Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 May 1943

Vol. 90 No. 4

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

I move:—

That a sum, not exceeding £172,718, be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1944, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including certain Services administered by that Office.

The normal functioning of the Department of Industry and Commerce has been seriously disturbed by the circumstances of the emergency. In ordinary times its main functions— placing them, not so much in the order of importance as in the order in which——

If the Minister will excuse me, it is quite clear that Deputies are not aware that the Forestry Vote has been disposed of so soon. I, therefore, direct the attention of the Chair to the fact that a quorum is not present.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present: House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,

The normal functions of the Department of Industry and Commerce can be classified under four main headings. It is responsible for the stimulation and control of industrial development in all spheres and for the supervision of commercial activities to the extent necessary in the public interest or which is prescribed by law. It is responsible also for the supervision and the control of public transport services by rail, road, sea and air, and for the administration of the law relating to these services. Thirdly, it is responsible for conciliation in industrial disputes and for the administration of legal safeguards of conditions of employment of workers. Fourthly, it administers the social services for the relief of unemployment. As I said, its normal working has been disturbed to some extent by the circumstances created by the emergency. Its function of industrial stimulation is, in fact, in abeyance except in so far as its activities have been directed towards examination of the possibility of producing at home materials which were previously imported or substitutes for those materials. The Dáil, I think, is already familiar with the success of some of the efforts made to that end, and in that connection the work of the Emergency Scientific Research Bureau has borne good fruit in many important directions.

Generally speaking, the effect of the war upon industrial employment has been less severe than we might originally have anticipated. Certainly when in 1939 we were facing the war situation and trying to estimate the effect it would have upon economic and social conditions here, it was thought that there would be a much more substantial deterioration in industrial employment than in the event there has been. That is due to a number of causes, partly to the success of the Department of Supplies in maintaining supplies of industrial materials; partly to the ingenuity shown by our manufacturers in adapting themselves to the new situation, and partly perhaps to the fact that our anticipations were gloomier than the circumstances justified. Certainly there are very few Deputies who in 1939 could have expected that after four years of world war, with all the disturbance that world war involved in international trade and economic conditions generally, only a very small percentage of our industrial workers would have lost their employment. In the case of the industries which were classified in our statistics as protected industries, that is, those industries brought into existence here by the application of the Fianna Fáil industrial policy, the decline in employment has been comparatively slight. The maximum number of workers employed at any time in those industries was 82,500. In September of last year, the most recent date for which the figures are available, the number employed was 70,500. In September, 1941, the number was 76,000. There has, of course, been a steady diminution in the total number employed, but it has been, I think, considerably less than might have been expected. It is an interesting fact, which some Deputies may be pleased to know, that the number at present employed in these protected industries is still 39,000 greater than the number employed in them before the Fianna Fáil policy was applied to them.

In some industries, however, because of the emergency, because of the greater opportunities given to them in the circumstances of the emergency, and the special efforts that had to be made to maintain their output by every possible means, there has been an increase in employment recorded. The industrial groups in which that increase has been recorded are those which are classified, firstly, under the heading of manufacturers of wood; secondly, under the heading of manufactures of leather and leather goods, and, thirdly, under the heading of chemicals, fats, oils and fertilisers. In each of these groups there was recorded in 1942 an increase in the number employed. In certain cases the reason for that is easily understandable. Manufacturers of wood, which includes saw mills, have, of course, been busier than they might have been in normal times by reason of the elimination of certain imports of wooden goods which are no longer available, and the necessity for using wood as a substitute for other materials not now procurable. Similarly, in the manufacture of leather and goods made from leather, the emergency has caused us to rely almost entirely upon our own resources, with a consequent expansion of employment.

It is, perhaps, also noteworthy that the decrease in employment which has occurred has been much more pronounced in the case of female workers than male workers. In the case of male workers, the decrease in employment in 1942, as compared with 1941, was 4 per cent; in the case of female workers it was 8 per cent. That, of course, is explainable by reason of the fact that the maximum employment of female workers was given in what ordinarily would be regarded as luxury industries, and these industries have, of course, been more seriously affected by the emergency than industries classified as essential.

Although the work of the Department in the stimulation of industrial development has been curtailed, it has been replaced by an emergency function which is occupying a great deal of the time and attention of the Departmental staff. It is the Department of Supplies which is responsible for procuring industrial materials from abroad, but in the main the Department of Industry and Commerce supervises the use made of these materials when procured and, where necessary, rations them amongst industrial users. That work of regulating the use of available materials and of insuring their equitable distribution amongst those requiring them has necessitated the creation of special sections of the Department for the purpose. No doubt it is in connection with that particular aspect of the Department's work that the Dáil may desire most keenly to have information, because, no matter how carefully it is discharged, inevitably there are individuals who feel that they have not received the proportion of the available supplies to which they consider themselves entitled or that the distribution arrangements in force are not working in their interest.

I would not attempt to give in detail an account of the arrangements made in respect of all the materials controlled by the Department, but there are materials which are of outstanding importance to which I should like to make some reference. In the case of cement, during the past year a situation of great seriousness threatened to arise. In July, 1942, it appeared for a time as if a very drastic reduction in the use of cement would have to be enforced and that future output would be seriously curtailed, if not stopped altogether. In that situation, an order was made bringing the distribution and use of cement under official control, and steps were taken to confine the available supplies to the purposes which were considered most essential in the public interest. That drastic control over the sale and use of cement was maintained for a period, but, following upon arrangements made by the Department of Supplies, an increased production occurred which made possible a relaxation of the control.

It can be said now that, contrary to our expectations, the quantity of cement being produced is sufficient to meet the country's needs. The control exercised over its sale and use has been relaxed considerably, but is still being maintained, in agreement with the cement manufacturers, for the purpose of having in existence the machinery which will permit of a rapid tightening of the control, should the supply position deteriorate again.

Will the Minister tell us what the nature of the threat was?

I do not know what the Deputy is talking about.

The Minister said he was faced with a situation with which might have resulted an acute shortage, but which was subsequently removed by events. Can he give us the facts in regard to that matter?

The Deputy should be aware of the facts. Everybody else is. It was mainly a problem of the supplies of coal.

And we got the coal?

We did not get any extra coal.

We got the supply necessary to avert a shortage?

We made arrangements to ensure that there would be diverted to cement production coal which otherwise would have been used for some other purpose. At the time that control was imposed upon the sale and use of cement, a similar control was brought into operation over the sale and use of asbestos cement goods. Again, there has been an improvement in the production position which has made possible the suspension of that control in its entirety. The present prospect is that the output of asbestos cement goods for the immediate future will be sufficient to meet current requirement. I cannot say that that situation will continue indefinitely, but it is deemed unnecessary to maintain at present the control which we exercised last year.

Another industrial material which has been the subject of many questions in the Dáil is explosives. An adequate supply of explosives is necessary for the maintenance of a very large number of industrial activities. It affects the output, not merely of the cement factories to which I have referred, slate quarries and other important industries giving a great deal of employment, but also the nature and extent of the public works which can be undertaken by Government Departments for the relief of unemployment. During the course of last year, the total supply of explosives available to us was somewhat less than 50 per cent. of the supply we normally use. It became necessary, therefore, to ensure that a strict supervision should be exercised over the use of explosives. The total supply available was allocated in specific quantities to the users who were regarded as of primary importance.

Many representations have been made by individual firms for an increase in their allocation, but such increase could not be given, except at the expense of other firms regarded as of equal or greater importance from the point of view of the general national interest, and, while these representations have been made and sometimes supported in the Dáil. I think it is true to say that there has been a general agreement as to the fairness of the basis of allocation decided upon. The same basis of allocation has been maintained this year. What the supply position will be is, of course, uncertain, but the priorities which were established for 1942 are, I think, equally applicable to the circumstances of 1943 and whatever quantities of explosives come to hand will be allocated upon that basis.

Attempts have been made to procure, from materials available in the country, alternative explosives which could be substituted for those imported. These attempts have been successful to the extent that explosives have been produced which could be used. In so far as any fault can be found with them, it is that they are too explosive and consequently it would be a source of danger to allow them to be availed of for ordinary industrial purposes by workers unfamiliar with their use. It is, therefore, more correct to say that we have not solved, by means of scientific research, the industrial problems created by the scarcity of explosives. To some extent, the substitutes produced and recommended by the Research Bureau can be used, but only in circumstances in which very meticulous supervision can be exercised over them.

Early in the present year, the Irish Steel mills at Haulbowline commenced production of steel bars from the steel billets and rails which had been accumulated there. The total quantity of such billets and rails was limited, and consequently the output of steel bars which can be made from them is equally restricted. It has been decided to confine these steel bars to the manufacture of shoeing iron to meet the requirements of farriers, the manufacture of bolts and nuts for certain essential industrial purposes, the manufacture of agricultural machinery and, to a limited extent, of nails.

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to tell the Dáil whether it will be possible to complete the furnaces and thus put the mills in a position to manufacture bars from steel scrap. Earlier in the year hopes were entertained that the materials required for the completion of the furnaces would be procurable. These hopes are less sure now. It may be still possible to obtain the equipment required, but there is no certainty of it. If it should prove impossible to complete the furnaces, then the steel bars at present being produced from the billets and rails available to the mill will represent the total output possible. If, however, the furnaces can be completed— and the only thing that arises in that connection is the possibility of obtaining the equipment, which has to be imported—then a continuing supply of steel bars will be available in the future.

Difficulties have arisen during the course of the year in connection with the collection and utilisation of scrap cast iron by foundries. Arrangements have been made, and are being brought into operation, to endeavour to improve the collection of cast iron and also to confine the production of foundries to the most essential articles. In relation to all the industries using metals of one kind or another, it can be said that difficulties have been accumulating and there is not much prospect of a diminution of these difficulties.

The next industrial material to which I wish to refer is paper. Under the term paper, I include cardboard. In the course of the debate upon the Vote for the Department of Supplies, I gave the House a general indication of what the supply position is. The Department of Industry and Commerce is responsible for the allocation of the available supplies amongst industrial users, and they are restricted to the use of these supplies for essential purposes only. Orders have been made, in the case of paper and cardboard used for packing and wrapping purposes, designed to ensure that all waste will be eliminated, and unnecessary packing or wrapping of goods will be made illegal.

The utilisation of newsprint for the production of newspapers and periodicals has been strictly controlled and that control has been enforced for the purpose of ensuring that the supply available in the country will be made last for the longest period possible. In the middle of last year it looked as if the daily newspapers would have to cease production, and the total supply of newsprint was strictly limited. Even on the basis of the most economical use of it, it could not be made to last over the period in which no new supplies could be procured. Fortunately, the arrangements made by the Department of Supplies to get additional quantities worked more expeditiously than had been anticipated. Supplies reached the country earlier than we had planned and the period of crisis was averted.

I think, however, there can be no confidence that supplies will continue to be available to us. The restrictions on output in the countries from which we draw supplies, and the regulations imposed upon exports by the Governments of these countries, create the possibility of circumstances arising in which we may not be able to replace our present stocks and, therefore, it is the policy of the Department to make the existing stocks last as long as possible, both in the interest of the public and of the workers employed in the various printing and newspaper firms.

On the Estimate for the Forestry Department the Minister for Lands gave the House a review of the position in respect of native timber stocks. The Department of Industry and Commerce exercises control over the use made of the timber that is available. By means of various Orders, as well as by agreement with the firms concerned, economies have been enforced in the use of timber for packing purposes and other industrial purposes and attempts have been made to divert the demand to the types of timber in most abundant supply for the purpose of economising in the use of the timbers which are of most commercial value but which are the most scarce of all the varieties available to us.

There is no prospect whatever of replenishing our stocks of timber. We have to do to the end of the war, no matter how long it will last, with the timber available in the country, whether standing or cut. We must try to ensure that that supply will continue to be available during the longest possible period for the very essential purposes for which timber is required. One person's guess is as good as another's as to how long the war will last, but we cannot plan on the basis that these supply difficulties which trouble us at the moment will cease when the war ends. It is probable they will continue, to a greater or lesser degree according to the materials concerned, for some time after the termination of hostilities, and on that account our plans for the conservation of stocks and their reservation for use only on essential articles must be based on the assumption that a protracted period of difficulty is in front of us.

The mining companies which were set up by the Government since the outbreak of the war to undertake certain forms of mineral development have met with varying fortune. The Slievardagh coal mining company has been pushing its plans ahead. I know that many Deputies assume that the opening of a coal mine and the bringing of it to a stage of regular production is a comparatively simple matter. In practice it takes from two or three years to get even a small scale coal mining enterprise to the production stage. We have tried to push matters ahead more rapidly than would normally be attempted by commercial enterprise at Sliovardagh, and on that account we have been taking risks, upon the assumption of the accuracy of the information available, which commercial firms, financed by private capital, might not be disposed to incur. The company, however, has now reached the stage where a steady output can be contemplated, although the circumstances that were found to exist below the ground, when they got down, were in some respects different from what had been anticipated on the basis of the geological reports.

Better or worse?

A little of both. The Minerals Development Company has been, up to the present, confining its activities to the production of phosphate rock in County Clare. It has reached its maximum production by means of quarrying operations, and now contemplates trying to increase production by the use of mining operations. The use of mining operations as against quarrying is a more expensive matter and, normally, would not be regarded as economically practicable, but having regard to our circumstances here and to our need for the production of phosphate rock for fertilisers, the company is being encouraged to proceed with the contemplated mining activities. If these activities work out as contemplated, then there should be an increase in the total output of phosphate rock, although the total cost of all the rock that will be raised may be increased.

The company has been actively concerned in what is hoped will be a large-scale development in the County Wicklow area. The workings at County Wicklow are expected to yield not merely the material which is immediately required, that is pyrites for the manufacture of sulphuric acid for use by the fertiliser manufacturers in connection with the phosphate rock, but also a number of metallic ores. Everything, of course, depends upon the ability of the company to procure the necessary plant. Efforts are being made at the moment to secure the plant, but I cannot say that we are hopeful that it will be procured. However, it would be of great advantage to us if we could get it, and would, I think, make possible the initiation of a development in County Wicklow which would be of importance to this country and which would have a permanent future. The indications are that there is in County Wicklow an area in which mineral development work can be undertaken on an economic basis and which would be capable of developing into a large-scale enterprise.

I mentioned that a normal function of the Department is the control of public transport services. I think the House is generally familiar with the nature of the difficulties that have arisen in connection with our transport problems since the emergency began. They are, in the main, supply problems, and the effects of the supply position on transport services were discussed during the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Supplies. The functions of the Department of Industry and Commerce in relation to these transport services are of a somewhat different character from those which affect the Department of Supplies. The Department of Industry and Commerce is responsible for ensuring that the best use is made of the available transport services and that the necessary safeguards are maintained to ensure that the public interests are protected both in respect of the maintenance of transport services as a whole and in respect of the relations between the members of the public and the transport operating companies.

The various restrictions which have been imposed upon road transport services by the Department of Supplies, in order to economise in the use of motor fuel, have been made in consultation with the Department of Industry and Commerce whose concern is to see that, despite the reduction in the total transport which can be undertaken, transport services will still be available in all parts of the country to meet the essential needs of the people. The policy in relation to the control of rail transport services is similar. Deputies have been pressing to-day, and on other occasions, for increased transport facilities for passengers in various parts of the country all over the system as a whole. It is not possible to permit the railway company to expand its services in that way. The supply position does not permit of that being done and, if we were to do it, we would create greater difficulties in the comparatively near future. The maintenance of this transport service is not wholly a matter of the supply of coal or substitute fuels, but also, and to an increasing extent, a problem of engine power, the maintenance of rolling stock, the renewal of existing equipment, and the difficulties which are inevitably associated with the contraction in the supply of machinery, metals, and parts manufactured from metal.

In the case of the air services, there has been since the outbreak of the war, despite a substantial reduction in the number of aircraft miles flown by Aer Lingus Teoranta, a remarkable increase in the number of passengers carried and in the weight of goods carried. The number of passengers carried in 1942, for instance, was more than double the number of passengers carried in 1939, and there was also an increase in the weight of goods carried, although not to the same extent. That expansion in the number of persons using the air services has been accomplished despite the fact that the total number of aircraft miles flown has been, of necessity, very substantially reduced.

And yet that concern is still a costly affair and you are losing money on it?

That is true, and one of the purposes of this Estimate is to procure a subsidy for it. However, as far as I know, there is no commercial air line in the world that is able to carry on at the moment without a Government subsidy. It may be possible after the war to organise it on a paying basis, but up to the present, as I have said, it has been found necessary for Governments in all parts of the world to provide subsidies for these commercial air lines.

Is the loss a diminishing one?

One of the most fruitful sources of public controversy has been in connection with the measure adopted by the Government for the regulation of personal remuneration during the emergency. I wish particularly to refer to suggestions which were made by Deputies here during last year, to the effect that the Orders which were then in force should be codified so that persons who had occasion to refer to them would have a single document in which they could find the whole of the law relating to the matter. That codification of Orders made under the Emergency Powers Act, dealing with the control of wages, salaries, directors' fees, and other forms of personal remuneration, has been made, and Emergency Powers Order No. 260 represents not merely the result of the effort to codify the previously existing Orders but also contains modifications of these Orders which experience has shown to be necessary. I think it can be said that whatever controversy may still exist about the wisdom of the policy as a whole, the machinery established by that Order is working smoothly and to the satisfaction of all parties concerned. The number of applications which are being made for standard rate Orders and bonus Orders is very considerable but, nevertheless, they are being disposed of with considerable dispatch. It is not now necessary to refer all these applications to a tribunal established under the Order. Under the new procedure, when there is agreement between the parties concerned, and where the nature of the employment is not such as to raise an obvious consideration of public interest, then bonus Orders and standard rate Orders can be, and are being, made without reference to a tribunal at all.

Where there is no agreement, where the facts of the case are in dispute or where it is clear that the effect of granting the application upon the cost of living might be considerable, then there is an examination in public by a tribunal and Orders are made upon the recommendations of a tribunal. In each case, the tribunal consists of a chairman, appointed by myself, a representative of employers and a representative of workers. I am happy to say that, in the great majority of cases, the recommendations of tribunals have been agreed to by all members. Up to date, there have been, roughly, 450 standard-rate Orders and about 550 bonus Orders. The difference between the number of standard-rate and the number of bonus Orders is explained by the fact that, under the provisions of Emergency Order 260, it is possible to make a bonus Order without having previously made a standard-rate Order. That modification of the original provision was considered necessary in order to deal with the circumstances of occupations in which, for one reason or another, it was impracticable to determine or to put down upon paper what the standard rate of wages of the employees had been on the appropriate date.

I mentioned that, in normal times, a large part of the work of the Department of Industry and Commerce is concerned with conciliation in industrial disputes. Fortunately—I am sure all Deputies will agree as to the use of that word—the number of industrial disputes reported to the Department of Industry and Commerce during the past year was substantially less than in previous years. That is, I think; partially due to the fact that the Government decided upon a wage-control policy. I feel sure that, apart from any objections in principle which there may be to that policy, most people concerned with the interests of workers or the interests of employers will agree that it is eminently desirable in present circumstances that the number of stoppages of work, due to industrial disputes, should be reduced to a minimum. It has, I think, been a real benefit to this country that, during the past year, the stoppages of work which did occur were few in number and that no case was so extensive in character or so prolonged in duration as to cause serious difficulties of supply.

The Statistics Branch of the Department is continuing to serve with increasing efficiency the need for reliable information concerning national conditions. I refer to it in the course of these introductory remarks for the purpose of informing the House that it will be necessary, in the course of the coming twelve months, to take a new register of population. The ration books now in use by the public will have become exhausted about the middle of next year. It will be necessary to replace these ration books with new books. Originally, it was contemplated that the back page of the present book would serve as a registration form and thus simplify the re-registration of the population when the issue of another book became necessary. Experience has, however, shown that it would be too unreliable to proceed in the manner originally contemplated, and that it is better to prepare a new population register. That will be done during the course of the next 12 months. It will have to be done to enable a new issue of ration books to be made next year. We contemplate the preparation of the new ration book upon the basis of the need to maintain the rationing of some commodities in some form for three further years. It may be, and I am sure we all hope, that circumstances will permit of the termination of rationing before the expiration of that period but, having regard to the known facts concerning the world supply situation in respect of commodities which are regarded as essential, we have to face up to the possibility that rationing will still continue to be necessary for a period, even should active hostilities cease. At any rate, it is upon that assumption we are making our plans. If the circumstances should prove that the assumption is too pessimistic, we shall all be delighted. On the other hand, if they show that the assumption is correct, then it will be a relief to know that the necessary arrangements for dealing with that situation have been made.

I presume that, in accordance with the normal practice, the administration of unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance will be debated upon the main Vote. A number of Votes for which the Minister for Industry and Commerce is responsible have, for legal reasons, to be moved separately, but it has always been the practice of the House to discuss them together. I do not think that there is any special point to which I wish to refer in connection with the administration of unemployment insurance or unemployment assistance. During the course of the past year we brought into operation a special register of agricultural workers. That register was complementary to the decision of the Government to place restriction upon the emigration of persons who were experienced in the work of agriculture or the work of turf production. It was felt that, if such persons were subjected to greater restrictions than applied to the population as a whole, some compensatory benefits should be made available to them. It was decided to give increased benefits by the device of setting up a special register of such workers, those included on the register being entitled to the enjoyment of certain privileges, which include payment of extra sums during unemployment, exemption from the operation of Unemployment Period Orders and preference on works financed out of public funds. The number of persons registered as unemployed at employment exchanges at present is lower than it has been at any time for the past ten years. The number of persons on the register in January of the present year—I take January because it is the period in which unemployment is normally at its worst, and in which the number on the register is at its highest—was 88,435. In no previous January, back to 1934, was the number so low. In fact, for each week of the present year the number on the register has been on the average 10,000 less than for the corresponding week of last year.

That circumstance, while partly due to the amount of work available in turf production and in other employment in rural areas is, of course, as Deputies well know, attributable very largely to the emigration which has occurred during the past year. The Government's policy upon emigration has been stated frequently in the Dáil and made clear to the public by means of announcements in the Press and over the radio. Normally, we ban the emigration of any person who is in employment, or for whom employment is immediately available in this country. The ban applies, except in special circumstances, also to people under 22 years of age. Of course, agricultural and turf workers were provided for under the special register scheme.

I do not know that any modification of that policy is practicable. Certainly, nobody has at any time suggested that the particular procedure now in operation should be changed in any specific way. I know, and every Deputy knows, that the way to deal with the emigration which is now proceeding is by increasing opportunities for work at home. The Government would like nothing better than to be able to expand the opportunities of work here so as to encourage Irish workers to remain at home rather than to proceed to employment elsewhere. Under existing conditions, however, the work which can be given by private employers is contracting in volume, and the work that can be financed and carried through by Government Departments is also limited in scope by reason of the dearth of materials, tools and fuel.

It is not now possible to carry through large scale housing schemes or other constructional works of the type which the Government financed and supervised in pre-war years. If we could do these works upon the same scale as in the pre-war period, the House knows that they would be done. It is solely because of inability to obtain the necessary equipment that the number of such works has diminished. In so far as large works can be carried through with the available materials and available equipment, they are being undertaken, but the impossibility of expanding the scope and size of such works to the extent which would absorb workers disemployed from the service of private firms owing to the emergency, will be readily recognised. If, however, Deputies have proposals to make as to how restrictions upon emigration should be modified in one way or the other—either to allow classes out that are not now allowed out, or to prevent classes who can secure travel permits from emigrating—I should be glad if they would put forward their proposals in a specific and detailed manner.

At the present time there is coming into operation the Wet Time Act. That is the title given to the measure which was passed here for the purpose of insuring workers engaged in the building trade against loss of employment due to inclement weather. The need for legislation of that kind had been recognised in the building industry for a long time, but neither here nor in any other country had an attempt been made to carry it through until that Act was passed in the Dáil just before the outbreak of the war. I do not think that any other country has legislation of the same kind in force, and it is interesting to note that Government Departments of many countries have asked for reports on the legislation we prepared and on the administrative problems that have arisen in connection with it. It can be assumed, therefore, that our Act has been regarded as a headline by the Governments of these other countries but, while that is something upon which we can compliment ourselves, it is necessary for Deputies to keep in mind that inevitably, as is the case with all pioneers, we are going to run into difficulties which we have not foreseen, and we may have to amend our administrative methods in order to circumvent these difficulties. The Act is now coming into operation. Workers employed in the building industry are now making contributions, but the payments of benefits will not begin until next month. It will be necessary for a worker to have been in employment and to have 12 contributions to his credit before he becomes entitled to benefit. By that means a fund is created from which benefit will be paid. That Act will be in full operation before the end of next month— that is to say, all workers employed in the industry will be making contribution and all workers who lose their employment by reason of inclement weather will be entitled to the benefits prescribed in the Act.

The only other matter to which I wish to refer is the food voucher scheme, so far as it is administered by my Department. The Department is responsible for the distribution of food vouchers to persons entitled to unemployment assistance. I think that we can say that on the whole the scheme has worked well throughout the year. Ten thousand five hundred persons benefit by the scheme every week— that is to say that number of persons, entitled to unemployment assistance, are receiving food vouchers, graded in accordance with the size of their families. Food vouchers are also given to other classes, but I am referring now only to unemployment assistance recipients. It is true that at various periods in some districts persons with food vouchers experienced difficulty in procuring supplies against the vouchers. Such an experience is almost inevitable in circumstances such as we are now passing through, but everywhere it was reported that such difficulties had arisen, ad hoc arrangements were made to try to reduce them or remove them altogether.

It was not possible in some cases to guarantee to holders of food vouchers that they would get their appropriate supplies every week but, where temporary difficulties arose, we tried to meet the problem by enabling the vouchers of recipients to be cashed in arrear so that they suffered only a temporary inconvenience caused by the inability of traders to meet their case. It is, however, necessary to impress on traders that persons presenting food vouchers should have a prior claim upon supplies in circumstances of temporary difficulty. Their need is obviously greater than that of others, and I am glad to say that the vast majority of traders have always acted in the spirit of that appeal, so much so that, having regard to the difficulties of the time and the number of persons concerned, it is really remarkable how few the complaints have been.

There are, of course, a number of functions of the Department of Industry and Commerce to which I have not referred and to which I do not propose to refer unless some Deputy requests me to do so. I can assure the House that any matter concerning the activities of the Department about which they desire information will be fully dealt with by me in replying. My sole anxiety is to see that the fullest possible information is given to Deputies, so that they may be familiar with the many problems which have arisen in the Department, and the methods by which we have decided to cope with them.

I move: That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration. The Minister has given us a very interesting survey, and has covered a very wide field. I propose to cover only a much narrower field—what I might call the normal pre-war activities of the Department of Industry and Commerce, carried into the present emergency period. I am afraid that, with regard to some of the problems, we do not know how much they are truly economic or how much the phobias of the Government in political matters have leaked into the economic field. I think it was two years ago that the Minister's predecessor in the Department of Industry and Commerce said that they were examining into the question as to the extent to which factories in this country could be employed on work which, while not war work, would be something akin to it. I never heard whether they pursued those investigations or whether they arrived at any conclusion.

The Minister referred to timber as one of our principal difficulties. I entirely agree with him, and I think that, with regard to native timber, a good deal has been done. Of course, native timber will serve only a certain number of purposes, but undoubtedly a big advance has been made. I think the country is more or less adjusting itself to war conditions. Some of the timber merchants have undoubtedly partly seasoned the native timber, and the buyers have considerably altered their ideas as to what timber ought to be. Turning to the other side of the timber industry, of course our main requirements in soft timber—and indeed in hard ones too—were brought in from abroad. At the present time, there are supplies of timber available in Sweden. Sweden has ships, and is anxious to sell them to us. The Swedes are prepared to drop wood products in any neutral port like Lisbon. I suppose on a fine day a person with a good telescope might discern a Swedish ship sailing past our coast. If the Swedes are willing to put into our ports, is there any reason why we should not use every effort to find out why they do not put into our ports?

For some years past the Department of Industry and Commerce have been tightening their hold on industry. In the pre-war period, there were quotas in operation. Those quotas were usually based on some previous trading figures. That system resulted in some people getting too big a quota, while others probably got too small a quota. That had to be sorted out afterwards, with, I suppose, profit to some and loss to others, but it seems that there was a needless interference with industry. I am sure the Minister will strenuously deny what I am about to say now, but that does not necessarily alter the truth of my statement. One of the major blunders of his Department was that, while they were fostering industry in the pre-war period, and very properly fostering it, they failed to realise when the war clouds loomed on the horizon that a period of danger was approaching and that the country ought to be stocked up. What happened was that the native industries were geared for only a very moderate peace-time rate of supply. The quotas and restrictions were in operation, and the country was not stocked up as it was before the war in 1914. The Minister will probably retort by telling us that now, with great advantage to the country we have industries which were not in existence then.

That is perfectly true, but it does not alter the fact that what we gained on the swings by industrial expansion we lost on the roundabouts by shortages of supplies in this country. There is no good in talking about the past—I suppose some wag will say that Ireland's future lies in the past—unless we learn from the past some lesson for the future. The war will not last for ever. At the present time, of course, an importer who could bring in any goods would get a free import licence —I will do the Minister the justice of saying that he is as glad as anybody else to see goods arriving in this country—but, while that position might have been all right just immediately after the outbreak of hostilities, it ought not be prolonged indefinitely.

No decision has been come to on the general post-war policy; no information can be obtained; no policy has been adumbrated. I would like to give the Minister an instance of what I fancy could occur and, while I am going to mention one particular commodity, I imagine that this can be carried into almost every type of industry and every type of goods that come into this country. The finished products of one industry are the raw materials of another. Nobody knows— and I do not envy the Minister in trying to make up his mind—whether raw materials or finished products are likely to be available for supply to this country in the post-war situation. Remember, it will not be like when the war was coming on, because we will have no materials when the war comes to an end. Let us suppose that somebody wanted a steel building. In the post-war period, I suppose, the tariff on fabricated steel will be reintroduced, but it may be found that the raw materials cannot be obtained by the steel fabricators in this country and if the building programme is held up it will be just too bad for many employees and many firms who employ them.

The Minister and the Government are very fond of telling us that they have a plan. I would like to ask the Minister, has any policy yet been decided upon that would cover a situation such as I have mentioned? Remember, that while I have given an instance of steel, it could be carried into the soft goods line or into almost every other line. If a policy has been decided upon, is industry fit to hear it? The Minister has mentioned to us the scramble that will probably ensue if any goods are brought into this country in the post-war period. Nothing influences an exporter or manufacturer of goods in another country so much as the prospects of a continued business. If a manufacturer or an exporter finds that there is just one order available and then the business will probably shut down, there will be nothing doing. I would like to suggest to the Minister that at the present time importers ought to be contacting exporters in foreign lands as to what they can send out when peace comes again, and as to the terms on which they will be able to trade with this country. If this question is unduly delayed, exporters in other countries may have allocated their supplies, post-war, before we have made up our minds as to what our policy is to be in the post-war period.

The Minister may not realise it, but he has sewn industry up in a sack. The part played by industry has now largely been taken over by his Department. The control is under his officials and the experience of generations of traders in this country is now brought down to a four years' experience which has been acquired by the Minister's Department about supplies. If that is the position that ought to prevail, either the Minister's Department is composed of supermen or all the people in industry are fools. I would like the Minister to give me an answer, if he can, as to what the post-war policy in general is going to be for industry because, remember, they can do nothing until they get some idea as to what tariffs are going to prevail and what restrictions are going to be imposed. The Minister may say that that is a very difficult question, that he would want to be a prophet to answer it. I quite agree with him, but he will have to give that answer, at any rate for a limited period, and say: "Well, now, I am going to do this for so long and you can get busy along those lines." Nothing can be done until the Minister makes up his mind and lets people know where they stand.

Mine is a separate motion, for a different reason.

The Minister to conclude.

What is the procedure, Sir?

The motion to which the Deputy is referring cannot be taken until Deputy Dockrell's motion is disposed of.

The matter I propose to raise is a policy matter and has no bearing on the matter referred to by Deputy Dockrell.

If we dispose of this motion to refer back now, then the Deputy can move his motion in respect of sub-head A and that matter he wishes to raise can be debated again.

I do not mind; it is a matter of convenience.

The Deputy should have joined in on the other motion if he wanted to discuss general policy.

I understand that Deputy Davin wishes to raise a specific matter relating to transport policy.

That is so.

Would the Deputy be in order in raising a specific matter on a motion to reduce the amount of sub-head A?

On administration only.

That is a point that, I think, might be brought to Deputy Davin's notice. I am not at all sure that he can raise the matter that he has in mind on his own motion. I think it must be raised on the motion that is now before the House.

If the Deputy prefers it, he can join in the debate on the motion to refer back which will take precedence of the main Vote and will be put to the House later.

Does that mean that there will be a further discussion on Deputy Davin's motion?

I do not think so.

I think that Deputy Davin is under a misapprehension. The motion to reduce the amount of sub-head A would have to deal with administration only, and the only matter that could be raised on such a motion would be one of administration. Deputy Davin, I understand, is anxious to raise a matter of policy. That cannot be raised, I think, on the motion relating to sub-head A.

I accept that. On many occasions during the last 12 months, when speaking outside the House in particular, the Minister admitted that the major problem confronting the country was the possible collapse of the transport industry. The Minister, when referring to this matter in particular, has been critical about the failure, the refusal or the inability of the Labour Party at any time since they came into this House to put forward constructive proposals for the solution of the present problem. I would like to remind the Minister, in case he may have overlooked it and in that way was unconsciously unfair to the members of this group, that as far back as the 23rd November, 1923, this Party got leave to introduce a Bill into this House under the title of the "Transport and Communications Bill". The title of it was: "A Bill to provide for the acquisition by the State of railways in Saorstat Eireann, for the management of such railways and the Post Office and for the coordination of road, motor, aerial and other transport services and other purposes connected therewith". At that period I think the Minister was not a member of the House or an elected representative of the people. I would like to remind him that long before he became a member of the House, and for many years before he publicly committed himself to a solution of this problem by a particular method, we had, after a good deal of consideration, drafted and put into the framework of a Bill all the details under which an effective and efficient transport system might be, and should be, set up in this country. I hope that disposes of the allegation repeatedly made by the Minister against the members of this group in connection with this and other matters.

This problem is a major one, and if it is as serious as the Minister admits to-day, it is because he has not taken any effective steps to put into operation his own declared policy for dealing with it. When the Minister, particularly between the period 1927 to 1932, was in opposition in this House, and even after he became a Minister, he publicly declared himself, both inside and outside the House, as being in favour of the public ownership of the transport services of this country. Instead of proceeding to put that policy into operation when he became a Minister, he brought in a Transport Bill and a Railways Transport Bill in 1933. In winding up the debate on the final stages of these two Bills, he made it quite clear that these measures, for which he then got approval from the majority of the members of this House, were, in effect, the last trial to be given to the private ownership system for the transport services of this State. If I am unfair to the Minister he can contradict me. If he challenges the accuracy of my statement, I will quote from the official records of his speech on the concluding stages of the 1933 Bill. That Bill, in the opinion of the Minister, would provide better transport services, both road and rail, for the community; it would give cheaper rates to the persons who made use of these services, and would provide better security in employment and conditions of service for the workers in the industry.

The next serious statement made by the Minister in connection with the position of the transport industry was made in this House on the 7th December, 1938, when he indicated that, in view of the situation then existing and in view of the then pending financial collapse of the railway system of the country, he was proposing to set up a tribunal with power to send for persons, papers and documents, and to make recommendations. In that speech the Minister indicated that the matter was of such urgency and importance that the report of that tribunal should be in his hands in February, 1939. I remember indicating, in the course of the discussion, that, in my opinion, it would not be possible for the members of the tribunal to furnish a report within such a short period. As everybody knows, the reports of the members of the tribunal were handed to the Minister in August, 1939. For reasons which he never gave to this House, the Minister filed those reports in some secret cabinet and only allowed them to be published two years after they had been handed to him. What transpired between the date on which the Minister received them and the date of their publication is not even now known to me or to anybody else interested in this problem.

The next most important event in connection with the transport industry of the country was the action of the Minister under the Emergency Powers Order issued in February, 1942, which placed the Great Southern Railways services under the control of a chairman-dictator without any previous or subsequent explanation to this House as to the powers of the chairman appointed by the Minister, his responsibility to the Oireachtas, if any, or his responsibility to anybody else, as far as I know. The action of the Minister in appointing a chairman-dictator of the Great Southern Railways in 1942 is certainly a complete contradiction of everything said by the Minister from the time he came into the House in 1927. With the exception of the powers given to the Fuehrer over the people and industries of the German State, I know of no one in the world having such powers as the chairman of the Great Southern Railways. The public control policy, at any rate, was thrown completely overboard by the action of the Minister on that particular occasion, and we find it impossible to get any statement from him up to the present as to the powers possessed by this extraordinary individual. Previous to the appointment of the chairman-dictator of the Great Southern Railways, it is well known that the directors appointed by the shareholders who were in control previous to February, 1942, took no effective steps to purchase the necessary raw materials, including coal, for the carrying on of the company's services.

Statements have been made on various occasions as to who should be held responsible for the failure of the Great Southern Railways to purchase the necessary coal and other raw materials to carry on an efficient railway service. I assert here and now, again, as I did before, that the action of the Great Southern Railway directors in not doing their duty in that respect must have been made known to the Minister. In any case, the Minister for Industry and Commerce—who is also Minister for Supplies from some period in 1938—was bound as Minister for Supplies to inquire as to the position of the Great Southern Railways and other essential undertakings. He was bound to provide them, if he had the desire to do so, with whatever State guarantees might be necessary, in order to enable them to purchase coal, when coal was available in large quantities at very low prices.

Why would State guarantees be necessary?

The answer to that is obvious. The Minister knew perfectly well that, for a long period previous to the appointment of this chairman-dictator, the finances of the Great Southern Railways were in a very serious condition. This was recognised by the Minister in his appointment of the tribunal on the 7th December, 1938, shortly after the Department of Supplies was established, I think. In any case, I am pretty certain also, from what I can gather, that the members of the tribunal, and particularly the chairman of the tribunal, were in constant consultation with the Minister and his advisers, in regard to the internal affairs of the Great Southern Railways, and if the Department of Supplies had any function, it was to assist the owners of essential undertakings and employers throughout the country to get the necessary raw materials, which the Minister advised them to get before the outbreak of war or immediately after the Department of Supplies was set up.

I can tell the Deputy that no State guarantee was necessary to get funds for the purpose.

If it were known to the Minister that the Great Southern Railways were not in a position to purchase coal, or had not the necessary money in 1938 or 1939, I assert here and now that it was the duty of the Minister and the Government to provide them with the necessary State guarantees.

But they did not require State guarantees to get the money.

It was known to the Minister that they had not the money.

They had the money.

Why did they not buy the coal, so?

That is a separate question. Is the Deputy objecting to my action in appointing a chairman?

I assert here and now that the Minister must have known that, if he was doing his job as Minister for Supplies. Did the Minister or the Department of Supplies, at any period after the Department was set up in 1938 or 1939, make inquiries from undertakings like the Great Southern Railways, the Electricity Supply Board, the Gas Company or other big employers or essential undertakings in the country, as to their position in regard to supplies of raw materials, coal and other commodities? If he had made such inquiries, I am sure he would have got only one answer from the Great Southern Railways.

What answer?

That they had not the necessary money to enable them to purchase the necessary coal, that was offered at 20/- per ton after the British got away from Dunkirk.

That is only a fairy tale.

It is not a fairy tale.

The Deputy is forgetting that coal was rationed in this country in the first six months of 1940.

Has the Minister made any inquiries as to whether it is a fact that the directors of the Great Southern Railways and the Great Northern Railway were offered 1,000,000 tons of coal at 20/- per ton after the British got away from Dunkirk?

There is no truth whatever in the story. It has been contradicted by me and by the Great Southern Railways themselves.

Has it been contradicted by the chairman-dictator appointed by the Minister?

It was contradicted by the board of the company.

The chairman of the company, at the first shareholders' meeting over which he presided, was asked that question and he referred it to Major Henry, then deputy-chairman of the company. Major Henry's reply was that they did not make any request to the Government for financial assistance to enable them to buy the coal. That may be true.

They were never refused any financial assistance.

It may be true that the directors were found wanting in their duty, in not making representations to the Minister; but did the Minister for Supplies, after he was appointed in 1938, inquire from the Great Southern Railways as to whether they had the necessary supply of raw material, including coal, or if they had the necessary money or credit to purchase whatever was required? That is a straight question.

We did. Yes.

Is it not a very strange thing that, if the Great Southern Railways were not offered this coal, the Great Northern Railway were; and, although the Great Northern Railway were in a worse financial position during 1938 and 1939 than the Great Southern Railways, they were able to get, through the agency of the Six-County Government and the British Government, the necessary State guarantees to purchase the very best coal, which is keeping that railway running up-to-date?

Nonsense.

I know the Minister is able to put a very convincing look upon his face, when he is endeavouring to get out of the hole he got into when he became Minister for Supplies, by reason of the fact that he did not believe—apparently, he admits now that he does not believe—that any essential undertaking or company should look for a State guarantee for the purchase of raw materials.

There was no necessity to get a State guarantee. No firm in this country failed to import any supplies in that period by reason of inability to get finance.

Then tell why the Great Southern Railways did not purchase coal.

They did purchase coal.

Why did the Minister allow that state of affairs to go on, until everything collapsed, and then try to get over the whole situation by appointing this Fuehrer with unlimited powers?

Has the Deputy any idea as to what is involved in the importation of 1,000,000 tons of coal— how many ships and how many months it would take?

Yes, I know that, and the Minister is coming to dangerous ground now. There were hundreds of ships lying in British and American ports with nothing to carry, shortly after the Minister was appointed Minister for Supplies and, of course, he would not buy the ships because, as he said to some of my colleagues: "What would I do with the ships when the war is over?"

That is a lie—a lie that has been contradicted on many occasions.

Order, order! For the sake of common decency, that is an expression which, I understand, no one should use in this House.

If it is out of order, I withdraw it, but I think it is despicable of the Deputy to repeat a statement which he knows has been contradicted.

Is it in order for the Minister to say to Deputy Davin: "That is a lie"?

Is the Deputy raising a point of order?

Most emphatically.

It is quite in order to say that a certain statement is a lie.

I will have frequent cause to avail of that permission.

If the term is out of order, I withdraw it.

I am not pressing for that withdrawal, because the same Minister made a statement outside this House which he should have made inside the House, and I invite him to make it in this discussion, to the effect that we never made any representations to the Government, or never mentioned the word "ships" since the emergency arose.

Is it not possible to prove it?

The Minister knows, and the head of the Government knows now, because we produced the minutes of the meeting, that at a meeting with the Taoiseach on the 25th September, 1939, all these matters were brought up by a delegation from this Party, and subsequently referred by the Taoiseach to the Minister for Supplies and Industry and Commerce for his urgent attention.

If the Deputy would allow me——

I am not giving way. When I made that statement in this House some time ago, the Taoiseach seemed to be in doubt. He appeared to send out the Secretary to the Government to search for documents, and although he probably put his finger on the documents, he did not admit that to me here, until on a recent occasion I produced the document in the House, and An Ceann Comhairle would not allow me to enumerate the details of the discussion which took place between a delegation from this Party and the Taoiseach on 25th September, 1939. Will you say that is a lie now?

The statement I made is this: That from the day the war started until the day in January, 1941, when I announced the formation of Irish Shipping, Ltd., no member. of the Labour Party mentioned the word "ships" in the Dáil, even by accident. If that statement is not correct, produce the Dáil Report which proves it.

The Minister is on thin ice. He states "in the Dáil." Of course they did not mention anything about ships. Are you denying that a delegation from this Party raised the matter in detail with the Taoiseach, and subsequently with you in September, 1939? Although the Minister said in effect that I am a liar, I ask him for the sake of truth now, shortly before he is to leave office, to put on the records of the House the truth in connection with this matter.

The Minister did not say the Deputy was a liar.

If he did not, he went very near it.

I offered to withdraw the objectionable word. Nevertheless, the Deputy's statement is so inaccurate as to be worthy of the term.

How very gracious.

I will take it as a compliment. I do not worry in the least about it. I ask the Minister, after his long experience as Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister for Supplies, when he is making statements to say something close to the truth and not to be making what he knows to be unfounded allegations against the members of this Party for purely political purposes.

The only allegation I make is about the reference to ships in the Dáil. That is either true or can be disproved.

I suggest that the Deputy should make his speech. If there is any question he wishes to put afterwards on any matter he can put it, or if there are any matters the Minister would wish to reply to, he can reply to them. But we cannot carry on the debate in the form of a dialogue.

You allowed the Minister to interrupt me and to call me a liar.

The Minister did not call the Deputy a liar. I would not have permitted him to do so. Nobody is a liar until he is guilty of locutio contra mentem.

I am not the type of individual who will worry about that. Knowing the Minister as I do, and knowing that evidence can be produced here in the House to prove that some of the statements that he has made outside the House have no foundation whatever——

Produce the evidence.

You took good care you did not come into the House on the last day when I attempted to read the minutes of the conference which was held with the Taoiseach and which are in your possession. You kept out of the House. Dealing with the matter of transport, in this House on the 24th March, 1943, I addressed the following question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce:

"(a) Whether he is aware that Mr. A. P. Reynolds, Chairman of the Great Southern Railways, stated at the annual meeting of shareholders on March 3rd, that he proposed embarking upon a reorganisation of the company, including a reorganisation of its capital; (b) if he will say whether he has been consulted by Mr. Reynolds as to the nature of the reorganisation contemplated; if so, (c) whether he can state if the proposed reorganisation is along the lines recommended in either the Majority or the Minority Report of the Transport Tribunal, and if so, which, (d) whether he will take steps to ensure that the proposed reorganisation, as a matter of public interest and of vital concern in the community, will be undertaken only by the authority of the Oireachtas."

Mr. Lemass in reply said:

"The answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is in the affirmative. As regards the other parts I have discussed from time to time with the chairman of the company its position generally and from the discussions, certain proposals have emerged as a basis for consideration. Considerable examination and development will be necessary before a practicable scheme will be available. The recommendations of the Transport Tribunal will be borne in mind in such examination and any reorganisation to be effected will be the subject of legislation."

From that reply it transpires that certain proposals have emerged as a basis for consideration. After the long period during which the Minister had tied himself to the public ownership and control policy as a means of finding a solution for our transport difficulties, and in view of the legislation which the Minister has had experience of between 1933 and the present period, will the Minister now tell the House and the country whether he still believes that this whole problem can only be solved inside the system of private ownership and control? Is it intended, or has it been decided to give powers to the new dictator-chairman of the Great Southern Railways Company to produce a scheme of reorganisation based on the private ownership system, or is he to produce a scheme based on the old policy which the Minister advocated for such a long period, namely, the policy of public ownership and control? It would be well if the Minister would define to the House, in clear and unmistakable terms, the duties and responsibilities of Mr. Reynolds, appointed by him as dictator-chairman of the Great Southern Railways. To whom is he responsible? Certainly not to the shareholders or to the employees. Is he responsible to the Oireachtas and, if not, to whom? These are questions which, in my opinion, ought to be answered by the Minister, who is responsible for the appointment of Mr. Reynolds.

I want to make it clear, so far as I am personally concerned, that I do not want in anything I say to cast any reflection on the individual concerned. I did say in this House on a previous occasion, shortly after his appointment, that I wanted him to get a fair trial to do one of the most difficult jobs ever given to any man in this country in the circumstances under which he went into the position in February, 1942. Right from the date of his appointment, it is alleged at any rate, Mr. Reynolds has adopted an aggressive and provocative attitude towards the whole of the railway employees. This attitude is deeply resented and has tended to impair efficiency and destroy confidence in the management or the success of the undertaking. The speech of Mr. Reynolds at the annual general meeting of the company on 3rd March was calculated to mislead the shareholders and misrepresent the workers. In addition, it contained certain glaring inaccuracies. I was amazed when I read in the Irish Press, which cannot be accused of telling lies at any rate, certain statements made by Mr. Reynolds at that meeting. One of them was that out of every two miles of running there was one mile occupied in shunting. As a railwayman of 36 or 37 years of experience, I cannot imagine that that was the position. In any case, I know it is not a fact.

Mr. Reynolds, in comparing railway with road transport said: "Do you realise that for every two miles run by a steam engine on the railway it is necessary to run one mile in marshalling and shunting?" He made this statement, although in the balance sheet, only an extract from which was supplied to the shareholders, he could see that last year the shunting and marshalling miles represented only 23 in every 100 miles run. It is important that this misleading statement should be corrected. This was the highest on record, because the mileage was the lowest on record, and hence trains which would "run through" otherwise had to stop at numerous stations The Minister and his advisers know perfectly well why the passenger and goods trains had to stop so often during the particular period covered by Mr. Reynolds's speech.

In 1941, the shunting and marshalling miles were 18 in 100 miles run; in 1938, the mileage was 15 in 100; and, in 1937, 15 in 100 also, or about one in seven, as against one in three suggested by Mr. Reynolds. In actual fact, the same amount of shunting is done practically every year, but, as the mileage was artificially reduced last year, the proportion of shunting to running miles was somewhat higher. How Mr. Reynolds could make these statements and circulate at the same time a certified return by the chief mechanical engineer showing something different, I do not understand, unless they were made for the purpose of blackening the railway system in the eyes of the shareholders and the public who might read his speech.

Mr. Reynolds gave the shareholders and the public to understand that last year the railway section of the concern was a pronounced failure. On the contrary, it made a new record in proportion to the extent to which it was allowed to operate. For example, the total mileage run in 1938, the last prewar year, was 11,994,255 and the gross receipts £3,166,128. Last year, the mileage was only 8,726,259, but the receipts went up to £3,928,416. This meant a reduction of 27 per cent. in the mileage, but an increase of 24 per cent. in the receipts. That is not disclosed in the speech made by the chairman. Although no dividends were paid last year, in the previous three years dividends on the guaranteed stock were paid, most of it out of a refund of rates overpaid, but the money, of course, had to come from revenue originally.

In actual fact, the net receipts of the concern have risen steadily from £351,113 in 1938 to £567,240 last year. This is a remarkable achievement, seeing that, since the outbreak of the war, there was no increase in either rates or fares, except in the case of exceptional rates, most of which are 40 per cent. or more below standard rates, and these were increased by only 15 per cent. Everything the railway carries has gone up by at least 60 per cent. or more. The cost of fuel and all necessary materials has increased in price four or five times. Why have the company not sought an increase in charges commensurate with the general increase in the cost of the goods they carry and the materials they buy? Is this a deliberate attempt to create a financial crisis, with a view to compelling shareholders and workers to accept distasteful and disastrous conditions?

It is also known—and if the Minister challenges me on this, I will give him dates and everything else—that, previous to this speech being made by the dictator-chairman, the Dublin Transport Company put a certain number of the Great Southern Railways Company's guaranteed preference shares which they held on the Dublin Stock Exchange. Less than a month before the chairman made his speech, they sold these shares on the Dublin Stock Exchange at £25 each, and the day after Mr. Reynolds made his speech the value of these shares dropped to £11. I make that statement for the purpose of trying to convince the Minister that it is wrong, in existing circumstances, that the managing director of the Transport Company should also be chairman and dictator of the Great Southern Railways Company. I invite him—and he has plenty of ways and means of finding out—to find out whether that statement is or is not correct. I have a written statement supplied to me to the effect that it did happen.

Mr. Reynolds also said:

"Even if railways were modernised, the country could not afford a transport system which needs to employ some 15,000 workers to operate it."

Here we have Mr. Reynolds telling the Great Southern Railways Company shareholders and the public, through his speech published in the Irish Press and in other papers, that it will take him seven years to set up and put into operation a proper scheme of reorganisation, but before starting to put the scheme down on paper in consultation with the Minister and for the information of the Minister, he makes up his mind that it cannot carry 15,000 workers. If I got the job of framing a scheme of reorganisation of a railway company or any other company I knew anything about—I do not say I know a terrible lot about these things—I would frame the scheme first and relate it, when framed, and the number of men required to the working conditions in existence at the time the scheme was finally drafted and approved, and relate it further to the capital requirements of the company and the rates and charges necessary to raise the sum required to pay the overhead charges and whatever dividends would reasonably require to be paid to the people who put their money into the industry.

I understood that Mr. Reynolds was a man who accepted generally the meaning of the Papal Encyclicals, and admitted that they should be applied in every case to workers employed in industry, but he goes on in his speech to say that the one thing which is imperative in this scheme of reorganisation, which apparently the Minister has given him power to frame, is that certain interest charges and rates of dividend must be paid in order to induce those who have money to put the necessary capital into the concern. The first charge on the revenue of any industry, under the terms of the Papal Encyclicals, is the right of the worker employed in the industry to a living wage for himself and his dependents, a right which comes before that of those who put their money into the concern in order to get dividends at the rate of 5 or 6 per cent.

Who disputed that?

It seems to be disputed in almost every line of the chairman's speech, for which I allege the Minister has full responsibility.

But not for the Deputy's interpretation of it.

What are the facts in regard to the employees? There are nearly 13,000 wagons and carriages owned by the Great Southern Railways Company. Taking a ridiculously low estimate and assuming that only 7,000 of these were in use on the average, and that each lorry and bus carried as much goods or passengers as a wagon or carriage, it would take at least 14,000 men to work them. Each lorry has a driver and helper and each bus a driver and conductor. Then you would have to provide for your repair and maintenance staffs, even if you did not build the buses or lorries here, as in the case of the carriages and wagons, but sent the money overseas and exported your workers who would otherwise be building them here. In addition, the clerical, supervisory and administrative staff would have to be added. Taking the position on this basis, which is all in favour of the road, it is obvious that to perform on the road the work now performed by the railways would require thousands of extra workers, apart from the fact that somebody would have to pay for the building of roads, the roads under present conditions being quite unfitted for the carriage of heavy goods now carried by the railway.

Mr. Reynolds attacked the hours of duty in his speech also and complained about having to pay overtime if men had to work after their eight-hour day. I know, of course, that Mr. Reynolds made his speech with less than 12 months' experience in his position, and that may be one reason why he apparently was not giving the full facts to the shareholders and the public. At all the smaller stations on the railway system, the wages grades have a spread-over of nine and a half hours, and the station-master one of 12 hours, without any extra payment. In addition, hundreds of hours of overtime are worked for which the company declined to pay because authority for working them was not secured in advance. What does Mr. Reynolds, acting on behalf of the Minister, want, or is this the "New Order" which Mr. Reynolds and the Minister propose to put into operation in the post-war period?

Who wants to know?

I thought the Deputy was reading from a document.

Mr. Reynolds attacked the trade unions for looking for an increase in the bonus, which was then 2/6 per week for the majority of the staff.

Would the Deputy state what he is quoting from?

An aide-memoire.

You know, Sir, that I have been quoting lengthy extracts from the chairman's speech and relating them to the facts and figures which I cannot carry in my head. Perhaps the Minister could carry all these figures, but people, including Ministers, have on many occasions been privileged in this House in being allowed to refer closely to their notes. I certainly never raised any objection to it, and I am sorry that the Minister should go out of his way to raise objection to my quoting lengthy extracts from the chairman's speech and relating them to facts and figures.

Since my return to the Chair, I have been puzzled to know whether the Deputy was comparing policy as enunciated by the Chairman of the Directors of the railway, with Government policy, and inquiring whether they coincided.

The Deputy, however, was reading with running comment the whole speech made by the Chairman of the Railway Company. I merely wanted to know what documents the Deputy was quoting from, whether speech or statement, and when he was giving his own figures. A Deputy may use tables of figures, which he might not be expected to carry in his head, for example, statistics of the railway traffic and such like. It has always been understood that Ministers, when they are making important statements on policy or on statistics of their Departments, may use a typed aide memoire. The Chair does not object to the Deputy using tables and figures as made up by himself.

I am not in the habit of reading speeches in this House and I may say I did not come in here with a prepared speech. But on many occasions I have been here, and you have sat in the Chair, when Ministers read their speeches, and their right to do so was not questioned. I was sorry to see that it was only when the Minister drew your attention to the fact that I have been quoting certain statements——

The Deputy's supposition is baseless. Several minutes earlier I had asked the Clerk of the Dáil for information as to what document the Deputy was reading. My query was not inspired by the Minister's interjection.

Author, author!

He attacked the trade unions for looking for an increase in the bonus, which was then 2/6d. a week, for the majority of the staff. It is now only 7/6d. per week as against 15/- per week paid to Great Northern Railway employees, both north and south of the border. This is what the Great Southern Railways have got from the railway dictator-chairman appointed by the Minister. But is it not quite evident from the reply given to me by the Minister on the 24th March that the speech made by the chairman appointed by him was made after consultation and, therefore, presumably with his full approval? Am I at liberty to read from "Truth in the News" without being held up by the Minister, or at the request of the Minister?

The Deputy should not be disorderly. He has been assured that he was not questioned at the instigation of the Minister. The Chair's word must be accepted.

I accept it absolutely.

The Deputy seemingly doubted it.

The chairman, in the opening portion of his speech, made a remarkable statement, which I hope the Minister will explain when he is replying. The statement was that the railways were designed to meet a transport problem vastly different from the problem of to-day. Before this war ends, before the emergency period comes to an end in this country, I am sure it will become more and more evident to the Minister that the only section of the transport system that will be left to serve the community will be the railway section. I should like to hear from the Minister whether, in consultation with the chairman of the Great Southern Railways, he has come to the conclusion that there is no further use for the maintenance of the railway system and, if that is so, whether it is the intention of the Minister, either before the end of the emergency period, or in the post-war period, to bring in a scheme of re-organisation of our transport services which will put the responsibility upon those in charge of it at the time of carrying the commodities which require to be carried mainly on the roads. If that is the point of view of the Minister and the chairman of the Great Southern Railways Company, who has been appointed to draft this scheme, will he say whether it is their intention to build new roads and, if so, who is to pay for the new roads?

Can the Minister say, in all sincerity and seriousness, that it will at any time be possible here for the roads to carry the live stock which usually are carried every day in the week and every week in the year from fairs held in towns in internal areas on the branch lines of our railway system and on the main lines to the ports from which they are being sent out of the country to Great Britain?

Nobody has suggested that except the director of propaganda of the Labour Party.

Is it possible for the roads to carry the heavy commodities which are now carried over the railway system at low and, perhaps, uneconomic rates?

Nobody has made that suggestion.

If the railway system is to be maintained for the purpose of carrying live stock over the branch and main lines and to carry iron and steel and other heavy commodities, which cannot now be carried at reasonable rates over the roads, it should get some consideration now. If the railway system is to be maintained for the purpose of carrying other commodities at competitive rates with the road services, then it must get a fair chance.

Who has disputed that?

In almost every sentence of the speech of the chairman of the Great Southern Railways, he stated that the railways are obsolete.

He did not. That statement was not made. He said the railway equipment was obsolete.

No; he said that, and also that large sections of the system must disappear.

He stated emphatically that the railway equipment is obsolete —which is an entirely different matter and, if the railways are to be competitive with the roads, there must be re-organisation and a re-equipment.

What I want to ascertain is this: has the Minister, or have the Government, discarded or thrown overboard the policy of providing efficient transport under a system of public ownership and control, or has the Minister, in consultation with the chairman of the Great Southern Railways, discovered certain proposals for the re-organisation of transport services under a system of private ownership and control? Let us have a clear statement of policy on this matter now, after the consideration which the Minister must have given to it since 1927, and particularly since he came into office as Minister for Industry and Commerce in 1932. The Minister surely has had sufficient experience between 1932 and 1943 to enable him to make up his mind as to whether a scheme of re-organisation of transport will be more efficiently operated under a system of public ownership and control or under the existing system of private ownership and control which has been breaking down at every stage at which the Minister has interfered since he came into office in 1932.

I want to remind the Committee that it has always been understood in this House that a Deputy may not read his speech.

I deny that I have been reading my speech.

I have not referred to any particular Deputy. I merely state that Deputies are not entitled to read their speeches in this House. They may, of course, consult notes. The House has always extended to Ministers a wider latitude than is allowed to ordinary Deputies.

On a point of personal explanation, Sir, I think that half the time taken up by me was taken up in references to rough notes such as I have here in my hand. When I came to deal, in detail, with the statement made by the chairman of the Great Southern Railways Company, I was pulled up, although I took pains only to read extracts from it, since I could not go into the whole matter in detail.

It was not alleged that the Deputy was reading his speech. The Chair desired to ascertain what the Deputy was quoting from, being quite at sea on the point.

In the course of Deputy Davin's speech he was referring to the failure of the directors of the Great Southern Railways Company to purchase coal. There were some exchanges between himself and the Minister, and I asked at one stage why did they not purchase the coal in 1938 and 1939 when there was plenty of it available, and the Minister looked at me and said: "Well, was I not justified in appointing the managing director?" as if to say——

I did not use these words.

At any rate, the Minister used words implying a similar meaning —as if to say that the failure to make adequate provision for coal reserves was one of the reasons which justified him in appointing Mr. Reynolds general manager of the company. I never heard a case of slamming the stable door after the horse was gone more dramatically described than that, and I say that that is an epitome of all that the Minister has done since he got control of this Department. Stable doors have been slamming all over the country.

We are not dealing with supplies now.

But the Minister was dealing with supplies at that time.

Not this year.

Not only have we been concerned with the slamming of doors on empty stables but, even after that, the Minister for Industry and Commerce came along with a special type of galvanized iron lock to put on the doors, but unfortunately on the wrong side. Who is it that prevented the stocks of commodities in this country from being kept up and replenished? Who is it that prevented the people of this country from bringing into the country supplies when they were easily available? Was it not the Minister for Industry and Commerce of Eire? It was not the base, bloody and brutal Saxon who prevented these supplies from being brought in here. Will anyone in this House challenge the fact that in 1939, when the war broke out, there were abundant supplies of artificial manures to be had, abundant supplies of cotton textiles to be had, abundant supplies of leather to be had, abundant supplies of agricultural machinery to be had, abundant supplies of boots and shoes to be had— any amount of them to be had—and that there was abundant shipping available to carry these commodities to this country and abundant storage in this country in which to store these goods against a rainy day?

Will anyone in this House deny that there were any number of merchants in this country willing and anxious to bring in these commodities, without any State guarantee—merchants with empty storage space who were willing and anxious to fill that storage space with these commodities without any kind of stipulation on their part that their profit or finance should be guaranteed by the State, and that in respect of each one of these commodities effective measures were taken by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is now sitting on the Front Bench, to prevent their being brought in, and that when supplies of these commodities had been secured in Great Britain by the merchants of this country and landed on a Liverpool quay, with shipping awaiting to transport them to the North Wall, the persons who bought the commodities and landed them on Liverpool quay were told that they would not be allowed to bring them to this country? In some cases there was a categorical prohibition against bringing them here, and in other cases the tariff put on these commodities was so prohibitive that the merchants concerned could not afford to pay, not the price of the goods, but the tariff that had been levied upon them.

I remember, in this House, 18 months or two years ago, when Bamfords had a large display of agricultural machinery at the Spring Show, asking the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he would take the tariff off agricultural machinery because there was certain to be a shortage very soon in this country, and I remember Deputy Allen and the Minister combining to protest that there were abundant supplies of agricultural machinery in this country, that there was no reason whatever for altering the tariff policy in regard to agricultural machinery in this country because anybody who wanted to get it could get all they wanted in Wexford. Where is the agricultural machinery to be got now? Try to buy a horse-rake, a tedder, a mowing machine, or a reaper and binder, and you will soon find out that they are not to be had. Now, however, the Minister for Industry and Commerce has suddenly awakened to the fact that there is a shortage of agricultural machinery and—no doubt, we have to give him credit for this—bang went the stable door immediately and off came the tariff when he was satisfied that there were no supplies of agricultural machinery to be got between here and the Yangtze-Kiang, and that there was no place where it could be got. Anybody can get full and free licence from the Minister now to bring in agricultural machinery when there is none to be had.

I remember urging on the Minister the necessity of removing the tariffs on cotton textiles, flannelette, and other materials for shirtings, which are so vitally necessary for the clothing of the poor, and we were laughed at for suggesting such a thing. We were told that "Gentex" was functioning in Athlone—a beautiful new enterprise— and was turning out such wonderful goods that they would take the sight out of your eyes. What are they producing now? There were millions of yards of long-cloth, calico and so on in Manchester which were at the disposal of the shopkeepers of this country who wanted to buy them, and there were tens of thousands of drapers in this country who were willing and anxious to buy these commodities, but who would not be allowed to bring in a yard, and now we are faced with the situation in which we have no calico, no flannelette, and a very small quantity of low-grade shirtings, coming from some of the poorest quality of shirting in Manchester.

I shall have something more to say about that on the adjournment tonight, but let us do the Minister the justice of saying that when the whole world had been searched and it was established that there was not an inch of cotton textiles to be had anywhere, bang went the stable door again, off came the tariffs and restrictions, and all and sundry were invited to go out and buy cotton textiles anywhere they could. Is that not so? Is it not true? Unless we went out and stripped the cotton burnouses off the Arabs in the Tunisian desert, I do not know where you would get these materials now, but for anybody who cares to do so, there is a full and free licence now from the Minister for Industry and Commerce in this country to bring home the fruits of his labour. Deputies know that at the present moment boot factories in this country are experimenting on a hinge. They are trying to find a hinge for wooden soles, that will not creak and that will keep opening and shutting as long as the sole holds out, because there is no sole leather.

That would seem more relevant on the Department of Supplies.

Who prevented us from getting the leather in?

That is supplies.

Who put the tariff on it?

In the last 12 months?

Not at all. To do the man justice, he took it off in the last 12 months.

And this is, presumably, a review of the last 12 months' administration.

I am saying that he took the tariff off when there was not a hide to be got between here and Peru.

He kept it on while there were mountains of leather to be purchased in Great Britain if he wanted to go and buy it. But, true to form, the stable door was triumphantly slammed again when there was not a hide to be had anywhere. The population of this country will have the pleasurable experience of having to walk not with soles that do not squeak but with hinges that do not creak. We could have stored in this country sufficient sole leather to keep the people in footwear for the next ten years. We could have bought it at one-fifth of what it costs at present, just as we could have bought at 8d. cotton textiles in abundance which are at present costing about 2/4 to produce. It was the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in the exercise of his functions, who refrained from removing the tariffs, restrictions and quotas on these commodities until none could be had. Does anybody in this House realise that at the present moment there is a quota on boots and shoes? Does anybody here realise that if he managed to get hold of two pairs of boots and brought them in here, he would commit an offence? Does anybody here realise that if he carried a few pairs of boots and shoes into Éire he would be arrested at the Border for bringing in boots and shoes in defiance of the quota order? At this moment any person who is not licensed for the import of footwear is rigidly prohibited from bringing in a pair of shoes into this country. Such are the blessings of the glorious policy of Fianna Fáil economic self-sufficiency. Does anybody imagine that, outside Bedlam or outside a mental hospital designed for Ministers, he would discover in the present situation an Order prohibiting anyone from bringing shoes into the State? Such an Order still survives. That at a time when the price of boots is soaring steadily, when no farmer or farm worker can get a nailed boot, when no farmer or farm worker can get a kip boot or a split boot, when every pair of boots you purchase from an Irish manufacturer carries a label stating that, owing to the standard of the materials which they have to put into the boots now, they are not in a position to give any guarantee as to their wearing quality. In such a situation there is still a prohibition on imports!

While we must recognise that a great many of the commodities in scarce supply are scarce owing to circumstances over which we, in Ireland, have no control, a very considerable part of the scarcity from which we are suffering is due to the fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce refused to permit supplies of essential commodities to be brought in when supplies were abundantly available and only gave permission when everybody but himself knew that supplies of these commodities were no longer available. Will any person here, save the Minister, get up and deny that? Does the Minister himself not realise how gravely criminal his conduct was? It was not that he was not warned. It was not that nobody directed his attention to it. The most vigorous representations were made in this House again and again, long before world scarcity of these commodities began to make itself felt, urging upon him a complete suspension of the whole tariff and quota system. It was pointed out to him that this would not be made the subject of controversy, that nobody was going to interpret this general suspension of tariffs and quotas as a repudiation of Fianna Fáil policy. It was urged upon him as a special emergency gesture. It was urged upon him as a display of intelligence not more impressive than that annually practised by the squirrel—the storing up of nuts against the frosty day. Nothing was stored and the reason was that the Minister for Industry and Commerce refused to allow those who wanted to store to do the storing. Phosphate rock ought not to be very difficult to store. You have not to put it under cover. You have not to put it in a place of safety because the number of people who would walk away with a pocketful of phosphate rock is small. Phosphate rock could be dumped on the sloblands at Fairview and nobody would go near it.

For nine years, we have had a manure ring in this country sustained and protected by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. For nine years, the Minister maintained a prohibitive tariff on imports of superphosphate of lime. Might not one well imagine that, having whetted these vultures' claws and provided the prostrate carcase on which they were able to grow fat during those nine years, the Minister would feel entitled to go to these people in an emergency and say: "Having grown fat on the profits derived by the aid of tariffs, will you spend some of your ill-gotten fat in providing a reserve of phosphate rock"? Was there a cwt. of phosphate rock bought as a reserve? Was there any dump of phosphate rock anywhere which could be subsequently converted into manure? Did the Minister for Industry and Commerce at any stage represent to the group of companies constituting the manure ring that, in exchange for the concessions they enjoyed in the past, they should bring in some phosphate rock? Not at all. The Minister's sole contribution was to take the tariff off superphosphate of lime when the veriest child knew that there was no superphosphate of lime to be got.

I think that that gesture was made just after Hitler had seized Belgium. It is common knowledge that the great bulk of our superphosphate of lime came from Belgium. But there was not a fraction of concession until Belgium was occupied by the German Army. We were then told to go over and buy any superphosphate of lime we could. Our Minister, or our representative there, would, I suppose, open negotiations with Hitler to see if he would let it out. We discovered that the merchants would not be allowed to bring in "super," because of the operations of the ring, and signs by it, we are in the position in which we find ourselves at the present time. We have got nothing in the way of phosphate, except what we manufacture out of the deposit in Clare.

The Minister took up the position in discussing the transport problem that he was not to be expected to make any representations in matters where he was not directly responsible, that it was not his job to compel any semipublic company to discharge its duty in building up reserves of essential supplies for the community. Surely, he had that responsibility? Surely, it was the duty of the Minister who was responsible, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce has at all times been responsible, for the general supervision of transport companies and analogous undertakings to see, in the special circumstances in which they were functioning, that against the impending emergency proper safeguards were taken to ensure that they would be carried on. I leave that aspect of the problem to be dealt with by Deputy Davin, and goodness knows it is wide and large enough to deserve very serious consideration. I dwell on one feature only, not in the hope that much can be done in this emergency to repair the appalling damage that has been done, but in the hope that Deputies in this House, and the people of the country generally, will come to realise the disastrous consequences of the policy of so-called economic self-sufficiency. It is the hanging on to that piece of economic "codology" which has left us in the position in which we are at present. If we had free imports in 1939 we would not be in the sorry position in which we find ourselves to-day.

I beg of the House to think of this, that over and above the relief which it would be to our people to have this stock that I have described, they would have bought it on credit. They would have created immense sterling debits in Great Britain in 1939, debits contracted for flannelette at 8d. a yard, for leather at 1/- a lb., for boots and shoes at 10/- per pair on the average—commodities which we could not have hoped to pay for there and then, but the debit for which we would have proceeded to liquidate over the succeeding period of five years. And when the time came to pay for these debits we would have discharged them in a currency the value of which must be measured by the fact that the same flannelette is now costing 2/6 a yard, that the 10/- pair of shoes are now costing £1, and that the leather which we could have bought at 1/- per lb. is now costing 3/- per lb. We would have got these goods for a high value currency and we would have paid for them in a currency that was steadily depreciating with every payment we made and, on every ounce we bought, we would have made a big profit not only for the individual who brought them in but for the nation as a whole. Nobody could then say that we were shipping our sheep and cattle to Britain and taking paper money for them. We would not be taking paper money; we would have tangible assets which we would have in our cupboard and our exports would be doing no more than discharging an honourable obligation. We might then take pride in every cargo of live stock that was sent to Britain. We might even justifiably join in the slogan so popular in this modern age, that in discharging obligations of honour we were lining our pockets. What could more appeal to latter day industrial Ireland than that?

Deputy Dockrell has, I think, failed to keep track of the changes in the policy of his Party. Like Deputy Dillon, he has been criticising the Government on the ground that, in the years before the war, adequate stocks of materials which were then available were not brought in. The policy of the Fine Gael Party, as expounded in an official statement issued from the headquarters of the Party, is against Government interference with private commercial enterprise. The Fine Gael Party has gone on record in support of the opinion that if the procurement of supplies had been left entirely to private enterprise, instead of being brought under Government supervision, we would have got more supplies. That is a very convenient policy for a Party in opposition. If the supplies come in, then, of course, it is due to the initiative of private individuals and no credit to the Government; but if they do not come in, the Government can be blamed. I do not know what way Deputies opposite want it. In so far as they purport to have an official policy, it is contrary to Government interference in business, contrary to the Government taking from private firms the business of bringing in goods, but if private firms, despite Government stimulus and Government assistance, do not bring in the quantity of goods Deputies think should have been procured, then they want to blame the Government. I submit that either they are conscious of the contradiction in their own statements or else they are not giving the matter serious thought at all.

In the pre-war years the Government endeavoured to improve the supply position in this country by encouraging, stimulating and assisting private firms to bring in supplies. I enunciated that policy here in the first speech I made as Minister for Supplies after the outbreak of war. I stated in this House that, so long as it was possible, it would be my policy to deal with the problems of supply through private individual firms and not through Government organisations. There was not a Deputy in this House who disputed the wisdom of that policy. It is true that circumstances forced a change in it. These circumstances were, mainly, not within our control.

Changes were necessitated by the fact that other Governments declined to deal with private firms or created such conditions that private firms could not operate. In some cases it did happen that the purchase of supplies abroad by private firms had to be prevented because the total available supply was limited and separate firms in this country were competing against one another for these limited supplies and thus forcing up prices. Where this situation arose, the Government interfered and took the business of importing out of the hands of private concerns and set up organisations for that purpose. It is, however, completely untrue to say that there was a failure either on the part of private firms in the pre-war period or on the part of Government organisations in the subsequent period to get as large a quantity of supplies as could be obtained.

It is an easy matter for Deputies to talk about the possibility of securing large stocks of coal for the railway company before the war, but if they would cast their minds back, they would temper their criticism of the directors of the railway company by reference to the fact that there was nobody here, and indeed nobody in Great Britain, not even the members of the British Government, who contemplated before the war that a situation would arise in Great Britain in which their coal output would fall below their own requirements. It is easy enough to expect the directors of the railway company to be more accurate in their forecast of future developments than members of the British Government. Members of the British Government have frankly admitted that they never anticipated the situation which arose in the production of coal in that country. Why criticise the directors of the railway company here for not being more accurate in their forecast of developments than members of the British Government? When Deputies talk about 1,000,000 tons of coal which could have been brought in in 1940, they are talking utter nonsense. In the Spring of 1940 coal supplies fell so low in this country that a scheme for the rationing of coal for domestic purposes was put into operation. Deputies are inclined to forget that. After the collapse of France there came a temporary period in which abundant supplies of coal could be procured for this country, and they were procured.

Within a period of a few weeks, 250,000 tons of coal were brought in. Every available ship, every available facility, for the importation of coal was fully utilised. I went myself to the broadcasting station to broadcast an appeal to industrialists and commercial firms to buy coal rapidly and to the fullest extent possible because our ability to import coal was limited by the fact that the coal yards at the quay were full, that the quays were congested and the opportunity of getting the supply was restricted by the inability to get the coal away from the quays more quickly.

If they had not the money, how could they buy?

But they had the money, and they did buy.

Had the railway company the money? You know they had not.

The railway company were never in the difficulty of being unable to buy coal for want of money. I make that statement. The railway company make that statement. The only people who have made the contrary statement were people who have always been inimical to the interests of this country but who have been quoted by the Labour Party for the most despicable political purposes in the course of this election campaign.

Compare that with your speech of the 7th December, 1938.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.
Top
Share