holders who endeavoured to dispose of the mill as a going concern. He was not successful. Eventually, the Government agreed to give financial assistance by way of a trade loan guarantee on certain conditions. These conditions included the partial relinquishment of their secured position by the existing debenture holders, and agreement by other creditors of the company to accept debentures in the discharge of their claims, the articles of association of the company to be amended to permit of the appointment of members of the board of the company by the Government while any part of the loan guaranteed by the State remained outstanding. The completion of the necessary formalities and particularly the negotiations with the unsecured creditors took a considerable time, but I think we have reached a stage where the company can begin operations, at any rate with the available supplies of material. While the activities at Haulbowline were suspended, efforts were made to secure a supply of billets from the United States and some part of the billets which were purchased there have been transhipped and are now here. The balance of the billets which were purchased, and the option on which was extended from time to time, will not come. I think it is a reasonable assumption that export licences from the United States will not be procurable. The company when it commences operations will continue so long as the available supply of materials lasts but it will be an obligation on the new board to be appointed to endeavour to secure equipment which will enable the mills to work upon scrap steel. It is not possible to say definitely when that equipment can be secured but I hope that the efforts of the board in that direction will be successful.

General Mulcahy

Can the Minister say what the personnel of the proposed new board will be?

Mr. Lemass

They have not been appointed yet.

General Mulcahy

Have they been selected?

Mr. Lemass

The position is that the shareholders of the company must meet and are, I think, meeting some time soon to pass a resolution which will permit of the new board being appointed in the manner I have indicated. Until that is done, the board cannot be appointed.

Mr. Hughes

What is the quantity of scrap steel available in the country?

Mr. Lemass

I think we can say that the quantity of scrap steel available in the country will be sufficient to keep the company in production if the equipment for utilising this scrap steel can be procured.

The Slievardagh Coal Mining Company has been at work on the development of the coal deposits in Slievardagh. They have encountered difficulties and consideration is at present being given as to how these difficulties can be overcome. It is, of course, inevitable in mining ventures that unexpected difficulties should arise. One can never be certain what is under the ground until one goes down there and even if elements of risk can be reduced by boring operations, boring operations can never be a certain indication of what the nature of the deposits underground is. As the House is aware, the inspection work on Slievardagh was carried out by a British firm of coal-mining engineers, one of the most eminent in the world. It is on the basis of their report that the company commenced operations but some difficulties not foreshadowed in the report of the engineering company have already been encountered. I have got a number of requests for the extension of the company's activities into other places. In many parts of the country small pockets of coal exist but I think it is open to question whether we should devote to the development of these small pockets the very limited amount of equipment available or utilise skilled coal-mining workers who can be more effectively employed on existing workings.

It is true to say that, if we put all the equipment available into existing workings, and if we had such control over labour as to be able to require that coal mining workers would act under our direction, we could get, by their utilisation on existing workings, two or three times the amount of coal that could be procured if they were employed upon new workings. Wisdom suggests, therefore, in view of the limitations upon our productive capacity arising out of shortages of equipment and shortage of skilled workers, that our available resources should be utilised on existing workings. It may be said, I think, in respect of each of the existing workings in the country that their output could be stepped up further if more equipment or additional skilled workers could be made available.

Mr. Davin

Why not acquire those mining rights in the areas to which you are referring?

Mr. Lemass

It is not a question of rights. There is no difficulty in acquiring mining rights.

Mr. Davin

Ownership rights, if you like.

Mr. Lemass

There is no impediment to the production of a greater quantity of coal arising out of inability to acquire rights of ownership, rights of working, over existing minerals. Under the Mines and Minerals Act the Government has adequate power to deal with any such problem. The only difficulty in increasing production is the purely physical one of inadequate equipment or scarcity of skilled workers. One cannot train a worker in the skilled operations of coal mining in any shorter period than four years, I am advised.

Mr. Davin

The Slievardagh Company could, I think, increase the output in some cases if they went in there.

Mr. Lemass

Possibly. I have not placed any restrictions upon the activities of the Slievardagh Company. Clearly, we must leave to the judgment of that board the best utilisation of the resources available to them. I have asked the Slievardagh Company to undertake exploration work in certain districts, including the Rossmore area, County Carlow, in which Deputy Davin is interested.

Mr. Hughes

Before the Minister leaves that, will he give the House any information as to the difficulties that were not foreshadowed in the report? What type of difficulties?

Mr. Lemass

The aim, no doubt, of any mining manager is to strike the main coal measure at the point where it can be most easily worked. The Slievardagh company have been driving shafts for working purposes, and it is not clear that they have in fact hit coal measure at the best point. I cannot attempt to give a more complete description of that, because it is highly technical.

Mr. Hughes

Does that mean that there is no output yet?

Mr. Lemass

Oh, no. There is an output at the moment.

Mr. Hughes

What is the volume of it?

Mr. Lemass

I think they hope to produce about a couple of hundred tons a week.

Mr. Davin

More than that.

Mr. Lemass

They may be able to increase the output. My purpose in referring to the matter was to indicate that difficulties had arisen there which have reduced the speed with which they have been able to get into full production, and the volume of the production itself. The Minerals Exploration Company, which was also set up since the beginning of the war, has secured ——

Mr. Brennan

Has the Minister finished with coal? Would he tell us what increase there has been, if there has been any increase, in the output of other coal mining districts, such as Arigna and Castlecomer?

Mr. Lemass

The total output of the existing workings has been practically doubled since the outbreak of the war. The Minerals Exploration Company have secured the rights to work deposits in the Avoca area which appear most likely to yield the varieties required in the manufacture of fertilisers. They have also secured the rights to work the phosphate rock deposits in County Clare, and deliveries of crushed rock to manufacturers are at present being made. That company are also considering the possible development of the deposits of zinc ore, steatite, molybdenite, alum, iron-ore and gypsum. A number of those minerals which appear to exist here in working quantities are of no immediate importance to us because they are raw materials of industries which do not exist here, but possibly if their production can be proceeded with upon a commercial scale we may be able to make an arrangement to exchange them for other goods that we need.

It is difficult to give the Dáil in a short space of time a general review of our unemployment position. Due to differences in the incidence and scope of the Unemployment Period Orders in operation this year, the number of persons upon the live register for recent months is not comparable with the number for the corresponding months of the last year. In the county boroughs, the boroughs and urban districts, where conditions this year were the same as in last year, during recent months the number of unemployed, upon the most recent date for which figures are available to me, was less by 3,300 than the number on the corresponding date in 1941. The number of unemployment insurance stamps for men issued in the 12 months which ended in April was 6.8 per cent. less than the number issued in the 12 months ending in April, 1941. The number issued in the month of April itself was 3.6 per cent. more than in April of last year.

The House is, no doubt, fully aware of the fact that the possibility of proceeding with any programme of works for the purpose of relieving unemployment is very definitely limited by difficulties of supply, and particularly of fuel and equipment. From time to time during the course of the various debates here, reference has been made to the policy of the Government in the matter of emigration. No doubt the ideal solution for our position would be to give work to all those who need it, and if possible to give them the type of work they would like to have, and at the rate of wages they would like to get. I am sure every Deputy in the House, even those who urge that as a solution of our problem, recognise fully that in our circumstances it cannot be done. The work that can be given in industry or in commerce, the work that could be made available by any public works programme, is limited in volume by difficulties of supply. That fact is well known, or at any rate should be well known, and I should like the House to consider the question of the policy that ought to be adopted in respect of emigration and to express their views on the matter in the light of those facts. There is no purpose to be served by urging the substitution of a policy that is impossible of operation. To the extent that house building can proceed, it is being proceeded with. To the extent that a public works programme is possible, it is being proceeded with. The Government would be very anxious to increase activities of those kinds if circumstances permitted of it. It is because circumstances do not permit of it that it is necessary for us to have a policy in relation to emigration at all.

It is not any solution of our position to prevent emigration. I think we would not be justified in preventing emigration when there is little prospect of any increase in the amount of work available in this country sufficient to absorb all those who are seeking it. The general policy of the Government has been expressed clearly from time to time, to restrict the outward movement of persons who are either in employment, for whom work is immediately available or, except in special circumstances, those who are under 22 years of age. By various administrative arrangements, improvements have been effected in the control of the outward movement of persons seeking work, and the indiscriminate recruiting of workers by agents of British firms has been replaced by procedure which involves the limited use of the employment exchanges by those who are the approved and accredited representatives of such firms. In May of the present year, by Order, additional restrictions were placed upon the movement of persons skilled in agricultural or turf production work residing in certain rural areas. As was announced in the newspapers, any person who refuses a specific offer of work renders himself ineligible to receive a travel permit. Outside the classes of persons I have mentioned, those who are in work, those for whom work is available, young men who could be regarded as eligible for enrolment in the Defence Forces and, as a temporary measure, those capable of undertaking agricultural or turf production work in certain areas, or those who refuse a specific offer of work, the Government does not consider that it is entitled to restrict the movement of an individual in search of work, where the circumstances are such that ability to find that work means all the difference between hardship and comparative comfort for his dependents. The general restrictions upon the outward movement of population do not apply in respect of migratory agricultural workers. By that term I mean persons who, as a normal practice, in each year migrate for various months to Scotland or England for agricultural work there, returning in time to complete harvesting operations on their own holdings towards the end of the year.

In addition to imposing the restrictions I have mentioned upon the emigration of workers, the Government, in the interests of those workers who are allowed to proceed abroad, took action to protect Irish workers in Great Britain in respect of obligation to join the British armed forces, personal injuries compensation, and for the purpose of securing for them equal pay with British workers, as well as the payment of lodging allowance in respect of workers employed in various occupations.

If Deputies wish to express any views upon emigration I would like them to do so in a constructive way as to the extent that they think the regulations made by the Government should be modified. I should like them to indicate the modifications which they would propose and the reasons for them. A mere denunciation of the fact that in our circumstances we cannot provide sufficient work to make emigration unnecessary gets us nowhere. I think we have all only one aim in this matter. We may not agree on the method by which that aim will be realised. If we could provide work here for everyone, so as to make it possible to propose a ban on emigration we would be glad to do it. I do not think we are entitled to do it in present circumstances. I do not think we are entitled to prevent a man going abroad to seek employment for whom there is no prospect of employment here. If there is a prospect of employment here, or if the circumstances are such that it is obvious his labour is required for national purposes, then I think we are entitled to place restrictions upon his movements. I do not think there is any serious ground to anticipate a shortage of labour for agricultural purposes this year. There may be local shortages in some districts but, on June 13th, the number of persons registered at the employment exchanges, who were seeking work in agricultural occupations, was 20,000. A high proportion of that number of persons have agreed to accept work in agriculture wherever it may be offered. In other words, they are not stipulating that work should be available in their own districts; they are prepared to travel to work.

Mr. Hickey

Was it 20,000?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. I know that a number of farmers in many parts of this country have not got facilities for the housing of migrant workers but, nevertheless, it seems clear that in any district where a situation may arise, such as scarcity of labour for harvesting purposes, that scarcity can be made good, even though it may involve some special arrangements for the accommodation of workers from some other districts.

Mr. M. Brennan

Are they from the labour exchanges?

Mr. Lemass

From the employment exchanges.

Mr. Hughes

Are they agricultural workers?

Mr. Lemass

Of the total number registered 20,000 were agricultural workers, and so described themselves. What I said in relation to agricultural work applies equally to work on turf production. Again, it may be true that in special districts a scarcity may exist, but there appears to be a sufficient number of workers in the country as a whole for turf production upon the scale that it is possible to undertake it. The offer of employment in the turf camps in County Kildare was made to a large number of single men whose circumstances permitted them to travel elsewhere for employment, and who resided in what are known as the congested districts. To date 4,500 have accepted that offer of employment, but the camps are not yet capable of accommodating that number. The figure is noteworthy.

Mr. Davin

That is three times the number given by the Turf Controller a couple of days ago.

Mr. Lemass

I am not prepared to say that that is correct.

Mr. Davin

The figure given was 1,038.

Mr. Lemass

In the initial stages the recruitment of workers for the camps was undertaken by advertisements, and workers who wanted employment were requested to apply. The number which applied included over 1,000 in the City of Dublin, not all of whom were regarded as being physically suitable for that work. At a subsequent stage an offer of work through the employment exchanges was made. Deputies will realise that there is a difference between the two offers. An offer of work through the employment exchanges cannot be refused by the person to whom it is made, without the risk of losing the right to unemployment assistance. When the work was offered through the employment exchanges to single men in congested districts, it was accepted by 4,500.

Mr. Davin

How many came and went away?

Mr. Lemass

Not many of them have come because accommodation at the camps has not been completed to such an extent as to accommodate them all.

Mr. Hughes

What is the present accommodation?

Mr. Lemass

I could not say. The Deputy should ask the Parliamentary Secretary that question.

Mr. Hughes

Could the Minister not give even a rough figure?

Mr. Lemass

It was anticipated that the number of workers who would be accommodated towards the end of June would be about 1,500. Whether that anticipation has been realised or whether a larger number has been accommodated, I could not say from memory.

Mr. Davin

Does the Minister know anything about the 200 men from the West who came to the camp at Glencree and are now held up there?

Mr. Lemass

I do not. One of the Votes contained in this group is that for Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance. Since this time last year, the weekly allowance for adult and child dependents under the unemployment insurance scheme has been increased. It was increased in June, 1941. The food-voucher scheme has been in operation since September, 1941, and food vouchers given in respect of dependents receiving unemployment assistance in certain urban districts represent a substantial increase on the assistance previously given. In the case of a man with a wife and five children, unemployment insurance benefit now payable represents an increase of 40 per cent. and more than offsets the increase in the cost of living which has taken place since the outbreak of the war. In the case of a man with a wife and four children, the issue of food vouchers represents an increase in the value of assistance available to him of 37.9 per cent. in the county boroughs and the Borough of Dun Laoghaire. The increase is 54.9 per cent. in Drogheda and Dundalk and 50.5 per cent. in certain other urban areas.

The percentage variation in the value of assistance given depends, of course, upon the prevailing prices for foodstuffs available in return for vouchers. Again, in each case the percentage increase in the amount of assistance procurable by a man circumstanced as I have described is proportionately greater than the rise in the cost of living since the outbreak of the war.

Mr. Hickey

There is no increase to the man himself?

Mr. Lemass

No. Food vouchers are receivable only in respect of dependents. It is, of course, the Department of Industry and Commerce which is responsible for the administration of Emergency Powers Orders Nos. 83 and 166, which have been the subject of much controversy in the Dáil. I do not know if Deputies wish to discuss these Orders on this Estimate, having regard to the fact that there was a discussion upon a Labour motion during the present week. The amendment of Emergency Powers Order No. 83 by Order No. 166 was effected because the Government considered that the policy of Order No. 83, however justifiable it might be in theory, could not be maintained unimpaired in the changing and worsening circumstances of the times.

Dr. Hannigan

Especially coming up to an election.

Mr. Lemass

I can assure the Deputy that an election had nothing whatever to do with it. I think it will be obvious, even to Deputy Hannigan, that if the Government were merely courting popularity, as members of the Labour Party are, they could have disregarded national interests in this matter and have removed every cause of argument. That could easily be done but, in the long run, it is the workers who would suffer. That is a fact which members of the Labour Party have always failed to grasp. I think that the Labour Party have let down the workers badly by failing to produce a policy for labour in the circumstances of the emergency. That is my opinion.

We felt that, having regard to the worsening conditions, the Order should be amended so as to provide that limited increases in wages be obtainable by workers in various circumstances. The main changes effected by the new Order are twofold. Machinery is set up to permit of the determination of the standard rate for any occupation in any district. The standard rate is defined as the rate provided for in agreements made between trade unions and employers or ordinarily paid by good employers. Where the standard rate is determined by the tribunal set up under the Order, then it is permissible for employers to pay the standard rate and permissible for unions to take action to enforce the payment of the standard rate. The Order further provides for the increase of the standard rate on application to the tribunal by an amount of 2/- per week for each ten points increase in the cost-of-living index. That increase represents full compensation for the rise in the cost of living to a worker whose wages are around 50/- per week and proportionately less to workers whose wages are higher. The full benefit of that change can, therefore, be secured only by the lower-paid workers. That was the intention behind that device. The machinery for giving effect to the intentions of the Government is, of course, open to revision. I had an opportunity of discussion concerning that machinery with the representatives of the Trade Union Congress on Monday of this week. The representatives of the Trade Union Congress made it clear that they were opposed to the Order in principle but they felt that certain changes in the machinery of the Order would make it less objectionable. The suggestions they put forward are being considered. It may not be possible to adopt them all but some of them seem to have sufficient substance to justify the amendment of the Order.

Mr. Davin

Would it be fair to ask the name of the genius who drafted this Order?

Mr. Lemass

His name is well-known throughout the country.

Mr. Davin

A monument should be put up to his memory.

Mr. Lemass

Several people have offered to put up monuments to me.

Professor O'Sullivan

They are not quite so bloodthirsty as that.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy may live to see one yet. The Department of Industry and Commerce is also responsible for the operation of the Trade Union Act. I refer to this not for the purpose of reviving the memory of the past controversies, but because certain amendments to that Act are contemplated. The part of the Act which requires trade unions to hold negotiation licences is in operation. In consequence, I understand that a certain number of amalgamations of trade unions are either being effected or are in contemplation. Practically every important union in the country has applied for a negotiation licence. Suggestions have been made from trade union circles for the amendment of the Act in certain details and legislation embodying the Government's proposals in respect of these matters will be forthcoming before the end of the year —possibly earlier than that phrase might suggest.

Mr. Davin

Are those the suggestions put forward by the Trade Union Congress?

Mr. Lemass

No. I have had discussions with various sections of the trade union movement, on the Trade Union Act. I cannot say from memory that I have received suggestions from the Trade Union Congress as such. If, however, the Trade Union Congress has made or does make suggestions they also will be considered.

The control exercised by the Department of Industry and Commerce over flour milling and wheatmeal milling has been the subject of discussion here in recent weeks, and no doubt there may be a desire to raise that matter in this debate. During the course of the discussion on the Adjournment this week, I explained the reasons why the Government considered it necessary to have flour milling under control. There is a very large number of small mills throughout the country, and in many cases it is quite clear that the regulations concerning the milling of wheat have been flagrantly disregarded. In a large number of them, animal foodstuffs containing wheat have been milled, and in others flour of lesser extraction than 100 per cent. has been produced.

In the interests of the community, it was necessary that all these mills should be kept under control; and it soon became obvious that they could not be brought under control unless drastic powers were taken over them. The normal procedure of bringing offenders to trial before the district justices proved inadequate. The powers taken include the right to seize or seal the machinery of a mill, where it is apparent that the management are not prepared to give sufficient obedience to the various orders and regulations that have been made controlling the utilisation of wheat or the milling of flour. The Orders which have been made closing mills need not, as I said here on Wednesday, be permanent. They can and will be modified, when I am reasonably satisfied that the requirements of the law will be observed in the future.

Deputies may have noticed in the papers an announcement that the Government had made an Order transferring certain functions from the Department of Supplies to the Department of Industry and Commerce. The intention is that, whenever the control over the utilisation of raw materials in any industry can be divorced from the work of procuring supplies or regulating the distribution of consumer goods, it will be supervised by the Department of Industry and Commerce rather than by the Department of Supplies. One of the reasons for that Order was the fact that it made possible a more effective utilisation of the staffs of both Departments. Amongst the functions which have been transferred are those which arise under Emergency Powers Orders relating to the production of paper and the collection of waste paper. As these are matters of particular interest, I would like, if Deputies will allow, to refer to them in more detail.

Our position in respect of paper is becoming very serious. Normally we use in this country paper and cardboard to the extent of 65,000 tons a year. Of the 65,000 tons which we used, 53,000 tons were imported and home production amounted only to 12,000 tons. Included in the imports were 25,000 tons of newsprint and 16,000 tons of board, neither of which was made here previous to the war. In addition, there are many special papers, such as parchments, cigarette papers, tissue papers, blotting papers, and the like, all of which we imported and none of which can be made here. Various percentages of our normal imports of these special papers are still obtainable in the United Kingdom. It is obvious that, in the circumstances I have described and particularly in view of the considerable disproportion between our requirements and our productive capacity, the output of paper mills must be controlled, to ensure the most effective utilisation of material available and the concentration of production upon the classes of paper most urgently required.

The first of the categories I want to refer to is cardboard. The Irish Independent on one day this week printed in a box a statement I made here in reply to a Parliamentary Question, to the effect that waste paper would not be used for the manufacture of newsprint, side by side with the statement made on the same day by the chairman of the Clondalkin Paper Mills which appeared to be in direct contradiction to it. The contradiction was more apparent than real. The position is that we have in this country one machine, and one machine only, capable of manufacturing newsprint. That machine is also the only one in the country capable of producing cardboard. If that machine is used exclusively for cardboard manufacture, which, as many Deputies are aware, is vitally necessary for a number of industrial and commercial purposes, and if we assume that the limited imports we have been receiving are continued, the total quantity of cardboard that would be available to us would be about 25 per cent. of our requirements. It is proposed, therefore, that the machine to which I have referred should be utilised almost exclusively, if not exclusively, for cardboard production; although, to meet the position of an absolute emergency, it might be possible to agree to a very limited production of newsprint on it.

There is another machine capable of producing a newsprint substitute from straw. It is not very attractive but, nevertheless, it would do. I have here a sample of the newsprint, which has been utilised by some provincial newspapers, and which is manufactured entirely from straw. A limited quantity of this class of paper has been produced. It is quite readable. I can see here that "a resolution was passed strongly condemning the action of the Minister for Supplies"—so Deputies need not be deprived of their usual pleasures.

Mr. Davin

Is that the Midland Tribune?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, it is the Midland Tribune. The position in regard to wrapping and packing papers is such that, by enforcing rigid economy in their use, and by prohibiting their use entirely except in cases where it is absolutely necessary, supplies from home sources may suffice and may, in fact, leave a small margin of productive capacity capable of being utilised for the production of printing and writing papers. In respect of printing and writing papers, plant changes which are contemplated by firms engaged in their production may result in some increase in output; but, at the best, and assuming the continuation of imports at the present rate, the supply will not exceed two-thirds of our requirements.

The general aim of the control which will be exercised over paper production will be to ensure the manufacture only of whatever paper and boards are absolutely necessary and the preservation of the maximum employment. I should say that one mill is arranging for the installation of additional plant for the manufacture of board, which may ease the position to some extent. The continuation of paper production of all kinds depends entirely upon our ability to procure adequate supplies of waste paper.

The efforts which have been made to secure the collection of waste paper have resulted in an average monthly collection, during the first six months of this year, of 800 tons. Our requirements are roughly 1,500 tons, and the deficiency between the collection now proceeding and estimated requirements is at present being off-set to some extent by the utilisation of straw and of textile waste.

It is questionable whether we shall ever be able to get the quantity of waste paper estimated as required, that is, 1,500 tons a month, particularly as basic sources of supply are now drying up. It is, however, intended to organise a more intensive effort to that end. In order to increase the supply of materials available for the production of writing papers, and printing papers as distinct from wrapping papers, a more efficient sorting of the waste coming in will have to be enforced by Government Order. The vigorous campaign for the collection of increased quantities of waste paper which has been planned will be supported by Government Orders making it illegal to destroy, to discard on the street or to place in a refuse bin, waste paper or cardboard of any kind.

I want to take this opportunity of urging upon the public the urgent necessity for giving the campaign for the collection of waste paper the fullest possible support. Improved methods of collection from householders are contemplated and will, perhaps, ease the difficulties which some householders have had in cooperating in this matter in the past, but upon the co-operation of householders, and more particularly upon the co-operation of business firms and other institutions where the larger quantities of waste paper are likely to accumulate, depend our future supplies of printing and writing papers, cardboard, wrapping papers required in many industrial operations and, of course, a very great deal of employment, not merely in the paper mills, but in other industries using their products.

I understand that it is intended to discuss upon this Estimate the motion, standing in the name of Deputy Davin, urging the nationalisation of railway transport. I do not know that any useful purpose would be served by a discussion of that matter at present. During the course of the past year, Orders were made bringing under Government control the operations of the Great Southern Railways Company in the matter of the transportation of goods. Definite priorities were established and the company was required to observe these priorities. They were designed to ensure that preference in the limited transport facilities available would be given to the most important goods. In addition, an Order was made altering the constitution of the board of that company, and establishing as chairman of it a representative of the Government, with special powers. These existing controls over the Great Southern Railways Company give to the Government powers at least as effective as those which any system of nationalisation would afford. I want to make it clear, however, that the action taken by the Government in relation to that company was related to the circumstances of the emergency only, and must not be taken as any indication of a decision upon post-emergency policy in relation to transport.

The worsening of transport conditions, and particularly the diminution in supplies of coal and petrol, will probably mean that Government control over transport facilities will have to be extended. Deputy Davin made reference during the debate on the Vote for the Department of Supplies to the light running of road lorries, and, in replying to him, I was mistakenly under the impression that he had been a member of the committee of Deputies of all Parties which had discussed a matter relating to petrol with me and to whom I had indicated that consideration was being given to the control which could be imposed upon road transport in order to eliminate the light running of commercial vehicles. On checking my notes, I find that Deputy Davin was not a member of that deputation and that Deputy Corish represented the Labour Party on that occasion. I apologise to Deputy Davin for having mentioned him in that connection.

Mr. Davin

The reason I dropped a note to the Minister was that I would not have raised the matter in the House if I had been made aware of the conversation.

Mr. Lemass

I regret having put the Deputy in that position. As, however, some Deputies are aware, and as I told the House upon that occasion, we are considering ways and means by which a more effective control over our available resources in road transport equipment could be imposed in order to ensure that all the essential transport can be undertaken with the minimum use of fuel and tyres. I have no doubt that the imposition of any system of control will not be easy. It will certainly cause some agitation amongst vehicle owners and it may result also in some dislocation of employment. It is intended, however, to proceed with it on an experimental basis in a limited area, as soon as the necessary plans and arrangements have been completed.

During the course of the past few months, the Government decided to place orders for the construction of canal barges in order to increase the carrying capacity of the canal system of the country. Deputies may not fully appreciate that the number of barges which can travel over a canal in any space of time is limited. Each barge moving up and down the system involves a lock-load of water being utilised, and consequently there is a definite limit to the number of barges which can be used over any period.

Mr. Hughes

Are they horse barges?

Mr. Lemass

It seems clear that we can increase the utilisation of the canals, and the barges we are proposing to construct will be horse-drawn barges. They will be wooden barges of limited life, the utility of which after the emergency will probably be nil. A number of the ship-building concerns, and some other concerns capable of undertaking the work, are receiving orders for the construction of these barges, but no decision has yet been made as to how, or by whom, these barges will be utilised. That decision can be made before the first of them has been delivered.

As I am dealing with transport services, I should mention that the position in respect of our air services has remained almost unchanged since this time last year. The service to the United Kingdom has been continued to the limit of the equipment available. It has been fully utilised for the transportation of passengers and certain classes of merchandise. Unfortunately, the largest plane owned by the company met with a mishap and is not yet back in service. During the course of the year, trans-Atlantic services into the Shannon airport were expanded and there is now a continuous movement of aircraft into and out of the Shannon airport. It is hoped that the Irish company will be able to establish itself in the connecting services from the Shannon to other destinations, but its ability to do so will depend upon the success of efforts which are being made to procure the equipment necessary for that purpose. The construction of the Collinstown aerodrome is now almost completed. Certain items of equipment have still to be procured, but I think I can say with confidence that at Collinstown we have one of the finest airports in the world; that opinion has been expressed by persons who can claim to have a knowledge of airports throughout the world, and particularly the heads of big air transport companies. The airport can still be improved in certain respects but, as it is, it is a very fine airport. The completion of the Shannon airport has been delayed by difficulties of equipment. It has not yet been possible to procure a dredger for the dredging of the flying boat anchorages, but the concrete runways for the land aerodrome and the construction of buildings—some of which have had to be designed on a temporary basis—as well as the safety equipment are all being completed, and considerable progress has been made.

I do not think there is anything more for me to say. As I said at the beginning, there is a number of other activities, under various Acts of the Legislature, for which the Department of Industry and Commerce is responsible. Nothing abnormal arose, however, during the course of the year in relation to these activities, and although I am quite prepared to give the House any information that is desired concerning them, I do not think that any special mention of them is required at this stage

Mr. Hickey

I move:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Before the Deputy proceeds, I should like to point out that on this Vote will be discussed Votes 55 to 74 on the Order Paper, as well as the motion, by Deputies Hickey and Keyes: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration"; the motion by Deputies Davin and Keyes: "That the Estimate be reduced by £50 in respect of sub-head A"; the motion by Risteard O Maolchatha: "That the Estimate be reduced by £10 in respect of sub-head J"; and the adjourned motion in the names of Deputies Norton, Keyes and Davin. As the functions of the Prices Commission are now transferred to the Department of Supplies, the Prices Commission may not be discussed in connection with this.

Mr. Hickey

I have a good many reasons for moving the reference back of this Estimate, and one is that I was interested in the question of the development of our coal mines. I am quite satisfied, from what I know, that we have not made any serious attempt to develop these mines or to put sufficient men to work in the mines that we already have in operation. The Minister stated here that the Slievardagh mines were not in full production, and that one reason was that they had not the trained miners and skilled men. I should like to know whether that also applies to other places such as the Castlecomer and Moneenroe coal mines. I am informed that the number of coal hewers employed was 254 in 1942, 274 in 1938, and that it had dwindled down to 238 by the end of 1940. If that is the case in those mines, I can quite understand what is happening in connection with other mines where we have no skilled men. I am informed that at the present time, and for a long time now, the Castlecomer and Moneenroe mines have not been able to supply the demand. I am not surprised that we have not a sufficient number of skilled men, in view of the wages paid here and the temptation that there is for men to cross the water and work in the mines there. It is quite obvious why we cannot get a sufficient number of skilled men at the moment, and in view of the shortage of coal I think it is extraordinary that a real effort was not made to secure the services of these men. I have inquired as to the wages of some of the men in Castlecomer, and I find that their conditions as well as their wages are shockingly low. The Minister set up an inquiry this year in connection with miners' wages under Order 83. That inquiry is also of interest, if any members of the House could get a copy of the report and read it, and it was proved there that the conditions under which the miners were working were appalling, and yet the fact remains that the commissioner reported that there was no need to change Order 83, notwithstanding the increase in the cost of gelignite and other things that these miners have to buy.

Mr. Lemass

Order 83 was amended in connection with them.

Mr. Hickey

Yes, but all they got was a 10 per cent. increase in wages and a bonus of 1/- per shift, and they are very lucky if they are able to earn 57/- to 60/- per week, working underground. If they fail to turn up on the sixth day, they will not get the bonus. I have been talking to some of these men, and they told me that the considerably reduced output is due to the fact that so many of the miners have gone across the water to England to work in the mines there, and it is no wonder when they are guaranteed £4 3s. Od. a week and an additional 2/6 per shift. I can well understand why we have not skilled or trained miners to go down and work in our own mines, small and all as they are at the moment. I think that the Minister and the Government should make a serious effort to induce miners all over this country to go to work in the mines already in operation.

I listened with interest to the Minister also when he explained that he and the Government have no right to prevent emigration if they have not work in this country for our men to do. He also made a very interesting statement with regard to agricultural workers being prepared to travel long distances for work. I understood him to say that there were 20,000 agricultural workers signing at the labour exchanges who are available and willing to go wherever they are wanted.

Mr. Lemass

No. I said that, of the 20,000, a very large proportion had agreed to go elsewhere for work.

Mr. Hickey

Well, I think that, in view of the fact that for the past two years we are short of so many things which our people require, it is an alarming state of affairs that there should be so many thousands of agricultural workers idle and not employed on the land. It is easy for the Minister to say that there are so many less signing on at the labour exchanges this year, as compared with last year, when thousands of men have gone across the water and when so many others have been knocked off as a result of the Employment Period Orders. The Minister has given us to understand that there was no work here for most of the men who have gone across the water. I think I would be right in saying that the reason why we cannot put these men to work is that we have not money for schemes. I know of schemes where hundreds of men could be employed, but they cannot be put to work because there is no means of getting money for the schemes. I am speaking with knowledge of Cork City and suburbs, where many men could be put to work on schemes that would be of lasting benefit when this war is over, and I say that the reason these men cannot be put to work is the lack of money. During the last couple of years, we have been looking for money for the development of our port. We have huge schemes in connection with sewerage, and there is a big scheme, prepared by a Scotchman, for the development and improvement of the jetties and sea walls, and so on, and all that is being held up because we cannot get money. I was one of a deputation where we wanted to get £50,000 to put men to work on these schemes. We had the reports of our engineers that such-and-such walls would have to be pulled down because they cannot bear traffic and shipping, and so on, but that work cannot be done because we have not the money. Hundreds of men could be put on work of that kind, as well as on drainage work in our cities and towns, and the only reason why they are not at work is that the Minister and the Government are not in a position to put them into work.

I would like to quote for the Minister a recent statement by that well known English economist, Professor Keynes. Speaking in regard to what should be done after the war in regard to rebuilding in London, he said: "It is a question of materials and manpower and not of finance. The humbug of finance is not what it was. It rears a very cautious and timid head to-day, and I do not believe it will be the obstacle it was in 1919 and the succeeding years." I think that if the Minister would concentrate a little more on the humbug of finance there would be no need to be keeping thousands of our workers idle or of exporting them. If that were done it could be said that we were giving a little more serious thought than we are to the problems confronting us to-day. It is not right that we should have to say that we cannot provide our people with employment and that in consequence they have to go across to England. I am not satisfied with the way in which the Minister dealt with that aspect of the case. He said very nice things about increasing unemployment benefit for men who are displaced from industry and are victims of the present war. He went so far as to say that the increase given averaged 37 per cent. That is hardly a fair way of putting it to the House or to the country. I suggest that it would be far better to face up to the actual conditions under which unemployed men and their dependents are living at the moment. He taunted us a moment ago by saying that we had not any regard for the national interest. It would be very interesting to know which is the more important interest: to have men, women and children living under the conditions in which so many are living to-day, or have the few living in luxury. Would the national interest not be better served if all our people were living in fairly comfortable circumstances and able to buy the things they require? If we had that position, then we could talk a little more about the national interest because those people would be able to render good service to the nation. The one thing that counts is that all our people should be able to live in some degree of comfort.

The Minister talked about giving vouchers to the dependents of the unemployed. Personally, I have a very decided objection to the giving of food vouchers to the Irish people. I should much prefer to see all our men who are capable of work being put into work to produce the things that the nation requires, and getting wages to enable them to maintain decent standards of life. I think this drawing of a line between certain classes of our people, giving one man food vouchers for his wife and children, while another man may be privileged to be in employment, and others living on unearned income is not only wrong but dangerous for the nation. It is certainly unfair to the unemployed men and their dependents. They have not got a penny of an increase in their subsistence allowances over the last six or seven years. The most that a single man can get in the way of unemployment benefit is 10/6. If he is a married man with a wife and five or more children the maximum amount he gets is 23/- a week plus these vouchers which are value for 9/-. What can he do out of a total of 32/- a week? If he is living in a corporation house or in a house provided by some other public body the lowest rent charged will be at least 3/6 a week. He will have to pay 10d. a dozen for turf and 10d. or 1/- a peck for so-called coal. Coal will cost him at least 5/- a week. Clothes to cover his body will cost him 5/- a week, light and fuel another 5/-, and rent 4/-. That accounts for 14/- out of the 32/-, so that he is left with 18/- to buy food for his wife, himself and his five children.

Does the Minister suggest that is a proper way to deal with a man who has given good service to his country and who, through no fault of his own, is cast upon the unemployment market? The allowance to a single man who may be under 50 years of age has now been reduced to 10/6. I could show the Minister letters that I receive from those men, and I am sure there are many Deputies who receive similar letters. They are obliged to live in hostels because they cannot afford to take "digs". Some of them have to live in certain classes of houses, because they cannot afford to take shelter anywhere else, and pay for this accommodation out of the 10/6 a week. Those men are not unworthy citizens of the State. They are decent, honest men who, because of a cruel, soulless industrial system are now cast upon the world and expected to live on 10/6 a week. What has he for himself after he has paid 3/6 or 4/- a week for shelter in the hostel.

Does the Minister think that we have any right to say to those people that we are treating them fairly? Is it thought that it is enough to give them food vouchers or unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance? Is that a fair way to treat them? Take the position of those who are living in the suburbs of our cities. Let me take, for example, Cork City, the area of which is now so circumscribed that it is less than the area administered by the Macroom Urban Council. In the case of unemployed men living in Douglas or Blackrock, married men with wives and five or more children, when they become unemployed, they receive the big sum of 14/- a week as a maximum. If they go to the home assistance officer they are told that they cannot get any home assistance; that they are getting the maximum allowed by the State, and that if home assistance were given to them the authority administering it would be surcharged. Why does the Minister think that a man with six, seven, eight or nine dependent children should only receive vouchers for five children? Is there a pagan country in the world that would operate legislation of that kind? We read a lot in the Constitution about the family being the unit of the State. We are told the same thing from other sources, but what is to become of the sixth, seventh, eighth or ninth child? As a member of the House, I must say that I feel that I share a certain amount of responsibility for that state of affairs which, in my view, is immoral, unjust and unChristian. It seems to me that every Deputy in the House is afraid to face that aspect of our legislation. That is no way to treat the most depressed elements in our community, men for whom employers can find no further use since they feel that no more profit can be made out of their labour.

At the opening of business here each day we call on God to bless our work and to guide us. In my view it is almost blasphemy to do that when we have the state of affairs existing to which I have referred: that in the case of those unemployed married men we make no provision whatever for the maintenance of their sixth, seventh or eighth child, while we allow other sections of the community £60 a year, for every dependent child, free of income tax. No matter how large some men's incomes may be, or how many children they may have, they are allowed £60 a year for every dependent child, while the victims of our industrial system can only get 2/6 per week for each dependent child up to the number of five. I want the Minister to face up to that position and the sooner he faces up to it the sooner there will be respect for democratic institutions in this country.

The Minister referred to the Emergency Powers Orders 83 and 166. Of course the Labour Party were accused by the Minister and by the Taoiseach the other night of not being honest and of not facing up to realities. Of course we do not, because we do not pander to the vested interests. These Orders were dictated by the vested interests of the country in order to peg down wages. Order 83 and Order 166 restrict the activities of trade unions to get justice for the workers, yet in the Budget of this year the Minister gave an increase from 6 to 9 per cent. on the invested capital of the employers. Order 166, the Minister told us, and also the Taoiseach the other night, was a great boon to the workers. Let us see what Order 166 says. Where workers want to make an application for an increase here is the machinery they have to go through, which shows that the Order has no other purpose than to destroy the machinery of the legitimate trade unions for negotiation between employers and trade unions. Section 10 of the Order says:—

Where an application for a wages (standard rate) order applicable to a particular class of employees in a particular area is referred to the appropriate advisory body under paragraph (1) of this Article, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

(a) The appropriate advisory body shall hold an investigation into the application, but shall, before commencing the investigation, publish in a newspaper circulating in the said area a notice specifying their intention to hold such investigation and inviting interested persons to submit evidence, and shall consider any evidence so submitted,

(b) at the conclusion of such investigation the appropriate advisory body shall report to the Minister the rates of wages which are in their opinion the standard rates of wages applicable to such employees.

(3) Where the appropriate advisory body, to whom an application for a Wages (Standard Rate) Order applicable to employees of a particular class in a particular area has been referred under this article, report to the Minister, the Minister may, if he thinks fit, by Order (in this Order referred to as a Wages (Standard Rate) Order) declare that the rates of wages specified in the said report as the standard rates of wages applicable to such employees shall be for the purposes of this Order the standard rate of wages applicable to such employees.

It would be interesting to know what is the meaning of all that phraseology. It goes on to refer to the amount they are to get and says that a trade union cannot make an application until the Minister is satisfied that it is a licensed trade union and also that the employer is agreeable that such application shall be made. Then, after all that roundabout way of meeting the application, the Minister will only agree under Order 166 to give a 2/- bonus, irrespective of what the cost of living is, for every ten points over 225. Does the Minister know that there are workers all over the country who have only got an increase of 2/6 a week since 1938 and who have not yet got any further increase? Does the Minister know that there are men working in institutions and in industries who have not got an increase since the war started? Does he think that he is doing justice to workers who can only get a 2/- bonus for every ten points over 225? I want to say to the Minister that the sooner he does away with that and allows the employers and the trade unions to function in their legitimate way the sooner we will have some kind of decent understanding and loyalty amongst the people of the country.

The Minister knows as well as I do that even before any of these Orders were issued there was no demand of any importance, and no inclination on the part of trade unions to make demands, for an increase of wages. Does the Minister think that any employer will ever voluntarily give an increase of wages to his workers? Does not the Minister know that whatever increases the workers have got, not alone in recent years but in past years, were got after a good deal of sacrifice and trouble on the part of the workers? The workers have shown by their actions that they are prepared to bear their share of the sacrifices and accept a reduced standard of living during the emergency. If they are prepared to do that, then some effort should be made to keep the increase in the cost of living within reasonable bounds.

Some days ago I gave the Taoiseach figures that were given by the British Medical Association in 1934 for the minimum quantity and cost of food per week to keep a man, his wife and three children. The minimum cost was 22/6½ per week. Every article in the dietary scale given is produced in abundance here. That dietary scale only allowed one half lb. of butter per week for five persons and did not include even one egg. I have compared the cost of these items with the Minister's controlled prices in this country and I find that they would cost 46/7¾ per week. Yet wages have been pegged down to the rates paid previous to 1941 even for workers who got no increase since the war started. The Minister comes here and tells us that the increase given to dependents of the unemployed more than compensates for the increase in the cost of living. That is not a reasonable or honest way of facing up to the position. I am rather surprised that he has not been informed as to the position by Deputies on the Fianna Fáil back benches who are more in contact with the people than he is. I want to say to the Minister that there is a very strong element of opposition to this class of legislation and also to other legislation for which the Minister has been responsible.

I look upon the Minister's Department as being as important as that of the Department of Local Government and Public Health. These are the two Departments in which I take the greatest interest because they are more intimately concerned with the lives of the people than any other Department. That is the reason I am moving to refer this Estimate back for reconsideration so that serious notice may be taken of the views we are putting forward. It is all very well to say that Order 166 has been made in the interests of the workers. I am sure the officers in his Department will be able to inform him of its reactions on working-class people and of the opinions of these workers in reference to it. These workers are making a greater sacrifice than any other section of the community and so are their wives and families. I suggest to the Minister that he should withdraw these Orders and let the trade unions function in the way they functioned before these Orders were brought in.

Mr. Corish

I formally second the motion.

General Mulcahy

There are three separate motions to the main motion on Estimate No. 55. Are these being discussed together?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It was announced that they would be all discussed together, along with the motion relating to the nationalisation of transport.

Mr. Davin

I want to deal with some of the points raised by the Minister when he was introducing this Vote, and also with the private motion standing in my name and in the names of Deputy Norton and Deputy Keyes. The Minister said that he regarded it as the duty of the Department of Industry and Commerce to direct the development of industry generally. He referred at some length to the activities of the Slievardagh coal company. I would like to impress on him the necessity for persuading that company to extend its operations outside the Tipperary area. I am satisfied, from my knowledge and observations in some of the coal-bearing areas in Laoighis and Kilkenny, that if that company would use the powers given it by the Minister it could certainly increase the output of coal in North Laoighis and Kilkenny, and perhaps in Tipperary and other parts of the country.

There is a good deal of activity of a rough-and-ready type in some of the areas in which I am interested, such as surface-working, and an increasing quantity of coal is being obtained. In some areas that is being done under peculiar conditions. There are instances where some families are carrying on the work of coal production. It would be a good thing if the Slieveardagh company, under existing emergency conditions, would go into areas like Killeshin and other places in north-west Laoighis and take over the rights of the people who have been controlling the activities of the coal producers. If they extended their operations in that direction, considerably increased quantities of coal of a very good type could be obtained.

I know of attempts made by the Minister's Department, acting in co-operation with Deputies of different Parties to get private companies or public companies formed for the purpose of mining coal in a more up-to-date fashion. If the owners of the mining rights, or the people who own the land, cannot be persuaded to sign agreements or surrender whatever rights they have, and take up the attitude of holding up development, I think the State should come in there, through the activities of the Slieveardagh company, and take over their rights for the emergency period and get an increased quantity of coal which is so badly needed. Perhaps the Minister will encourage the directors of the company to look into the matter from that angle. All land which has mineral deposits should be the property of the State under existing circumstances and should be developed to the fullest possible extent for the benefit of the community.

The Minister, dealing with employment and emigration, stated that between 4,000 and 5,000 persons had registered at the labour exchange in response to advertisements issued by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, and offered to go to the turf-cutting areas where camps had been established, and accept the rates of wages and working conditions indicated in the advertisement. How many persons took up work under the terms of the advertisement? How many of those who took up work left as a result of the conditions which were sought to be imposed upon them? I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary challenging the accuracy of certain information given by Deputy Norton in the debate on the Employment Schemes Vote, and he declared that 1,038 workers had taken up residence in the camps in one area where turf cutting was proceeding. What is the position of the very large number of persons who registered for work at the camps, through the labour exchanges, and did not turn up? Have payments of unemployment insurance or unemployment assistance been cut off in those cases? What is the position of the Department in relation to the people who offered their services and did not take up work?

I asked the Minister did he know anything about the conditions under which large numbers of turf workers registered for employment at the Glencree camp, and what is the position in regard to them. In response to the advertisement mentioned by the Minister, I am informed that about 200 men came to the Glencree camp from Donegal, Mayo, Leitrim and Galway. Here is an extract from a letter I received this morning on behalf of these men:—

"We came here on the promise that we would be paid 32/- a week of 48 hours, with 1/- an hour overtime, and could work as much overtime as we liked, 5/- per week was to be deducted for board. The conditions were altered this week when we were told that we were all to be put on piecework rates of 9d. per cubic metre. Three men tried this system, worked hard for 8 hours, and were told they had earned between them for the day 11/-, or 3/8 each. Afterwards the engineer said he made a mistake in his measuring and offered the three men 13/6 between them, or 4/6 each, for a full day's work.

We all stopped and are waiting for our money. About one o'clock to-day we are leaving to go back to our homes, most of us tramping the whole journey, and looking for casual work on the way. The food was very bad. We want the Dáil and the people to know the facts."

Why I am raising this matter now is this. I assert that the terms of the advertisement issued by the Government offering these workers from Donegal, Leitrim, Mayo and Galway 32/- a week, have been broken. Will the Minister say on what grounds he justifies the breaking of the conditions of service which induced these men to come to Glencree camp?

Mr. Lemass

That does not arise on this Vote.

Mr. Davin

These men were offered employment——

Mr. Lemass

Not by me.

Mr. Davin

——through the labour exchange, which is under the control of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I now assert that if the facts are as stated in this message, then the conditions of employment offered by the labour exchange on behalf of the Minister have been altered.

Mr. Lemass

The workers employed in the Glencree Camp were not recruited from the labour exchange.

Mr. Davin

The conditions of service have been provided for these people by the Minister, through the labour exchange.

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Davin

Well, what is to be the position of the men who refuse to work under the altered conditions? Are they to be deprived by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, as the result of the breaking of an agreement, of their right to unemployment insurance benefit or unemployment assistance? Will the Minister answer that question?

Mr. Corish

That is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Davin

It is not a hypothetical question.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy nearly succeeded in making it relevant to this debate.

Mr. Davin

Nearly succeeded? I suspect the Minister has no report in connection with this particular incident, but he is responsible for the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Acts.

Mr. Lemass

But, as the Deputy knows, the decisions are not made by me. They are made either by the court of referees or the umpire.

Mr. Davin

I want to know if the Minister will accept any share of the responsibility for the Order which was issued some time ago and which prevents turf workers from taking up employment with firms like the Goodwill Fuel Company, Irish Hospitals Trust, and co-operative companies which were engaged in turf-cutting activities in the country?

Mr. Lemass

That arises on the Vote for the Parliamentary Secretary, not on this Vote.

Mr. Davin

The Parliamentary Secretary is not a member of the Cabinet.

Mr. Lemass

The Dáil spent a good four days debating his activities.

Mr. Davin

The Parliamentary Secretary is not a member of the Cabinet and has no responsibility for the issue of any Emergency Orders and, as far as I am aware, has not signed any Emergency Order that has yet been issued.

Mr. Lemass

Let me be quite clear. The Government has no objection to defending anything done in the name of the Government. The point I submit for consideration of the Chair is that the matter under discussion now is the administration of the Department of Industry and Commerce, not the activities of the Government as a whole.

Mr. Davin

I am informed that certain persons who were employed last year by some of the companies I have mentioned were prevented by Government Order from taking up employment on the same work with the same firms this year and, as a result, that they have been deprived of their right to receive unemployment insurance benefit. The Order that I refer to lays it down that all workers offering their services or eligible for work in turf-cutting areas must take work on schemes carried out by the county surveyors on behalf of the Government in the areas concerned and they are deprived by the terms of this Order of getting twice, and in some cases, three times, the rate of wages paid by the county surveyors from companies such as those I have mentioned. As a result of their refusing to work on the schemes that are being carried out by the county surveyors in the different areas, they have been deprived of unemployment insurance benefit. I say it is nothing short of industrial conscription to prevent a man from accepting employment at the rate of £3 15s. and compel him by emergency Order to take up work with the county surveyor where the rate of wages is 33/- for a 48-hour week.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

All this has been gone through very fully on the turf Vote.

Mr. Davin

I could not go into this aspect of it on what you, Sir, refer to as the turf Vote, because the Parliamentary Secretary has no responsibility whatsoever, as far as I know, for the refusal to pay unemployment insurance benefit to people who refuse work on schemes being carried out by the county surveyors.

Mr. Lemass

That is a great effort.

Mr. Corish

That shook you.

Mr. Davin

I think it is impossible to shake the Minister and I would not even make an attempt to do so. I do not know on what Vote this question can be raised, except this Vote. The Minister in his introductory speech made no reference whatsoever—and I would like him to give us some information when he is replying—to the activities of the Turf Development Board.

Mr. Lemass

It is no longer under my control. It was transferred to the Minister for Finance by Government Order.

Mr. Davin

The Minister has no responsibility now for the activities of the Turf Development Board in Clonsast or any other area?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Davin

I am sorry the Minister has been deprived of his authority in that respect. I would like to know the extent to which turf has been produced in the bogs where the work has been carried out under the supervision of the Turf Development Board. However, I will have to leave that matter until some other occasion. I put down a motion to reduce the Estimate for the purpose of giving the Minister an opportunity of explaining Government policy in relation to the control of our transport services. I do not think it should be necessary for me, under existing circumstances at any rate, to advance any strong arguments to the House, and particularly to the Minister, in favour of the proposal for the public ownership and control of our transport services. British and Irish commissions have been appointed by the British Government, on the one hand, and by the Irish Government since we took over control here, for the purpose of advising the respective Governments in regard to this particular matter.

There has been a popular demand in this country over a period of 80 years for the public ownership and control of the railways and of the transport services generally. One of the many British Commissions that dealt with this particular proposal was the British Royal Commission of 1910. That commission was set up as a result of agitation carried on over a long period of years in this country, and one of the most prominent members of that commission was the late Mr. Thomas Sexton. That commission unanimously recommended the State purchase and control of the Irish railways. In the early stages of our own Government— I think it was the Provisional Government—a commission was appointed for the same purpose, in 1922. That commission was presided over by the late Lord Justice O'Connor. The majority of the members of that commission made a report in favour of the purchase and State control of the Irish railways. The one member of that commission who dissented stated quite clearly that he was not opposed to the policy of public ownership, but that he disagreed with the views of the majority of the members of the commission on purely financial considerations.

The next thing we come up against is the many speeches made by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce in favour of the same policy. On the last occasion that this matter was referred to I quoted a declaration made by Deputy Lemass, when he was the shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce in this House, on the 9th September, 1931, in which he declared, on behalf of his Party, that he was in favour of the policy of public ownership and control of our transport services and the municipal control of the tramway services in the country. Deputy Lemass, when he became Minister for Industry and Commerce, instead of giving effect to the policy of his own Party on that matter, proceeded to pass legislation of a patch-work type for the purpose of propping up the railways that were then in a very bad financial condition. The condition of the railways and of transport generally in the year 1932, when he took over control, was that we had too much transport; far more transport was available in the country than was required, and the bad financial position of the railways at that particular period was mainly brought about as a result of the failure of the previous Government and the present Government to regulate the activities of competing road services.

We come on to the year 1938, when as a result of representations made by the Great Southern Railways Company to the present Minister, he established a tribunal on the 7th December, 1938. That tribunal got very definite terms of reference from the Minister and he was then sufficiently impressed with the seriousness of the situation generally in regard to transport that he said in this House that he expected the tribunal to furnish their report inside a period of three months. That was not done, but the report of the tribunal was furnished to the Minister on the 4th August, 1939. The Minister for reasons best known to himself refused to publish the report for a period of two years and, in answer to many questions that were raised here during these two years, the impression was given to members of the House that proposals were under consideration by the Government for the purpose of giving effect to the majority report and, perhaps to some extent, the minority report that was submitted at the time I mentioned. Now the majority recommendations of this tribunal, with very few exceptions, appear to be almost entirely on the lines of the famous Allport Commission. There were other commissions, including the Royal Commission of 1910, which consisted largely of lords, landlords and bankers, and people with vested interests. I could understand lords, landlords, bankers and other people of that type subscribing to a report of the type submitted by the Allport Commission but certainly I never could quite understand why either Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Beddy, or Mr. O'Hegarty could subscribe their names to a report of the type furnished to the Minister in August, 1939.

This is the first commission or tribunal set up by the Government of this country which issued a report not favourable to the public ownership or control of transport services. I wonder to what extent they would stand over the different sections of their report if the Minister asked them for their views on these matters to-day? Would the members who signed the Majority Report express any doubts as to whether the branch lines of our railways should be closed down in existing circumstances? Would they be prepared, in existing circumstances, to sign a report containing a proposal for the taxation of private cars and commercial vehicles ranging from 15 per cent. to 100 per cent. in certain circumstances? I am pretty certain they would not. The proposal either in 1939, or at any other time, to close down certain sections of the branch lines of our railways was a proposal that was put forward, without due consideration of the consequences. Such a proposal could never be considered seriously by people who were not in favour of closing down the railways of the country as a whole.

The branch lines of our railways, it must be known to the Minister, play a very big part in feeding the railways with traffic and with funds to enable them to carry on. In the report submitted to the Transport Tribunal, particulars were furnished to show the huge quantity of traffic, both passenger, goods traffic and live stock, carried over these lines for a particular period. I could never understand why anybody who holds the view that the railways can render a service to the community could subscribe to the suggestion that the branch lines should be closed down. I could, if it is desired to furnish particulars here, give the number of live stock that have been carried over a section of the branch lines proposed to be closed down, the numbers of live stock for instance which could not be carried by any other form of transport if these branch lines were closed down. I know of towns on the branch lines of our main railway systems where big fairs are held even now and from anyone of which it would require three special trains to provide the necessary transport to the port at which the live stock would have to be shipped. Is it suggested that the equivalent of 250 wagon loads of live stock could be carried by road on a particular day from a town on the branch line to the port at which these cattle would be shipped? How are you going to carry the heavy commodities, which must be carried by some form of transport if these branch lines were closed down? There are no roads in the country capable of carrying certain commodities or no other suitable transport for these commodities except the railways.

If it is necessary to retain branch lines of the railway to carry live stock, coal or other heavy commodities, these lines must be maintained for the purpose of carrying other classes of traffic in competition with any other form of transport in order to maintain the railway system as a whole. I am pretty certain that the four persons who signed the majority report and in that report expressed doubt as to whether the branch lines should be maintained, would not put their signatures to a similar proposal under existing circumstances. I cannot understand, for instance. why people, whether they be lords or commoners, should express the view in connection with a question of this kind, that in emergency conditions or war conditions it is absolutely essential to have our railway system and transport under State control when in normal conditions they think there will not be any necessity for State supervision or control.

More than two-thirds of the railways of the world are under some form of State control at the present time and in many parts of the world railway systems that are publicly owned or under a very close form of State supervision, are paying dividends on the capital invested. It was suggested here some time ago by somebody that railways under State control were not paying any dividends on their capital. I can quote a number of cases here to prove that quite the opposite is the fact. In New Zealand, with a population of 1,600,000, there is a State-owned railway system. There are 3,500 miles of line open and the net revenue in 1939 was equal to 1.65 per cent. of the capital employed. In Western Australia, where the system is also State-owned, there are 4,350 miles of line open. In 1939, the net revenue was equal to 3.31 per cent. of the capital employed. In Victoria, the system is also State-owned. There are 4,720 miles of line open. The net revenue earned in 1939 was equal to 3.75 per cent. of the capital employed. In New South Wales, where there is another State-owned system, there are 6,120 miles of line open. The net revenue in 1939 was equal to 4.31 per cent. of the capital employed. In Queensland, where there is yet another State-owned system, there are 6,500, miles of line open. The net revenue earned in 1939 was equal to 4.42 of the capital employed.

In Britain, where there is a form of State control, dividends were guaranteed to the shareholders, and there was an excess profit of, I think, speaking from memory, £43,000,000 on the working of the railways last year. To suggest that the railways which are under public ownership in the different parts of the world, or under a form of State control, are not paying their way, is quite the opposite to the facts. These are only a few instances to prove what I am asserting. If the railways—or the transport system of the country generally—are to be regarded as a monopoly, it should be a monopoly under the supervision of the State. What is the difference, for instance, between having the post office, the electricity supply, the shipping services, the production of sugar beet, industrial alcohol, peat development, and schemes of that kind under public control, or close Governmental supervision, and having the railway services under some similar control? If there was ever a case in the history of our country for State supervision and control of transport services, it is sticking out and facing the Minister to-day. I cannot see why the whole transport services of this country, commercial lorries, buses, canals and railways, should not be under the closest possible form of State control. Our Army should be given a fair chance of defending this country in case of attack, and it cannot do it efficiently and effectively under the very loose system of transport that exists here at the present moment.

We had a debate here in the House the other night, in which the Taoiseach engaged in a very heated way when he challenged the members sitting on these benches to show how the cost of carrying turf and the price of turf fixed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and Supplies could be reduced. I assert that the price of turf all over the country, particularly the price paid for turf by the people in the cities and towns at the present time, has been unduly inflated as a result of the uneconomic transport system that exists here. I asked the Minister the other night—I did not give him reasonable notice, or a fair chance of giving me a reply, but I dare say he has taken some steps in the meantime to find out whether figures are available to answer my question— to what extent there has been light running of commercial lorries in this country since the turf cutting operations were taken control of by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. I know of cases where turf is being carried by commercial lorries owned by the Great Southern Railways Company, and by other commercial lorry owners, from places in my constituency as far from Dublin as 80 or 90 miles, to the dumps in Phoenix Park or at the North Wall, and where those lorries are returning light. The Minister can calculate the cost of the light running of lorries on the return journey in such circumstances.

I assert that in the cases that I know of, where the light running of lorries has been going on over 80 or 90 miles journeys, the price of turf has been increased by at least 5/- a ton. Why cannot we have some kind of central authority set up in this country, under existing circumstances especially, to see that whatever limited transport is now available for the carriage of food and fuel will be used to the best possible advantage, and that all this light running of lorries, and railway wagons to some extent, will be cut out? In that way we could reduce the cost of the commodities that are being carried, whether by rail, road or canal? I quoted a case here where the Parliamentary Secretary stated that the cost of carrying turf from some unnamed place in the country to Dublin was as high as 35/- per ton. Now, 35/- per ton for carrying turf by road from wherever it was to Dublin is exactly double the maximum rate charged by the Great Southern Railways for carrying the same kind of commodity from the most distant part of its system to Dublin. That very high rate mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary is brought about because of the cost of running the lorries on the return journey without carrying any commodity. There is no way of dealing with this uneconomic system of transport that exists in the country at the moment except by placing all the transport services under some central authority, such as a transport board. The members of the House should support the motion for that particular reason if for no other reason.

The Minister, when speaking here quite recently, said that the shortage of tyres and petrol might lead to a major economic crisis. That is a serious statement for the Minister to make. Will he say what steps he is taking or proposes to take for the purpose of avoiding the disaster which he appears to foresee? The collapse of the railways is mainly due to the shortage of fuel. During my lifetime, I have never known of the railways being in a position to put themselves on their feet, and in existing circumstances the coal situation makes it impossible for them to meet the requirements of the trading community. The main responsibility for that failure to provide coal for the Great Southern Railways Company must rest, in the first instance, upon the shoulders of the directors who were in control of that company up to 24th February of this year. I am of the opinion that, if those directors were living in another country, and had the responsibility for what is now going on in regard to the railway system over which they were supposed to have some control, they would probably find themselves in a fortress or charged with criminal negligence. I cannot understand, therefore, why it is that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, when he took the necessary steps by Emergency Powers Order 152 to change the system of control of the Great Southern Railways Company, nominated four of the old directors as advisers to the present chairman. I cannot understand that, and I hope the Minister will give some explanation of it. Is it a fact that those four directors were imposed upon the Minister as a result of pressure from banking concerns?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Davin

Or from other bodies in the country who have large holdings in the Great Southern Railways Company?

Mr. Lemass

There was no pressure from anybody.

Mr. Davin

There is no reason, from a commercial point of view, why four men who had miserably failed to do their duty under a private ownership system should be appointed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to advise the new chairman, who is a Government nominee. Innumerable reasons could be given as to why they should not be there, and why somebody other than people who failed to work the Great Southern Railways Company to the satisfaction of the Government should be appointed. I have been informed that those men were pushed into the position of directors under the new system owing to pressure which was brought to bear upon the Minister by the Bank of Ireland and by other bodies in this country who have large holdings in the Great Southern Railways Company.

Mr. Lemass

I can assure the Deputy that his information is incorrect.

Mr. Davin

Can the Minister give the real reason why he imposed these four persons on the chairman and gave them the title of directors without having any real power? They can do nothing. They can tender advice, whenever they feel like going to Kingsbridge to have a talk with the chairman, but while they can do that until the day of resurrection, the chairman can impose his views on these four directors who get the fees they previously received, while having no more power than office boys. I agree that they will have power to waste the time of the chairman, who has been given a very difficult job, under extraordinary conditions. When speaking briefly on this motion and on the position regarding transport generally, the Minister surprised me by saying that the chairman and his colleagues would have as much power as if the railways were nationalised. Are these the words used?

Mr. Lemass

I said I did not think nationalisation would increase our powers.

Mr. Davin

It is not asserted by the Minister now that the chairman and his four colleagues should run the railways for the period of the emergency without having as much power as a body that might be set up by this House under a system of public ownership and control. It has never yet been explained to the public, or to Deputies, what is the real power possessed by the chairman, or whether he has been put in by the Government to control the Great Southern Railways for the purpose of implementing the minority or the majority reports of the Transport Tribunal. Suppose the emergency ended to-morrow, or next September when the Emergency Powers Act expires, what is to be the position of the chairman and directors of the Great Southern Railways the day after that Act ceases to operate? Is it to be understood that the Great Southern Railways and the road and rail services formerly under the control of directors of a public company will go back to the old position that existed prior to February 24th of this year?

Mr. Lemass

Unless permanent legislation provides otherwise.

Mr. Davin

I want to know if the Department has under consideration any legislative proposals that would give effect to the majority or minority reports of the Transport Tribunal. Surely we are not going to wait until the end of the emergency to prepare proposals for a post-war period in relation to transport. It was suggested in the report of the tribunal that instead of having directors there there should be two part-time directors or controllers to assist the chairman, who, under the scheme suggested, would be a full-time member of the new board. Certain appointments have been made in the Great Southern Railways recently and nobody except the chairman knows the meaning of these appointments. In the usual course of events men have been retired because they reached the retiring age. Personally, I approve of the attitude of the new chairman, generally, in retiring men at 65 years, but I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in insisting that the chairman should have as his advisers persons, some of whom are nearly 80 years of age. If the chairman fixes a retiring age for people who drive engines or who use their pens in the offices, on the grounds that they are not fit to serve the company after they reach 65, and if he has imposed upon him by the Minister for Industry and Commerce four directors, all of whom are over 65 years of age—one is close on 80—there seems to be one law for people in privileged positions and another law for those who operate the railways. That is regarded as a funny state of affairs by those who have to work the railways under the existing difficult circumstances.

Speaking for the majority of railway men we believe that the new chairman of the Great Southern Railways has a very difficult job to do, and that he should get from railwaymen every possible assistance, so that he may do that difficult job as well as it can be done. I would like to think, however, that neither the Minister nor the new chairman of the Great Southern Railways would be of opinion that accountants, for instance, are the only people who can run railways or commercial concerns. I have a suspicion that there is some idea like that in the mind of the people in control. It was noticed quite recently that one of the supervising officers appointed to assist the chairman is also an accountant. As the Minister knows, the chairman is an accountant, and I have no doubt a very efficient one, but he has now brought one in as one of his principal assistants—some people say he is a controller—to oversee his officers. Anyway he is an accountant who came to this country less than ten years ago. who knows nothing about the operating side of railways. I would not mind gambling with the chairman, who is a sportsman, that if the best accountant in this country was sent down to audit the books of a goods depot on the Great Southern Railways, or on any other railway, he would not be able to give a truthful certificate as to whether the accounts were right or wrong.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy wants to bet on a certainty.

Mr. Davin

If it is a certainty why are accountants regarded as experts in railway operating work?

Mr. Lemass

They are more likely to be able to deal with accountancy matters than people who are not accountants.

Mr. Davin

Yes, but you cannot have accountants running railways. They will have to get somebody else to tell them how to carry out the technical work. If the best commercial accountant was sent out to audit the books of a railway depôt he could not give a truthful certificate, because he would want to know something about rates, charges, invoices and the technical work that is needed in a commercial concern. It would take a commercial accountant many years to learn the technical side of railway work. I mention that for the purpose of suggesting in the most friendly way that railway men, with life-long experience of operating and commercial work, should not be pushed aside to make room for accountants who have no knowledge or experience of the operating and commercial side of railways. If controllers are appointed, under the system now in operation on the Great Southern Railways, or under any system which may get legislative sanction, they should be taken from the engineering, commercial or operating side of the railways. I admit that accountants should be some of the principal men on any transport board set up by the Government to put into operation the public ownership of the transport services. I know perfectly well that if the new chairman came down from Heaven he would not satisfy the desires of everybody concerned. It is the desire of railwaymen generally that the new chairman should get a fair chance of doing a difficult job. If he is going to do it, he will have to have the help of railwaymen who know how to operate the railway system. If the railways have been mismanaged in the past, I can tell the Minister—whether he agrees with me or not—that that was not due to the failure or the refusal of experienced railwaymen to do their job, but was due to the interference of directors with the activities of officials, who knew how to do their job, but for certain reasons would not be allowed to do it.

It is a simple thing, but why is it that so many railway depôts in Dublin are lighted by gas instead of electricity? It is because we had certain men on the Board of the Great Southern Railways in the past who had these conflicting interests to serve. Why is it that we had some kind of mock competition with the Grand Canal Company? Because the directors of the railways in the past had so many interests to serve. They were bank directors, gas company directors, canal company directors and tramway directors. Some of the directors of the railway company had conflicting interests to serve and, if railway stations in Dublin are not lighted by electricity, as they should be, thus providing revenue for the Electricity Supply Board, it is because of those conflicting interests on the part of some of the members of the old Board of the Great Southern Railways. If we are to have a board in control of transport services, do not draw the members from the same source as they were drawn in the past. I feel fairly certain that the Minister would not do that, but I am pointing to some things which, though simple, show how the conflicting interests of directors in the past failed to serve the particular interest—the development and control of transport under modern, up-to-date conditions. We have an example of the one-eyed outlook of some of these people in the scrapping of the Dublin trams. Some of the directors and others responsible for scrapping the Dublin trams should get up and apologise for having done so. At the time, I stated that the scrapping of the trams was a criminal act against the community, generally. We scrapped the Dublin trams and scrapped other things because we wanted to march in tune with Empire conditions. The people who reside in Dalkey and Dun Laoghaire area are glad to have the tram service on that section of the line.

One recommendation was submitted by the tribunal which I think should be adopted by the Minister even under existing conditions. The four persons who signed the majority report and the other member who signed the minority report were wise in recommending the setting-up of a transport advisory council. Although the Great Southern Railways, and transport services generally, are not under Government control, the Minister would be acting rightly in setting up a body to advise him as to how to regulate the transport available and use it to the best advantage. That advisory body should function until such time as the legislation, which I hope the Government have in contemplation, comes into operation. Good advice could be given by people drawn from different sections of the community to the chairman of the Great Southern Railways and to the Minister in matters of this kind.

Another matter mentioned in the report of the transport tribunal has caused a certain amount of excitement—I would not say amusement —amongst the working railway men of the country. It deals with the recruitment of clerical staff into the transport service under whatever system may be adopted as a result of the report of this tribunal. As is well known by members of this House, the clerical staff of the railways are recruited by open competitive examinations. That right was won only after considerable agitation and after influence had been brought to bear upon the powers that be in the different railway companies. It was won partially by Parliamentary activity in which the old Irish Party took part when representing the people of this country in the British House of Commons. Dealing with recruitment of staff, the members who signed the majority report say on page 86:—

"In our examination of the administration of the company we have considered the present system of recruitment of the clerical staff. The system provides for only one method of entrance, viz., by competitive examination for junior clerks. The examination is of the Leaving Certificate standard and is open to candidates between the ages of 16 and 19 with an extension to 24 years of age for persons already in the employment of the company and for the children of such employees. The system does not make any provision for the recruitment of any persons with higher educational qualifications or with such professional qualifications as might be desirable in certain departments."

Here is the real gem:—

"We consider that candidates of more mature age and with higher educational attainments should have the opportunity of competing through examination for a certain number of appointments above the junior standard in the head office departments."

I cannot understand that type of recommendation coming from the four men who signed the majority report. What is the justification for it? Whether there is any justification for it or not. in the minds of those who signed the majority report. I hope the Minister will not adopt the recommendation. This is a suggestion for restoration of the old school-tie system of recruiting staff for the well-paid positions in the railway and other transport systems. When I joined a railway service 35 years ago, I found that certain people in control of the railway on which I was employed were trying to impose the same kind of system upon that service. The sons of highly-paid officials and the sons and relatives of directors were pushed into the principal offices, particularly the district offices, as superior apprentices. People like myself and other members of the clerical staff, who were expected to do our own work during almost unlimited hours and at lower rates of pay, were expected to educate these superior apprentices as quickly as we could to graduate for the highly-paid posts and to become managers and general managers. I was glad to join and to be an active member of an organisation which put an end to that system. These superior apprentices were sent into the offices for a certain period, but we refused to speak to them or to help them. We let them learn their work in their own way and the system of imposing superior apprentices on the railway service of that period met a quick death.

I hope that this was not the kind of thing which was in the minds of the four men who made that recommendation. Why should a privileged position be given to any class of people in respect of the higher-paid posts at headquarters? If a person wants to qualify for a good job at the head office, he should go down the line, start at the bottom, take off his coat and learn his job. No matter what qualifications he possesses—university, school-tie or other qualifications—he will never be a practical railwayman suited for a higher-paid post if he does not do that. The system of recruiting clerical staff at present is by way of open competitive examination and every man should get his chance of reaching the higher posts by that means. Nothing other than ability and experience should qualify him. I feel pretty certain that the Minister for Industry and Commerce would not accept that kind of recommendation, and I hope he never will. If that kind of system is to be introduced into the railway service, if ever it becomes a public service, it will have the same effect as it has had in other services both in this country and in other places. I remember on a few occasions listening to the late Lord Stamp speaking to the staffs of the railway over which he presided, and admitting—he was a very big man, with a big brain in financial matters, at any rate—that he knew nothing about the technical side of railway matters and had to rely on what he was told by those men who came from the bottom and graduated in a public way through some kind of competition, so far as the clerical side is concerned.

I could go on to mention a number of other matters in connection with this particular motion, which would take up a good deal of time, but I am influenced by the remarks that were made by the Minister in his opening statement, that this present system of control will remain in operation only for the period of the emergency. I ask him again whether his Departmental advisers are considering any other scheme for the control of transport services on the expiration of the period of emergency. The transport of the whole world will be topsy-turvy when this war comes to an end. Whether we are dragged into this war eventually or not—and I hope we will not—we are going to suffer seriously from what is taking place outside. In existing circumstances, there is a very clear case for the public ownership and control of the transport services, if we consider the limited amount of transport available and the necessity to make the best possible use of it in the present serious and critical position.

We have only 12,000 commercial lorries, according to the records of those registered for commercial work at present. I assume that one half of the number registered on the 31st May is at the moment under the control of the Great Southern Railways and that a considerable number is under the control of the Great Northern Railway. What is wrong, therefore, in existing circumstances, in giving power to the chairman of the Great Southern Railways to take over control of every commercial lorry in the country, for the period of the emergency? I think he has the power already under the Emergency Powers Order.

We could have the same system as is now in operation in the Six Counties area, where there is a pooling arrangement and a perfect system of control for all forms of transport, whether road or rail. That is working very smoothly and to the advantage of the community there. If we are to make the best possible use of the 12,000 commercial lorries now registered here, for the purpose of carrying food and fuel requiring transport in increasing quantities during the remaining portions of the year, that can be done, in my opinion, only by putting it under the control of a central authority.

If the Minister is not prepared to set up a transport board for the period of the emergency, for the purpose of controlling transport services, he should make an Order giving complete control of all the commercial lorries in the country to the chairman of the Great Southern Railways. If that were so, and you had such a system operating, even for the period of the emergency, this light running of commercial lorries that has been going on for a period of nine months would not go on any longer.

When commercial lorries come to the city of Dublin with turf for Fuel Importers, the central controlling body would be able to direct that lorry-owner or driver to a place in the city where he would get a return load, thereby ending the light running of lorries and reducing the cost of bringing turf or other commodities into the city or other places. That suggestion should be given some consideration, if the light running of lorries is to be avoided during the period of the emergency.

I suppose the Minister himself knows but we do not, where we are in regard to the supply of tyres for commercial lorries or the supply of petrol for them. We are facing an extremely serious position from the transport point of view. The more effective the supervision and control by the Government of our limited services, the better for the community as a whole. If the Minister does not see his way to accept and put into operation the terms of the motion standing in my name and in that of Deputies Keyes and Norton, I hope that he will give an undertaking that legislation to implement the reports of the transport tribunal will be ready to be introduced and put into operation at the end of the emergency period.

Mr. Brennan

The picture painted by the Minister to-day was, unfortunately, a very gloomy one and, to some extent, I suppose the Minister is not responsible for that. I hope it will make the Minister reflect, and that in his reflection he will consider that the lessons that have been learned by himself and the people are very expensive lessons indeed. In the future there ought to be very deep consideration of all matters affecting industry. While every effort should be made to establish industries, the principal consideration should be given to the maintenance and extension of the main industry of the country.

While efforts were made by the Minister to establish industries based upon imports of raw materials, the main industry was allowed to decay, and there was no long view by the Government regarding it. There was not the type of long view which would ensure that the soil would retain its fertility, with the demands that were being made upon it, if a period of stress and emergency arose such as at present, and that it would not be impoverished. These are things the Minister ought to keep in mind for the future, as the way things have turned out is a rather sad and expensive lesson for the country.

The Minister told us that the number of firms which have gone out of production amounted to 121, employing an average of 40 persons each; and that 188 firms employing an average of 80 persons each, are on part-time work. At the same time, the Minister says that in the Research Bureau, certain developments have taken place with regard to the production of some minerals or chemicals, but the Minister informed the House that, as there were no native industries in which they could be used, they were not at the moment of any importance to us.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy misunderstood me.

Mr. Brennan

I would be very glad if the Minister would correct me. Would the Minister restate the case?

Mr. Lemass

So far as the Industrial Research Council is concerned, the chemicals which have been manufactured as a result of their activities are in use and are urgently required at present.

Mr. Brennan

Would the Minister explain what he meant by one statement—he said that there were certain possibilities, but that the minerals were unusable at present?

Mr. Lemass

I was referring to certain minerals which the Minerals Development Company were exploring. Those minerals could not be used here, but we may be able to exchange them for something else.

Mr. Brennan

But we did research on that line, where there were no industries to use the minerals, while we did not develop minerals on lines where we had industries to use them.

Mr. Lemass

That is a very farfetched conclusion.

Mr. Brennan

I think that is a natural conclusion. I want to deal with the production of coal. It was very disappointing to hear what the Minister said of the activities at Slievardagh. It is quite possible, and I am sure it is the case, that unforeseen difficulties did arise and it is disappointing that the output is possibly under 200 tons a week, but there are other coal mines in the country. There are the Arigna coal mines on the borders of Counties Roscommon and Leitrim. One of the principal mine owners in that district informed me, in a conversation I had with him on the train, that he was coming to Dublin to approach the Department on the subject of housing accommodation for his men. I asked him what his output was and he told me that it was in or around 100 tons per day. He told me the number of men employed and said he would have no difficulty whatever in doubling his output, if he had housing accommodation for his men. He approached the Department, and, from what he told me afterwards, I gathered that he got no assistance there.

I do not know what the facts are. I do not know the detailed nature of the assistance he required, but he gave me the impression that his output could be doubled if he got the assistance from the Minister's Department for which he asked. Some 12 months ago, an effort was made to establish a new coal-mining company in that district, and I was invited to attend a meeting at Carrick-on-Shannon of interested persons, and particularly persons from the county councils of Leitrim, Sligo and Roscommon. I was rather amazed at what transpired, and I was not impressed by the meeting, because, when I made certain inquiries with regard to the survey made some time previously on behalf of the Government, the answers I got were not satisfactory. It appeared to me that if I were to solicit public subscriptions for the purpose of establishing a company of that sort, I might possibly not be on sure ground.

I have not seen the report made by the people who carried out the survey. The Minister has, but what surprised me then, and still surprises me, is that certain people were promised Governmental support in that respect. At least, I understood that the Industrial Credit Company were prepared to underwrite to a very large extent the required capital. In my opinion, that type of development, if the survey was as it was represented to me to be, is not the type of development that ought to be conducted in Arigna, and there ought to be no misleading of anybody with regard to the capital to be provided. If there cannot be development on that line, there ought not to be any suggestion by the Government or by the Industrial Credit Company of underwriting capital.

People who are interested and who have local knowledge of coal-mining in that district, however, believe that it is quite possible to treble, quadruple, or to multiply to a much greater extent activities and output in Arigna by attacking it in the same manner as that in which it is being attacked by some of the private owners there, that the coal is there, not to any great extent, not to the extent to which it could be mined by machinery and up-to-date methods, but in sufficient quantities to get us over the present emergency, if attacked in the kind of piecemeal way being carried on at present and if new mines are opened. There is out-cropping of coal all over Arigna and private individuals there have been quarrying coal for years and are still at it. People who have examined the matter have informed me that, while they are not at all impressed by the idea of forming a big company to develop the mines by mechanised methods, they believe that the output of coal from the district could be multiplied several times over if the Government, or some body on behalf of the Government, such as the Slievardagh company, attacked it on the lines on which it is being dealt with at present. If a private company like that of Mr. Leydon can turn out something like a couple of hundred tons a day, with a very small opening, it is quite possible that that could be carried on in various openings all over Arigna.

The quality of the coal is not at all as bad as it was represented to be some years ago. That is evident from the fact that the bulk of it is used in the beet factories and that some of it comes to the Pigeon House in Dublin. The Minister ought to make some effort to have coal mined in Arigna. If private producers, like Mr. Leydon, Mr. Lynn, Mr. Gaffney and some others can produce coal and make a profit on it, in this kind of hand-to-mouth way, if you like, I do not see why we should not use it, so far as it can possibly be used.

Mr. Hickey

Is there any shortage of men?

Mr. Brennan

I do not know that there is. The peculiarity of Arigna is that it does not demand the type of skilled miner which other mines demand. That is what I am led to believe, but when one sees the difficult conditions under which travel has to be undertaken at present, with trains taking twice the time they ought to take to come from the west to Dublin on the most shocking-looking fuel I ever saw, the question always arises in one's mind: Why are not Arigna and places like it tackled with the utmost energy by somebody? I believe it can be done, and I believe that the Minister and his Department ought to get after it, not with a view to developing Arigna in the up-to-date mechanised way in which coal mines are generally developed—I do not think it will give a return for that and you cannot get the machinery or the skilled miners for it—but in the way I suggest. It can be done in that way. If private owners can do it in a small way a number of private owners or individuals set at it by the Government would be able to get an amount of coal out of Arigna.

I think it worth the Minister's consideration. He ought not to allow people to hang on to the idea of the establishment of an up-to-date coal-mining company there. There is somebody standing behind certain parties who believe in that idea, or who are trying to establish such a company, and I do not think that, on that basis, it would be a paying concern. There ought not to be any hope held out of financial aid, unless the survey undertaken on behalf of the Government some years ago tends to show that it will be successful, if carried out on those lines. I think that, so far as the survey is concerned, the opposite is shown, and if the Minister has had a rather disappointing experience in relation to Slievardagh, notwithstanding the fact that the survey was optimistic, he ought, for the sake of Irish enterprise, to be careful that no people are induced to put big money into an enterprise which possibly might not pay at all.

Mr. Hughes

Deputy Brennan just touched on one point that has always appeared to me to be a matter of paramount and vital importance to this country—he just touched on it, and then went away from it—and that is the maintenance and preservation of the fertility of the soil, because if there is one thing that this country has to depend on more than anything else for its prosperity and its future economic position, it is that great capital asset that we have here, the fertility of our soil. It has always appeared to me that the Fianna Fáil Government, in particular, pay little or no attention whatever to that valuable asset and to its preservation and improvement, where it is possible to improve it. In fact, in recent years, their policy has been to draw on that capital asset, to reduce the fertility, and in doing so they are simply mortgaging the future prosperity of our people. We have had examples from other countries, where fertility has been exploited and its preservation ignored, of the disastrous results to the members of the community. We know of the Dust Bowl in America, and know what happened in Central European countries, such as Austria and Roumania, where they had intensive cereal production and ignored the consequences to fertility. We know that you had soil erosion taking place in those countries, so that the people found, year after year, a diminishing return, and eventually were forced to change their whole economies.

Accordingly, it is a paramount consideration for us that far more and greater attention should be paid to the preservation of the fertility of the soil. That strikes one very forcibly when, at the present time, you read of the activities of our neighbours in the production of food on a small island with a very big population, and how, even during this time of stress and difficulty, and when that country is engaged in a life and death struggle for its very existence, they can still take into consideration the necessity for preserving and maintaining fertility, and to my mind they show a deeper consideration for the preservation of that fertility than we have ever done here. As I said, there is a real danger here, to my mind, that some of the best tracts of land that we have in this country may become reduced and exhausted in fertility and that our people will be left with little or no return as a result of it.

I think Deputy Brennan misunderstood the Minister in his reference to certain mineral developments. The Minister was referring to barytes in Wicklow. We know that they are essential for the production of artificial manures, such as phosphates and sulphate of ammonia, if it were possible to produce sulphate of ammonia here. This mineral development company was established here, and the Minister made just a scanty reference to its activity in Clare. I should like to have a lot more information about what is being done with regard to our phosphate deposits in Clare. I think there is not enough activity in that regard. I am not blaming the Minister for that at all, because I have always felt that the Minister, as a city man, can hardly be expected to appreciate the necessity of making a supreme effort to make some provision for a supply of artificials of some sort or another, if they can be procured at all. He will probably realise the importance of that when he gets the result of this year's harvest, because I have no hesitation in prophesying that there will be a reduction in yield and that that will be progressive as the years go on, if this emergency is going to last for any sort of a long period. I am, therefore, simply taking this opportunity of warning the Minister again of the absolute necessity for making every possible provision for repaying nature for what it is asked to give.

I do not think sufficient attention has been given to that matter by the Minister. I do not know whether he has been warned enough about it by his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, but I try to avail of every possible opportunity that we get in this House to bring to the notice of the Minister the necessity of making a supreme effort, where it is possible at all to make an effort, to provide any sort of artificials that we can produce ourselves here. Power was given to the Department to set up this Mineral Development Company in, I think, 1939. The Minister was not in charge of the Department at that time, but I know that it was many months afterwards before the company was formed, and although there appear in the Book of Estimates substantial sums of money for the activities of that company, it has not shown any great results. In the same way we are spending very substantial sums of money on the Industrial Research Council. The Minister did not give us any great details of the results of the activity of this particular research council. He did tell us that there were certain chemicals that were in short supply here, and that this council, in the course of its work, had developed some kind of substitutes. I suppose that these substitutes would be very useful and, perhaps, essential for certain industrial activities, but I am not aware that they have discovered anything of a chemical nature that would be of any value whatever to our main industry, agriculture.

We have pointed out to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in his capacity as Minister for Supplies, the necessity of making provision, where possible, for a supply of nitrogenous manure and to try to exchange some of our exports for an allocation of nitrogenous manure. I do not know what effort he has put into that matter, but I know that we have not got any. I wonder has any examination whatever been made of the possibility of producing sulphate of ammonia in this country? We have all the raw materials necessary for its production. I am told by a certain individual, who is a particular friend of Dr. Drumm, that Dr. Drumm is of opinion that sulphate of ammonia, even in present circumstances, could be produced in this country. We have the barytes in Clare, we have the anthracite, we have the electricity, and we have the gypsum. We have all the raw materials here necessary for the production of sulphate of ammonia, and it is the one thing that is necessary, more than anything else, for the production of food in this country. I do not know what effort has been put into the solution of this problem, or what examination has been made of it. During the last war, we had a similar problem. We were in short supply of such essential commodities as nitrogenous manures, and artificial manures generally, and a good deal of sulphate of ammonia was produced by gas works. I suppose that, owing to the fact that coal is in such short supply in this country at the present time, very little sulphate of ammonia could be produced by gas works.

Has any consideration been given to the problem of producing sulphate of ammonia in this country? Quantities of it came across the Border into the black market and was sold at £50 and £60 a ton. These figures will give the Minister some idea of the value placed on that article by our agriculturists. Farmers did that because they felt that certain types of land, which was not in a very high state of fertility, would not produce decent crops without the assistance of nitrogenous manure, so that they were prepared to pay almost any price for sulphate of ammonia to ensure that they would get some return for their labour and the seeds that they had put into their land. I am merely stating these facts to convince the Minister of the urgency and importance of the problem that is confronting the farming community under present conditions when they are being asked to provide our food requirements. In the matter of the provision of artificial manures they are getting no assistance whatever from the Government. The Minister did not tell us whether this problem had been considered by the Research Council or if it had what was the result.

Can we be told if plant can be procured for the production of sulphate of ammonia, seeing that we have all the necessary raw materials? I hope the Minister will give full and frank information on this when replying, because I want to tell him that the people all over the country are complaining bitterly of the fact that nothing has been done about it. I do not want the Minister to get away from the problem by merely saying that this commodity cannot be procured, and that that is the end of it, that every effort has been made to try to secure an allocation of it from our neighbours, but that since they require large quantities of it for their own use they are not prepared to release any for us. If that is the Minister's attitude, and if that is to be taken as final and definite, I want to know what further effort the Minister is going to make. I am satisfied that we have all the raw material here necessary for its production. I am anxious to know what efforts are being made or what is going to be done about it. If any efforts have been made, we ought to be told what the results have been.

The Minister spoke about the Slievardagh Mining Company. I understand that a report was made by a well-known British mining company that this new company at Slievardagh appeared to have driven the shaft down in the wrong place and that the results were disappointing. I am aware that, at the time the Dáil was asked to vote money for the formation of this new company, the Minister warned us that it was a purely speculative venture, but that in view of the difficulties we were likely to have to face during the emergency he thought it was a good speculation. It does seem extraordinary that this new company should have selected the wrong place in which to drive down the shaft. It was a pity they did not start their operations in the best part of the seam in that particular coalfield. The Leinster coalfield is very extensive. It extends across the country to the Carlow district. The Minister did say that his attention had been called to the coal deposit at the Rossmore end and that it appeared to be a substantial one. That deposit has been worked at, or poked at if you like by a man with very limited capital, but a good deal of mining knowledge. He is handicapped by the fact that he has not sufficient capital to work the deposit. He has, however, proved beyond doubt that there is a good seam of coal there. The Minister told the House that, with regard to coal mining, you never know what is underneath until you are able to get down and have a look at it. This man who is working the deposit at Rossmore—Mr. Reid—got down and saw that there was a good seam of coal there. This new company had full power and authority to examine seams in any part of that coalfield, and notwithstanding that they chose to go down to Slievardagh and then drove the shaft down there.

Mr. Lemass

The company was established to develop Slievardagh.

Mr. Hughes

Does not the Minister admit that they had the power to develop Rossmore?

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy said they chose to go down at Slievardagh. That is an inaccurate description of what happened.

Mr. Hughes

If they have the power to develop Rossmore, have they not the power to work coal there?

Mr. Lemass

They certainly have the power, but may not have the necessary finance.

Mr. Hughes

The Minister cannot get away by a mere quibble of that kind. They could work the coal there?

Mr. Lemass

They were established to develop Slievardagh.

Mr. Norton

But they are not limited to Slievardagh.

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Hughes

In another part of that extensive coalfield ocular demonstration was given to that company that coal was present there in sufficient quantity to make the working of it a commercial proposition. Think of all the money that has been spent on Slievardagh where the shaft was driven down in the wrong place. After all that expenditure, the output at Slievardagh, according to the Minister, is only 200 tons a week. I want to tell him that Mr. Reid, who is working at Rossmore—just poking, as I have said, at the seam that is there because he has neither capital nor machinery to work it—has a larger output than that.

Mr. Norton

It is about 400 tons— by one man.

Mr. Hughes

I suggest to the Minister that this company is wasting its time and wasting public money on the present output of 200 tons a week, especially when we think of the acute fuel problem that is facing this country. That is typical of the kind of muddling that we have going on. The most extraordinary aspect of it is that the Minister should come here and say that you never know what you have underneath until you get down and have a good look at it.

Mr. Lemass

We had a look at Rossmore and spent a lot of public money on it, too.

Mr. Norton

When?

Mr. Lemass

Some years ago.

Mr. Hughes

Will the Minister say how this man at Rossmore, limited in every way as he is, is able to have an output of 400 tons a week?

Mr. Lemass

He has not.

Mr. Hughes

I have no hesitation in saying that his output to-day, working in the limited way that he is, is over 200 tons a week. It is greater than the output at Slievardagh, where work has been going on for three years.

Mr. Byrne

Could gas be produced from this coal?

Mr. Hughes

No. This is anthracite coal. I agree with Deputy Brennan that sufficient attention has not been given to the possibilities of coal development here. As he observed, coal is an outcrop in a great many places all over the Arigna district. In the same manner, it is an outcrop in the Leinster coalfields. During the emergency it might be possible to get a lot of coal by working a number of those outcrops and without driving any shafts down at all. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again on Tuesday, 7th July.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 7th July.