Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Jun 1944

Vol. 94 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 55—Industry and Commerce (Resumed).

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

In the course of my statement introducing the Estimate for the Department last night, I gave a brief review of certain current activities of the Department and intimated that I wished to speak further, although briefly, concerning the post-war planning activities proceeding in the Department. I should like to make it clear that it is not my intention to discuss the general policy of the Government for the promotion of increased prosperity after the war, but to deal only with the responsibilities falling on the Department of Industry and Commerce in that connection.

I should like also to emphasise that, in the Government's opinion, the preparation of post-war plans must take second place to the task of coping with current problems. There is a risk, to which I referred previously, that undue emphasis on the importance of post-war planning, or undue discussion about post-war plans, may give rise amongst the people to the illusion that the war-time dangers have passed. Any such illusion would be a source of new danger, and, although the Government recognises the importance of devoting the maximum attention to future plans, it wishes to keep before the public mind the fact that the problems and dangers of the present require the full attention of the Government, and that the preparation of plans for the future must be regarded as of secondary importance.

As the House is aware, and as, I think, the public are aware, the Government has never attempted to evade or deny its responsibility for the stimulation of employment-giving activities. Its pre-war policy was framed in relation to that responsibility. Its efforts to prepare post-war plans were designed to enable it to discharge that responsibility in the future. That declaration on behalf of the Government is not a matter for comment. I think that members of all Parties in the Dáil and the public generally fully understood the attitude of the Government in that respect. A similar declaration made recently by the British Government in a paper published on employment policy after the war was described in the British Press as representing a revolutionary change of outlook in official quarters in that country. I should like to recommend to Deputies that they should read the White Paper on employment policy recently published in Great Britain. It is true that general conditions in Great Britain are different from ours, but the conditions that will exist in the United Kingdom after the war will not be so fundamentally different from those which we may expect to develop here that the ideas considered practicable in Britain will not be a useful guide to us in dealing with our own conditions. The British White Paper represents a courageous effort to face the problems involved in the acceptance, as a primary responsibility of Government, of the maintenance of a high and stable level of employment in that country after the war. It represents an attempt to face those problems free from prejudice in favour of old ideas and methods, and any Deputy who studies it will undoubtedly learn something which will enable him to make a more useful contribution to the solution of our own problems.

I should like to repeat what I have said on previous occasions that the Government does not believe that employment can be created by Government action alone. Members of the Labour Party may regard that statement as complete heresy, but it represents the considered view of the Government. Constant support in the Dáil and from the people—from all sections of the people, from those who direct the financial affairs of the country, from those who direct the industrial and commercial activities of the nation, and from the leaders of organised labour—is essential for the success of any economic policy, no matter how sound that policy may be in itself or how vigorously it may be applied. Government policy has been directed in the past and will be directed in the future to the maintenance of a high level of employment, but our intelligence leads us to the conclusion that in the period immediately following the conclusion of hostilities, and in fact for a considerable number of years after the war has ended, we are likely to experience difficulties of a very unusual character. I think the post-war problem that this country will have to face can be considered in two parts. Immediately after the termination of hostilities in Europe, we will enter the first stage, in which we will have an exceptional demand for goods and services of all kinds, a demand so strong that it would be capable of absorbing all the unemployed amongst us, but which may be and probably will be rendered ineffective by supply and production difficulties. In the second stage, the supply and production difficulties will have passed, and the promotion of a high level of employment here will depend, firstly, upon the efficiency of the production methods which we employ; secondly, upon the adequacy and efficiency of our transport and distribution facilities; and, thirdly, upon our capacity to maintain exports in highly competitive markets.

I think it is clear that we cannot attempt to plan in detail the actual operations which will be resorted to in our efforts to promote and to maintain employment. It would, in fact, be a foolish policy to do so. We cannot fully visualise all the circumstances which will exist or the problems with which we will have to contend. The aim of the Government is to endeavour to ensure that plans will be made covering all economic activities, and that those plans will be completed to the last detail, in so far as it is practicable to do it now, and will be utilised as circumstances appear to permit.

Again, I want to emphasise that it is not the function of the Department of Industry and Commerce to deal with the budgetary and financial problems that will arise in promoting a policy of full employment—such matters as are dealt with in the British White Paper to which I have referred. The Department of Industry and Commerce is aiming to prepare comprehensive plans for the development of industry—just as the Department of Agriculture is planning for the development of agriculture—and plans also for the improvement and extension of our transport facilities, plans for building and construction, and for public amenities of all kinds. It is, as I have said, endeavouring to push the preparation of those plans to the furthest possible point, including the enactment of any legislation which may be necessary to give effect to them, with the idea of allowing the time and manner of their application to be decided by circumstances.

I mentioned in opening my remarks that one of the main functions of the Department of Industry and Commerce is to stimulate and to direct industrial development, and naturally in considering the post-war situation we have given primary attention to the arrangements which will facilitate a resumption of our industrial progress. In order to enable Deputies to understand the importance of an industrial policy in relation to employment, it is no harm to emphasise the experience of this country in recent years. In the report of the committee which reviews periodically the employment and unemployment situation, and reports thereon to the Government, which reports are published, there is given an index of industrial employment, that is of the number of persons employed in industrial production of transportable goods. That index is based upon the year 1926, and it shows the expansion of such employment in the years immediately preceding the war. Taking 1926 as a base, and putting the figure of 100 to represent employment of such a character in that year, employment in 1931 reached 108.4. In the year 1939, it reached its peak, at 174.8. By 1943, due to wartime circumstances, fuel difficulties, and the absence of certain materials, it had fallen to 159.1. That index will emphasise that, even with the difficulties created by the war, industrial employment is still 50 per cent. higher than it was before the Government's industrial policy was put into operation, and is in itself a guide as to the possibilities of promoting still further increased employment in normal circumstances when supply difficulties do not exist, and the fuel problems which are now curtailing industrial output have passed.

At the present time, the Department of Industry and Commerce is carrying out a review of our industrial prospects. Every firm engaged in industrial production has been sent a questionnaire for the purpose of ascertaining the plans and the prospects of that firm, its immediate needs in respect of machinery, fuel, and power, its requirements of imported raw materials, and the possibility of substituting native raw materials for those that were previously imported. The aim is to get a comprehensive picture of our industrial position and industrial prospects, with the object of preparing plans now to secure the maximum manufacture in this country of goods which are capable of production here. Our industrial progress stopped with the outbreak of the war—at least, it did not stop entirely, and, in fact, the war itself created certain possibilities for industrial advancement in certain directions, and, notably, in connection with the shipbuilding industry, which has begun to develop in this country since the war—but a number of projects which were under consideration in 1939, some of which had reached the stage at which immediate action appeared to be possible, had to be abandoned on the outbreak of war. The intention is to resume action on these projects as soon as possible after the war is over, and when the equipment and materials that are necessary can be obtained.

There is, I am satisfied, substantial scope for further industrial progress here, and the intention of the Government is that efforts to promote that progress should be resumed as early as possible, and as vigorously as possible, when conditions permit. We also intend to endeavour to promote, to a greater extent than was deemed practicable or prudent before the war, the use of native raw materials. There are, of course, a number of industrial raw materials which we cannot hope to produce here, but there are others which can be used in substitution for those previously imported, and in some cases with considerable economic advantage.

The primary object of the whole industrial policy is, of course, to increase employment, but that aim of increasing employment must be linked up with the object of ensuring maximum efficiency in industrial production. The British White Paper, to which I have referred, stressed the view that continued progress in technical efficiency is a dominating factor in the growth of real national income. I have never been satisfied that the powers possessed by the Government before the war, to insist upon maximum efficiency in industrial organisation and equipment, were adequate.

There are obvious dangers of inefficiency in such circumstances as exist in this country, where there is only a limited home market and, consequently, conditions in which efficient production in many industrial spheres can only be undertaken by single firms or a limited number of firms. The absence of effective internal competition, and the curtailment of external competition by means of tariffs and other such restrictions, tend to promote inefficiency unless there are in the possession of the Government powers to insist that technical developments that have taken place in other countries are adopted here and that the managements of the concerns are at all times endeavouring to maintain their productive efficiency at the highest limit, renovating and replacing their machinery and equipment, if they have become obsolescent or ineffective, and adopting new processes of manufacture or distribution as they have developed in other countries. On that account, I think it will be necessary for us to review the position of the Control of Manufactures Act, which gave certain limited powers to the Government which could be used for that purpose in the past, but which are not likely to be adequate in the circumstances that may exist in the future. It is interesting to note, in that connection, that the British Government is facing a similar problem and contemplating the acquisition of powers of a somewhat similar character to deal with the circumstances of that country, and particularly to deal with problems created by the undue concentration of industries of the same kind in single localities.

I have already said that the aim of those planning activities is to ensure that all the preliminary work that can be done should be completed now. In that connection, I may say that we are receiving the maximum co-operation from the Industrial Credit Company. The Industrial Credit Company was set up by the Government, as Deputies are aware, to facilitate the provision of capital for industrial enterprises. That company, in co-operation with the Department, is endeavouring to secure that various industrial projects, which are deemed to be practicable, will be brought to the stage of completion in which work can be proceeded with immediately equipment becomes available and to facilitate the companies that are in a position to undertake these enterprises: that, where possible, the location of sites for these enterprises will be determined upon and acquired, and preliminary activities of that kind completed before the war ends and before it will be possible to procure the machinery or other equipment that will be necessary.

General Mulcahy

Will the Minister say whether that implies direct participation by the Government in the establishment of these industries?

Mr. Lemass

It will be done, as I have said, through the Industrial Credit Company.

General Mulcahy

Does it imply direct participation by the Government?

Mr. Lemass

No. I mentioned the Industrial Credit Company.

General Mulcahy

Does that imply that the Industrial Credit Company will, in fact, start industries?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

General Mulcahy

And have responsibility for their management?

Mr. Lemass

No. It contemplates that the company will act as an industrial promoter, endeavouring to promote companies that are willing and capable of undertaking these industries.

General Mulcahy

But will they, in fact, appoint the directors or managing directors of these firms or industries?

Mr. Lemass

Not necessarily. The Industrial Credit Company is a large shareholder in many existing concerns at the moment and can, no doubt, use its powers to appoint directors, if that is considered to be prudent, but in the past the policy of the company has not been to do so except where the affairs of the firm concerned got into such a condition that the Industrial Credit Company felt that there was an obligation on it to interfere directly in management. I do not think that the company will want to proceed on different lines in the future from those which they have pursued in the past, but that company will certainly be taking a very active part in the promotion of enterprises which they think are desirable and in the financing of which they are prepared to co-operate.

There are, as I have pointed out already, a number of industries which can only be carried on here by single companies, and in this review of industrial possibilities, contact was established with these single industries in the first place. There have been detailed discussions with 130 firms of that character and, as a result of these discussions, 54 reports of detailed development projects have been received. There are other industries which are carried on by a number of firms—the group industries, as I may call them— and discussions are proceeding in connection with these industries also. Already, the firms engaged in hosiery manufacture have been contacted, and the completion of plans for the development of that industry is proceeding.

There will be many cases where the production of raw or semi-manufactured materials, previously imported by group industries of that kind, could not be undertaken except by some co-operative effort between the users of these materials, and the aim is, where necessary, to secure now the completion of the arrangements to ensure that that co-operative effort will be forthcoming.

In connection with the rural electrification plans which have been announced, it is intended that, to the maximum degree possible, the manufacture of equipment necessary for the distribution of electricity, or apparatus required in the consumption of electricity, will be undertaken here. In order to ensure that the idea would be given full effect to, it is intended to extend the powers of the Electricity Supply Board, to permit them also to promote the establishment of industries for the production of electrical equipment where no other firm is undertaking it or is contemplating it. That will require legislation, and I do not propose to refer to it further because the necessary Bill to give these powers to the Electricity Supply Board will, I think, be available to the Dáil this year, and the matter can be fully discussed at that stage.

As the House is aware, the Government is considering the advisability of initiating a rural electrification scheme, the aim being to bring the national electricity supply to every farmhouse in the country on a basis which will enable current to be sold at a cost that will be attractive to farmers and rural dwellers generally. The Electricity Supply Board was requested to examine that question fully and to prepare a report as to the financial and other arrangements that would be involved in it. That report has been prepared and was submitted to the Government. The Government have approved it in principle. The report is now being printed and will be published shortly. The legislation designed to empower the Electricity Supply Board to undertake the work and to make the consequential financial arrangements is being drafted and will be ready shortly. It is a scheme which involves capital expenditure on a large scale. The estimated cost of constructing the rural network on the basis of pre-war prices is £20,000,000. Presumably prices will be somewhat higher after the war and the cost will be larger. It will be necessary to subsidise the scheme to some extent because, on the basis of that capital cost, electricity could not be sold at an economic price which would be attractive to rural dwellers.

The Government contemplates making a contribution to the capital cost of the scheme. I should say, however, that the capital expenditure involved will not arise in any few years. The aim is to complete the construction of the necessary network in ten years. There are many experts in the service of the Electricity Supply Board who do not think it can be done in ten years. If we were to attempt to complete it in ten years, we would have to construct that network at a rate five times as fast as the existing Shannon network was constructed by Siemens-Schuckert. That would involve problems of various kinds including the recruitment and training of a number of workers with the necessary skill for the job. The aim of the Government, however, is to get the work completed in ten years, and to ensure that no unnecessary impediment will arise to the realisation of that aim. However, the legislation necessary in that connection will be available to the Dáil, and the matter can be fully discussed on that occasion.

Deputies will have noticed announcements in the Press concerning the establishment in the Department of Industry and Commerce of an organisation charged with the responsibility of supervising plans for post-war building activities. It is contemplated that because of the cessation of building during the war, the arrears that have to be made up as well as the general circumstances that are likely to exist after the war, there will be a demand for building materials and building labour in excess of what it will be possible to provide. On that account it was decided to establish this organisation which is preparing a list of all the building projects in contemplation, with the intention of putting these projects in order of priority based upon their urgency and their social, economic and cultural importance. All the public authorities, Government Departments, industrial firms and private individuals, who had building projects after the war in contemplation were notified that they would not be permitted to proceed with them unless they submitted the details of these projects to this organisation, unless they had in fact approached the stage where they could begin at once immediately materials become available, architects and engineers' plans had been prepared, sites for the buildings had been acquired, and other preliminary work had been completed.

I mentioned some time ago in public that the capital value of the building projects already listed exceeds £60,000,000. Some people cast doubt upon that figure and many queries were asked as to where the money was to come from. These queries indicated a misunderstanding of the position. That is, in fact, the capital cost of all the building projects already listed, not merely by Government Departments and public authorities, but by private firms and private individuals. The list includes buildings of all kinds, hospitals, factories, houses, cinemas and similar structures. It is quite obvious that we could not attempt to carry out building activities on that scale in any reasonable period unless we make very comprehensive plans in advance. To attempt to complete building projects already listed in a period of five years would mean doubling the maximum output ever achieved by the building industry in this country, doubling the consumption of building materials and doubling the employment in the building trade. Whether that can be done or not is very open to question.

We have established an Advisory Council with a number of subsidiary advisory committees composed of representatives of all sections of the building trade and the building trade unions. They are considering the problems that have arisen in that connection—what can be done to promote the production of building materials, what can be done to expand the skilled building personnel available, what arrangements can be made to ensure that there will be a stepping up of building output to the maximum extent that the personnel will permit, and the continuous expansion of output as the position improves. That organisation has also been charged with the responsibility of carrying out research into building methods. It is obvious from the trade journals in Great Britain that improvements in building methods have been devised there which involve considerable economies in the use of scarce materials, that is, materials which are likely to be scarce in this country. The aim is to ensure that all the information that can be procured in other countries as to improved methods of building construction will be made available, that any modification of these methods which our circumstances require will be decided upon, and that the various sections of the building industry will be fully informed concerning them.

Included in the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce is certain provision for the Tourist Board. The Tourist Board is also proceeding with the preparation of comprehensive schemes for tourist resort development and is arranging to carry out portion of the approved schemes as early as possible, such portion of these schemes as can be undertaken without the utilisation of materials which are scarce. Work has already begun on the development scheme at Tramore and is still in progress. Schemes have also been approved for Portmarnock, Bundoran, Lisdoonvarna and Youghal. Many other schemes are under examination and it is contemplated that, because of the plans prepared by the Tourist Board, a great volume of useful employment will be made available when the problems arising out of the supply of materials will have eased. During the course of the past year, the board brought into operation the portion of the Tourist Act which relates to the registration of hotels and guest-houses. Deputies will remember that we suspended the activities of the board in that regard at the outbreak of the war. In fact, the Act which established the board and gave it the necessary powers became law after the commencement of hostilities and it was considered at that stage that little useful work could be done by the board during the war, apart from the preparation of schemes for post-war activities. In fact, the experience of the past year showed that our outlook then was too pessimistic. Hotels, guest-houses and other institutions engaged in holiday traffic have, in fact, had a rather prosperous time during the past couple of years. In many cases, there was a tendency to overcharge and complaints were received as to the inadequacy of the accommodation and service given for the very high charges imposed. The introduction of the registration scheme, designed in 1939, ensures supervision over hotels and guest-houses. Those places will be required to determine their charges for accommodation and to maintain those charges even when business is brisk. It also ensures the maintenance of a reasonable standard of cleanliness and accommodation. The penalty for departure from these standards is, of course, the withdrawal of the right to use the term "hotel" or "guest-house." The board has full control over these words and no institution can describe itself as a hotel or guest-house unless it conforms with the minimum standards laid down by the Tourist Board. I may say that that part of the Act was brought into operation in full agreement with the Tourist Association and with the organisation of hotel-keepers.

In connection with civil aviation, the House is, I think, aware that our aviation service has been temporarily grounded at the request of the authorities in the United Kingdom. Some months ago, they asked us to suspend the service conducted by our aeroplanes to the United Kingdom. That service has since remained suspended. I cannot say when it is likely to be resumed. In so far as aerodrome accommodation is concerned, the position is that the Dublin aerodrome has been completed in accordance with the original plan. It is, however, now necessary to provide for hard-surface runways. The increase in the size and speed of aeroplanes has indicated the necessity for hard surface runways in the use of all major aerodromes. The decision has been taken to construct hard-surface runways at the Dublin airport. In fact, the Office of Public Works is arranging for the placing of contracts for that work. That the work can be undertaken and completed will depend entirely on the supply of materials. I may say that the cost of the hard surfacing of the runways at the Dublin airport will exceed £200,000. In the course of the year, we decided to undertake certain important works for the improvement of the accommodation at Foynes. The House is, I think, aware that Foynes is only a temporary airport. The main Shannon airport is at Rhynanna. Because the Rhynanna airport was not completed when transatlantic air traffic so rapidly developed, we had to avail of the facilities at Foynes. Originally, it was intended to expend only the minimum amount necessary to make Foynes a safe airport but, because of the prolongation of the emergency and the expansion of traffic using the airport, new works have had to be constructed both for the accommodation of staff and the accommodation of persons and planes using the airport. The work at Rhynanna has proceeded much less rapidly than would have been possible in normal times. Nevertheless, progress is being made and new contracts have recently been placed for extension of the runways and for the construction of portion of the airport buildings. The air companies have been asked to consider the problems which will arise out of the anticipated development of air transport after the war and surveys are in progress as to possible sites for aerodromes, at Cork and other centres, to be constructed later.

With regard to mineral development, I do not propose to say much at this stage, because I contemplate bringing to the Dáil a Bill to amalgamate the two companies established by legislation some years ago—one to undertake the development of the Slievardagh coalfield area and the other to undertake general mineral exploration and development work. Experience has shown that economy and efficiency will be promoted by amalgamating these two companies. Measures towards their amalgamation have already been taken. The same board of directors is at present acting for both companies, and the companies are working from the same office, but formal amalgamation of the companies is contemplated, and legislation to that end is being prepared. The introduction of that legislation will give Deputies, if they so desire, an opportunity to discuss in greater detail plans for mineral development. The activities of the Minerals Exploration and Development Company have been mainly concentrated upon the production of materials for the manufacture of fertilisers—phosphate rock in Clare, and pyrites in Wicklow. The output of phosphate rock was 12,000 tons. The rock that could be secured by quarrying is now almost exhausted, and the company is now proceeding by mining. The cost of winning phosphate rock by mining is very high, but, high as it is, we can still produce phosphate rock in Clare at a lower cost than it could be procured elsewhere under present circumstances. The form of pyrites which can be won in Wicklow is not altogether suited to the furnaces at present installed by our fertiliser manufacturers. However, arrangements are being made which will permit of the utilisation of the pyrites already won in the manufacture of fertilisers next year. Notwithstanding the production of 12,000 tons of coal at Slievardagh, the undertaking has not reached the profit-earning stage. Certain difficulties have arisen, and although the production of 12,000 tons is not an unimportant contribution to our coal supply, the problem of putting that company on a paying basis has not yet been successfully solved.

There are one or two other matters that I wish to refer to briefly, because I think Deputies will be interested in them. The outstanding event of administrative importance in the Department of Industry and Commerce during the past year has been the enactment of the Children's Allowances Act. That involved the creation of a new, a large and an important section in the Department, which is now fully staffed and functioning smoothly. As the House is aware, payment of the allowances is due to begin on 1st August. Applications for allowances were due in the Department prior to the first June and the number received is in or about the number we anticipated. There will be difficulties of administration, which may cause some trouble between this and August 1st, and many questions of scope and definition will arise to be answered. The Act, however, does establish machinery by which these questions can be determined, and I hope, before the end of the year, it will be possible to say that the children's allowance scheme is working smoothly.

I can say now, concerning the food voucher scheme, that that was a rather dangerous type of experiment, but fortunately the administrative difficulties we foresaw did not prove so great as we anticipated, and I think I can say that the scheme is working smoothly. There were some temporary problems occasioned in separate localities during the winter by reason of the inability of persons holding vouchers to get supplies of milk and butter, but such temporary shortages were few, and ad hoc arrangements were made to deal with them. The present value of the food voucher is slightly over 2/5. At this time in 1943 it was 2/2; the increase in the value of the voucher arose from the rise in the price of butter mainly, in the interval. There are 91,000 benefitting under the food voucher scheme. I do not think there is any other matter with which I need deal now. There is a large number of activities for which the Department of Industry and Commerce is responsible, some of which I have not referred to. If Deputies have any questions to ask concerning these further activities I shall endeavour to give the fullest possible information possible when replying.

An Ceann Comhairle

Vote 67, for Employment and Emergency Schemes is usually taken with Vote No. 10, Public Works and Buildings. By inadvertence it was omitted from the Order Paper. The Parliamentary Secretary would like to take it with Vote No. 10 if the House agrees.

General Mulcahy

There is no objection.

Mr. Roddy

The Minister's statement was concerned mainly with the activities of one of his Departments. There is a line of demarcation between the Department of Supplies and the Department of Industry and Commerce, but it is so slender that it is difficult for Deputies to understand where the functions of one begin and the others end.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Department of Supplies is an emergency Department.

Mr. Roddy

It seems difficult to understand why the duties performed by one Department could not be more effectively performed by the other. However, we have the two Departments, and we shall have an opportunity of discussing the Department of Supplies when we come to deal with the Estimate for it. At the outset, I should like to deal with some matters mentioned by the Minister. He stated that his Department's activities were confined almost entirely to the allocation of materials obtained by the Department of Supplies and the preparation of post-war industrial plans. He mentioned one thing which is in very restricted supply—explosives. Because of that restriction, the activities of public bodies are considerably hampered. I was wondering, in view of the coal restrictions and the fact that collieries and other undertakings using explosives will not be able to use the same quantity for the next six months, or until the position improves, if the Minister would be able to make a better allocation of explosives to local authorities. I ask him to bear in mind that explosives are needed for land improvement and for reclamation schemes carried out by the Department of Agriculture. I tried unsuccessfully to secure a small quota for a very important reclamation scheme but I failed to convince the officials of the Department of the importance of the work. The Minister should consider, if at all possible, setting aside a small supply of explosives for reclamation of land because such work is linked up with food production. In the case in which I was interested the people desired to have a certain amount of land reclaimed in order to carry out tillage.

I am glad to learn from the Minister that the position with regard to the supply of horseshoes may be eased, owing to supplies of steel bars having been obtained. I was particularly glad to learn that the price will be substantially reduced. Hitherto, the price was almost prohibitive. I am also interested in the Minister's assessment of the paper situation. The Minister mentioned that about 65,000 tons of paper were normally imported, and roughly, 12,000 tons produced here, and that since the beginning of the war home production had increased by about 12 per cent. That is, undoubtedly, an appreciable increase and has made a substantial contribution to home requirements. I wonder if it would be possible to increase home production still further. There is a serious shortage of certain types of commercial and jobbing paper which are produced in very small quantities here and make very little impression on the general demand. I realise that, on account of the fuel restrictions, it may not be possible immediately to increase the output, but I ask the Minister to bear the matter in mind so that, when circumstances are favourable, those engaged in the production of these papers may endeavour to increase output. The Minister mentioned that some of the mills are experimenting with the possibility of utilising turf and I sincerely hope that the experiment will succeed.

Coming to the position as it affects newsprint, I am sorry to say that the Minister's statement was rather pessimistic. He seemed to indicate that there was no likelihood of any newsprint coming in for some time owing to the world situation. I am sure the Minister appreciates, just as much as I do, the importance of the printing industry, and the necessity of keeping it in normal production. The printing trade gives a large measure of employment, but it has been confronted with serious difficulties since the outbreak of war. Owing, however, to the assistance and the co-operation given by the Minister's officials, the industry has survived the difficulties which it experienced and is moving along in a reasonable way. I am sure the Minister knows, from the information at the disposal of the Department of Supplies, that many of the provincial papers, for which I can speak, are living from hand to mouth, inasmuch as their stocks of paper were, at the best of times, small. When circumstances are favourable, I hope he will do his utmost to get larger supplies of newsprint, so that the industry may be allowed to carry on in a reasonable way. The Minister, I think, said that it was almost impossible to obtain supplies from Sweden at the present time. I think I did hear from an agent in Dublin a short time ago that large supplies of newsprint had been imported from Sweden.

Mr. Lemass

Supplies have been obtained from Sweden, but I anticipate that recent developments in the war are likely to make it difficult to secure further supplies.

Mr. Roddy

I appreciate that. My information was to the effect that large supplies of paper had been obtained from Sweden, that they had been shipped to Portugal, and were there awaiting trans-shipment. I realise perfectly well the limitations on the shipping space available and the war difficulties. I simply want to impress on the Minister the serious position in which many newspaper owners find themselves and the importance of that industry. I am sure that the Minister will do his utmost to obtain and make available supplies of paper for the newspapers throughout the country. I do not know what the position is with regard to the daily newspapers, but in any event they are a very strong organisation and are quite capable of looking after their own interest. I am sure that that organisation will see to it that the welfare of the daily newspapers is not being neglected.

The Minister made a brief reference to the suspension of the issue of exit permits. I realise that, owing to the labour shortage in the country, the utmost vigilance must be exercised in the granting of exit permits. The Minister is, I am sure, well aware that many cases of hardship have arisen owing to the fact that people have not been able to obtain these permits. That applies to the towns and cities as well as to the country. In a number of cases, I have made representations to the Minister's Department, and I am sure that, when circumstances are favourable, the Minister will see that the people concerned are granted exit permits. I should be glad if the Minister would give an indication as to when the issue of these exit permits is likely to be resumed. I do not know if he is in a position to give the information. External circumstances, probably, make it difficult for him to give any approximate information as to when their issue will be resumed. As the Minister, however, is aware, quite a large number of people are interested in these permits, and, naturally, they will be very anxious to have some indication as to when their issue is likely to be resumed.

The Minister went on to deal with his post-war plans. I must say that he was delightfully vague in giving the Dáil information about the plans which he has in contemplation. He did indicate, of course, that in arranging these plans he naturally had to bear in mind the general employment situation in the country, and that whatever plans were made would be designed to give the maximum amount of employment in industry and its allied businesses when the war is over. The Minister talked lightly about spending millions of pounds on one scheme or another. I would remind him of the statement made by his colleague, the Minister for Finance, when introducing the Budget in the Dáil this year. Towards the end of his Budget speech he said that the expenditure on post-war plans would be determined entirely by the amount of money that could be saved on emergency services. In other words, the Minister for Finance was not in a position to indicate what amount of money could be spent on post-war plans until he knew what savings could be effected on emergency services, particularly the defence services. In considering post-war plans, we must naturally consider the possible expenditure on the schemes brought forward. At the moment we do not know when the war will be over. We do not even know whether it will be possible for us to curtail, to any very great extent, any of these emergency services for a long time after the war is over. It is, therefore, very hard to examine in any kind of a concrete way any type of post-war plans. We heard a great deal about plans in the past. Somehow, when we speak about planning, it has not a very healthy flavour for some of us. I do sincerely hope that, whatever plans the Minister is preparing in the future, he will see that they are discussed exhaustively with people who, by reason of their experience in business, organisation, and generally by reason of their commercial knowledge, are best qualified to advise on such matters. The Minister should secure the experience of such men in helping him to prepare whatever post-war plans he has in contemplation.

The Minister went on to say that, in preparing his post-war plans, he naturally had to take into consideration, first of all, the cheapening of the costs of production, and, secondly, the efficiency with which these businesses are conducted. There is no doubt that one of the chief considerations which should be in the Minister's mind in this matter is the cheapening of the costs of production. After all, that is intimately linked up with the efficiency with which a particular business is conducted. There has, admittedly, been a great deal of inefficiency in the conduct of some of the industries started by the Minister himself during the past ten or 12 years.

I am afraid that our industrialists did not exert themselves sufficiently for the purpose of bringing their businesses up to the standards of, let us say, similar businesses in other countries. I am afraid that they were not impelled by the desire to give the country the best service which it was possible for them to give. They were solely, and almost entirely, concerned with making the maximum profit out of these businesses, while at the same time giving the minimum amount of employment. I assume, from the Minister's statement to-day, that we have finished with that particular era, and that, when the war is over, the Minister will see to it that our industrialists will conduct their businesses in a thoroughly efficient way, and will give the country the benefit of that efficiency by reducing the excessively high prices which they are charging for the goods and commodities they are producing at the present time. It is unfair to expect the people of this country to continue to pay through the nose, as they have been paying for years past, for the industrial position we have achieved. I can assure the Minister that the country would not stand for that. We have now arrived at the time when the people will demand, for the future at all events, that there be not alone efficiency but a considerable reduction in the price of the commodities which are produced in our factories.

The Minister mentioned the White Paper issued by the British Government. I have not seen the White Paper, but I have read references to it in the British Press and, so far as I am aware, that White Paper contained a number of rather intimate details of the plans which the British Government is preparing for the future. It would be well if the Minister would take the House into his confidence and give us some more details of the post-war plans he has in contemplation. I think it only right that the members of the Dáil be given an opportunity of discussing these plans as well as the officials of the Minister's own Department.

"Two heads are better than one" is an old saying and, after all, I am sure many members of this Dáil have considerable experience in business and would be very useful to the Minister in any criticism they would offer of the plans he has in contemplation. I realise that, at this particular stage, it is quite impossible to get down to very precise details, but I think it would be a good thing for the Minister to give the House general particulars of the plans he has in contemplation and allow the House to fill in any of the blanks in those plans. The Minister will require the co-operation and assistance of the members of the Dáil and of other experienced people throughout the country in bringing the plans to fruition.

Seemingly, the Industrial Credit Corporation will be asked to take on additional functions in the future. Previously, it was a lending corporation, confined to industrial enterprise and, naturally, as money had been lent to it by the Government, it was its function to see that the interests of the taxpayers were safeguarded as far as it was possible to do so, but it would appear from the Minister's statement that in the future it will be the function of the corporation to establish industries.

Mr. Lemass

To promote companies for the starting of industries.

Mr. Roddy

Then I assume that the Minister will transfer some of the functions he has exercised hitherto to that corporation.

Mr. Lemass

No, the Deputy misunderstands slightly. The Industrial Credit Corporation did not assist in the financing of industry in the past by lending money so much as by the underwriting of public issues of shares.

Mr. Roddy

At any rate, it will exercise some additional and very important functions in the future. I assume that it will be necessary for the Minister to bring in fresh legislation, for the purpose of enabling the corporation to exercise those additional functions.

Mr. Lemass

The existing powers are sufficient.

Mr. Roddy

I was not aware of that. We will, possibly, have an opportunity of discussing this matter later. At the moment, I am rather doubtful about conferring these additional functions on the Industrial Credit Corporation. It may be a good thing for industrial development in this country, or it may not. It depends on whether the right men are in charge, men with business experience and outlook. However, I am not in a position to criticise the Minister's intentions in that respect at the moment as I must confess I would like some time to consider the matter in all its bearings.

The Minister referred to rural electrification schemes and made special reference to the fact that it was proposed to manufacture in this country as much as possible of the equipment required for the scheme. That is, certainly, a laudable ambition and I sincerely hope it will succeed; but I do ask the Minister, if he does embark on the manufacture of this equipment, to see that the people who participate in the rural electrification scheme get that equipment at a reasonable price—at a price that bears some relation to competitive prices elsewhere. The tendency in this country, when we do manufacture an article and sell it afterwards, is to charge an exorbitant price. At least, that was the experience in the past and I sincerely hope it will not be so in the future. In fact, I would imagine that the success of the rural electrification scheme will depend to a large extent on the price charged to the beneficiaries for the equipment manufactured for the purpose of the scheme.

I would like to make a brief reference to the Tourist Board. Its main function will not be exercised until the war is over, but some of the preliminary functions have been put into operation already. I wish to compliment the Minister on doing that. The tourist industry is a very important source of income to this country and, if we were to develop it to a larger extent when the war is over, it would, certainly, be necessary to standardise our hotels and insist that they be maintained in a proper way and provide proper accommodation for visitors. Some hotel proprietors are very negligent in many ways and I hope that, as a result of the putting into operation of this portion of the Act, there will be a general improvement in the standard of hotel accommodation throughout the country.

Regarding the phosphatic rock deposits in Clare, I think the Minister stated last year, when introducing a Supplementary Estimate, that he estimated that there was no more than about one year's supply of phosphatic rock in Clare. I wonder if he had reason recently for changing his opinion? At that time, boring for rock was taking place; but to-day he mentioned that mining for rock is proceeding. I should be glad if he would make some statement about the possibility of getting in supplies. He said something last year about the supplies in Clare being almost exhausted. It is a matter which vitally affects the farmers, as the food production campaign depends to a large extent on the amount of artificial manures which can be procured. I would be very glad to hear that the Minister's statement last year was not correct, and that the Clare phosphates will last longer than he anticipated.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy Misunderstands the position. Normally, we use about 100,000 tons of phosphate rock for the production of fertilisers every year. Production in Clare last year was 12,000 tons. When I referred to a year's supply I was referring to a year's supply on the normal basis. Borings which have been made would appear to indicate the presence of approximately 100,000 tons of phosphate rock in Clare.

Mr. Roddy

100,000 tons?

Mr. Lemass

In or about that. One can never be sure until one is digging it out. Further exploration work is proceeding, but what the result may be I cannot attempt to forecast. In so far as production at the present time can be maintained to the maximum of about 12,000 tons a year, there is, of course, more than a year's supply. We have been importing in the past 15,000 to 20,000 tons—that is, in recent years—in addition; but the total output of the Clare phosphates could never give us a normal supply of phosphatic rock.

Mr. Roddy

At any rate, I am glad to hear that the supply in Clare will last until the war is over, and I hope we shall be able to get additional supplies from outside.

Mr. H.M. Dockrell

On this Estimate, I suppose it is natural that I would mention the things that occur to me, matters where possibly the shoe has pinched someone. I do not want the Minister or the House to think that I do not realise the very good work that the Minister and his Department have done. The Government imposed quotas and duties to help the native manufacturers. I think that process was only in its infancy, as probably the Minister would be the first to state —I think he has stated it—and the war caught us in the middle of a changeover. I suppose the Minister hoped that with the efflux of time and a rise in competition a whole lot of gaps in the industrial programme would have been filled in and some of the inequalities smoothed out.

If I look back on the immediate past, I hope the Minister will not think I am looking back with the object of finding fault; I am merely trying to see how we can improve our position in the future by putting a label on some of the things that ought not to have happened, or perhaps ought not to have happened to the extent that they did. Undoubtedly, during the emergency period it became evident that the native manufacturers were not sufficiently geared to supply materials in the period before the war. What I mean by that is that probably any native manufacturer who had established himself would have considered what the normal requirements of the country were and would have arranged, by machinery and labour, to cope with that demand. What really happened was that there was a short period in which most industrialists could see the storm coming and a rate of production was required from the native manufacturer which ran to five or ten times what his normal production would have been. He was not able to cope with that. He would tell you probably that he could not even try to do it. What was the position? The position was that the native manufacturer could not hope to produce in accordance with the demands, and the period during which supplies could have been brought in from outside was past, so that I suppose industrially what we gained on the swings we almost lost on the roundabouts.

There is a good deal of criticism thrown at the Irish manufacturer. He is described as a sort of inefficient, grasping individual who is anxious to screw the last shilling out of the public. Of course, that is not true. The problem that the Irish manufacturer is up against is a very old one, and I will tell you what it is. There exists in this country a demand for the same range of materials or goods—whichever way you like to put it—just as it exists in England, with this difference, that it is only one-hundredth per cent. of the volume. The problem that confronts every Irish manufacturer is, is he going to take a very small portion of the range that is manufactured in England, manufactured fairly efficiently, and then be blamed because he does not produce the full range? What happens in England is that manufacturers get into compartments all along that line. I will merely indicate one, but it varies from trade to trade and industry to industry. One manufacturer will take the very light stuff, another the medium light, a third the medium and a fourth the heavy. Those people have special machinery to cope with that narrow range in a volume far greater than the Irish manufacturer can hope to get.

That is really the problem of manufacturing in this country. The manufacturers have tried to solve it in various ways. In order to try to eliminate or reduce the shock of the cost to the public of changing over from goods that were brought in without any tariff and the price charged by a local manufacturer, I think the Prices Commission were called in to help and prices were fixed which practically eliminated the wholesale distributor in many cases. That looked as if it was a very good scheme, because it meant that the Irish manufacturer had not to give a discount beyond a very small amount and it looked as if that saving was pocketed by the consumers. What happened, of course, was that the big stockists who found that where they used to purchase a thousand articles from abroad and could only obtain 50 from the local manufacturer, reduced their stocks to 50. That is one of the reasons why, in this country, we have lost on the swings what we gained on the roundabouts.

I do not want the Minister to think that I am throwing bricks at his Department, or that his Department is solely to blame for that. I am perfectly aware of cases where the Department, faced with two absolutely different stories, one from the manufacturer as to what he could produce and the other from the distributor who wanted certain goods, brought them into a conference. The manufacturer maintained his position and the distributor maintained his, and the Department in a lot of cases took a middle course, where really they would have required to take a very courageous and possibly a very unpopular decision in order to leave this country with a supply of goods adequate to meet the situation. As an illustration of that, the other evening I mentioned the shortage of small watt electric lamps. In reply to my bringing that matter to his notice, I think the Minister suggested that this Party and I really should not have the impudence to mention such a matter considering that we had done our best to sabotage the factory. I do not know whether the Minister ranks me as an industrialist or as a saboteur but I should like to point out to him that I believe the factory never manufactured five and ten watt lamps. I am not throwing bricks at the factory. The position probably was that these small and light types of lamp would possibly require machinery that the factory had not got. That is only an illustration of the difficulties that have to be faced and that have to be solved, no matter who is pleased or what may occur.

The Minister mentioned some of the very far-reaching plans that the Government have in view. I hope he realises that in many cases the country has to stand still until the Government have finished planning. The Minister will have to take his courage in his hands to state what duties and quotas are to be re-imposed. I will tell you why he must do that. All these schemes will require workers and materials. Some people will tell you that at the cessation of hostilities all the workers in Great Britain will be given a return ticket and will be sent back here. Other people will tell you that there is a tremendous building programme on the other side in comparison with which our £64,000,000 scheme fades into insignificance, and that workers will be required there in abundance. No doubt many of the workers who have gone to the other side are skilled building operatives. Many others are at least strong, clever manual workers and can probably take their place in any dilution scheme or any other scheme on the other side. I do not know what the Minister's view is as between those two positions with regard to the workers.

I am sure we would all be very interested if we could be sure that the course which is going to be taken will be the right one. Whether we have workers or have not workers, we will require materials. No importer will make a move until he knows what the position will be when he brings stuff in here. The Government, to do them justice, have put all the duties and quotas in cold storage—they are in abeyance. I think you could go to the Minister's Department and get a permit for anything that had arrived at the Quay, but that is too uncertain a position for someone to face in the post-war period. He might bring in a whole lot of goods and find, possibly through stupidity or possibly, the Minister might say, through necessity, a permit to import these goods might be refused, and he would not know whether 50 or 75 per cent. of the duty would have to be paid.

The Minister referred to the magnitude of these schemes. I happen to know about a manufacturer who had three schemes prepared which he submitted to the Minister's Department. The Corporation stopped the first scheme under the Town Planning scheme. In regard to the second scheme they found there would be a law action as to light and air with the neighbours. The third scheme, presumably, will be carried out. That may possibly display a pessimistic outlook with regard to schemes, but certainly a very great number of those schemes are, first of all, dependent on many contingencies, and I would suggest to the Minister that none of them, or a very small number of them, will be started until the people can see their way clearly ahead. The average person who carries out a scheme such as these can usually find out all along the line what material is available and what are the prospects of finishing the work. Nobody is going to embark on such schemes unless he can see the the materials in sight.

Possibly, in trying to solve some of the problems that I have indicated, the Minister may get a headache, and, as I have said, he certainly will not please everybody, but at the present time the position is that most of the people who are charged with the job of getting in materials are waiting for the Government to cease planning and to make a pronouncement.

Mr. Cogan

The Minister, in his introductory statement, gave the House a fairly comprehensive outline of the entire industrial position, and of his plans in regard to the post-war period. As far as the present position is concerned, there is not very much that can be said, because, to a great extent, industrial policy is in abeyance. The Minister touched upon a few questions in regard to the unemployment position. He expressed satisfaction that unemployment has tended to decrease in the last couple of years, but he almost admitted that that was mainly due to the fact that there has been a very substantial increase in emigration in the last couple of years. The Minister put the number who have emigrated for employment in Great Britain in 1943 at 39,000, which, I suppose, is the lowest figure that can be computed from the statistics available. In my view, 39,000 is a very substantial number of people to be exported from this country for employment abroad, particularly having regard to the fact that these 39,000 are, for the most part, the cream of our workers, young men and women of a high order of intelligence, skill, efficiency and ambition. Their loss to the nation cannot be over-estimated. Some people express the fear that all those who have gone across to Great Britain will be returned when the war is over, with a very serious impact on our employment conditions here. That is one serious aspect of the question. There is another which is equally serious, and that is, that many of the best of these workers may be retained abroad and thereby be permanently lost to this State; so that from whatever aspect we view the question, that emigration is to be deplored.

The Minister dwelt on the difficulty of obtaining explosives for mining and other purposes. I should like to remind him of one aspect of this question which seriously affects farmers, and that is the almost complete impossibility of securing cartridges for the protection of crops. It is a strange thing that there appears to be a fairly substantial quantity of cartridges available for sporting purposes, whereas it is absolutely impossible for a farmer to obtain any cartridges in the provincial towns or villages for the protection of his crops. That is a very serious difficulty with which tillage farmers have to contend. One of the undesirable results of that position is that in a good many cases farmers have been forced to resort to the destroying of birds and other vermin by the use of poison. I hope that the Minister will do what he can to ensure that greater quantities of cartridges are made available and that they are distributed to the people who require them most urgently in the national interests, namely, the farmers.

A somewhat similar position now arises in regard to cement. Restrictions have been imposed upon its distribution, and small builders and farmers throughout the rural areas may be seriously affected unless their interests are adequately protected. It is necessary, of course, that people engaged in big building operations, in constructional operations, should receive first consideration but, at the same time, there are throughout the country a large number of small builders, people engaged in the improvement of buildings, who depend for their existence on the distribution of cement in the rural areas. Farmers also must keep their farm buildings in repair if they are to protect and preserve their livestock and store their cereals and other crops. For that reason I want to make a special plea that in any distribution of cement special consideration will be given to the people in the rural areas.

It is satisfactory that a big effort has been made to ensure that horseshoeing iron will be available but, as every Deputy from rural Ireland knows, the supplies which ordinary farriers throughout the country are able to obtain are extremely limited and the price is to a great extent prohibitive.

The Minister also referred to his efforts to conserve timber supplies. Here again, in rural areas, a number of people have a very definite grievance. Small sawmills find it impossible to obtain permits to secure the best type of timber. Such timber is reserved, I suppose, for the bigger firms and manufacturers. But it must be remembered that throughout the rural areas those small sawmills provide timber for very essential national purposes. They may not require a big quantity, but they require a certain quantity, at any rate of first-class timber, for example, for the construction of farm carts, providing shafting for machinery and such things for which good timber is essential. It is an injustice to refuse permits to those small mills simply because they happen to be carrying on in a small way.

The Minister also referred to the production of phosphates, and it is gratifying to know that there is a fairly substantial quantity available that can be mined in sufficient quantities. Both in regard to the mining of phosphates and in regard to pyrites and other essentials in the manufacture of phosphatic manures, I think one of the best achievements of the Department in recent years was the setting up of the Mineral Development Company. That company is justifying itself and will justify itself amply in future. It is one of the enterprises which ought to be commended and supported. Our mineral deposits are undoubtedly limited, but they are, nevertheless, not entirely insignificant. They have, however, certain features which make them difficult to develop by private enterprise. Most of our mineral ores are of a compound nature and they must be all minded together and afterwards segregated. For that reason it is difficult for any privately-owned firm to cope with the situation, and I believe that the mining company which has been set up is setting out on its task on right lines and that it ought to receive wholehearted co-operation. I do not mention that fact because this company happens to be operating to a fairly substantial extent in my constituency. I believe there is scope for mineral development in many parts of the country and that a company such as this can achieve very good results and be a very important factor in industrial development in the post-war period. The more raw materials we can obtain from native sources the more secure will be our native industries.

On this question of industrial development after the war, I believe that the policy of giving ample support and adequate protection to sound industries must be continued. A certain line of argument put forward in this House—it was put forward here as recently as yesterday—suggests that because our main industry is agriculture, and because agriculture is dependent upon the price levels fixed by exports, it should be the policy of the Government to ensure that the raw materials of agriculture will be admitted freely into this country. That may seem to be a plausible argument to anyone appealing for farmers' support, and, because it sounds plausible, I intend to deal with it here and now, because I am not prepared to accept it entirely.

If we accept the view that the raw materials of agriculture should be admitted freely, should not be restricted by tariffs, we eventually come to the position wherein practically all protection for home industry must be withdrawn, because almost all manufactured goods are ultimately the raw material of agriculture. It is only necessary to mention clothing. If the price of the clothing which the farmer and his worker require increases, the cost of living of the farmer and his worker increases. That naturally increases the wages which the worker must demand, thereby adding to the farmer's costs, so that the position is that it is not only feeding stuffs, agricultural machinery and so on which are the raw materials of agriculture. Clothing and practically every other commodity produced here must be regarded as raw material for agriculture, and it is not an entirely honest argument to suggest that the raw materials of agriculture should be admitted freely.

It is an attempt to deceive a number of our people, and particularly farmers and farm workers, into adopting an attitude of hostility to industrial development here. I do not think the farmers are innocent or foolish enough to allow themselves to be fooled by that type of propaganda. The farmer is a producer, a very essential and important producer, but he regards the genuine Irish manufacturer as a very important producer also, and he will not be misled or fooled into attacking the genuine and sound industrialist.

I do not accept, and have never accepted, the view that the prices of agricultural produce and, therefore, the income of the farmer, are governed entirely by the price of our exportable surplus and, because I do not accept that view, I do not accept the conclusion that, in order to bring our cost of production down to whatever level our exportable surplus may reach, we should resist and oppose industrial development here. I believe it is wrong, criminally wrong, to try to use the horny hand of the farmer to tear down whatever has been achieved in the matter of industrial development and, speaking as a farmer and a member of a Farmers' Party, I am not going to be a party to such an attempt.

I know that tremendous problems in relation to industrial development will face us after the war. We have a position in which we are to a large extent badly supplied with industrial raw materials. We have always been up against that difficulty, but there is, nevertheless, a wide field for manufacturing industry, and, with the progress of science, that field will continue to become wider as time goes on. I believe that with the production or the invention of various plastic and composite materials and their substitution to a great extent for mineral products, there will be opportunities for the development of industry based on home supplies of vegetable and other raw materials; but the first and most important basis of industrial development is a supply of fuel, and, by fuel, I mean industrial fuel. Since we have not got coal in this country, our main dependence and reliance must be on white coal, electricity. Every conceivable source of electrical power should be tapped to the utmost of its capacity.

The Minister referred to the programme of rural electrification and to the possibility of providing within this country the raw materials for the manufacture of electrical equipment and supplies, but he did not refer to the possibility and desirability of expanding production of current. This is a very vital matter when we consider that at the moment our supplies of electric current are so deficient in relation to our needs. In any plans the Minister may have in regard to post-war development, he must put the development of electrical power first and over all. It is to the credit of this State that in its early stages we had electrical development on a large scale. I am sure the Minister will not seek to take anything from the credit which is due to his predecessors in that respect. There is need for and I think there is room for wide development. That should be the first and most important consideration in regard to post-war planning for industry. Industry cannot be efficient or profitable unless there is a cheap, native source of power.

Another matter mentioned by the Minister is one in which there has been some development during the emergency period, that is the shipbuilding industry. It ought to be one of the Minister's regrets that he did not embark earlier on the development of that most important industry. We are an island nation, and we can never hope fully to develop our resources or fully to develop our external trade until we have our own merchant fleet, with an adequate industry for the production and repair of ships. I would be inclined to put the development of the shipbuilding industry and the development of a mercantile marine second in importance to the development of home-produced electric current.

The next matter to which the Minister referred, and it is of supreme importance, was the building industry. Here again I hold that we should rely to the maximum extent upon home-produced materials. As far as it is possible, we should eliminate the use of foreign materials from the construction of houses and from the other constructional works in which we will engage. The cement industry, one of the industries developed in this country in recent years, has apparently proved to be sound and efficient. For that reason, it requires to be still further expanded, until we are in a position to supply all our needs in the vast constructional development after the war. Not only in regard to buildings but in regard to streets, roads, bridges, and so on, we ought to have ample supplies of home-produced cement.

Tourist development is a matter which affects my constituency very deeply. Here also is an industry which is capable of very wide expansion. I have heard complaints from those engaged in the hotel business that the powers of the Tourist Board are excessive, and that they are not entirely justifiable inasmuch as the Tourist Board has a judicial function in regard to the manner in which hotels are carried on. The board has power to put any hotel-keeper out of business, and for that reason it may be regarded as in the same position as a court of justice. As such, I hold that the Tourist Board should not at the same time compete with the ordinary hotel-keeper. It seems to me that those two functions cannot be reconciled—the function of deciding whether a hotel keeper is managing his hotel properly and the function of setting up a rival business and competing with that hotel-keeper. That seems to me to be a departure from every principle of fairplay and justice.

Lastly, I want to make it very clear that, while we as farmers stand firmly for the preservation of sound Irish industries, and for the protection and promotion of industrial development, we are entirely opposed to everything that might savour of favouritism for any particular industry. We are also against any exploitation of the general public by any industry. The Minister referred to the fact that there is a number of what he called single firm industries in this country. He defined single firm industries as single firms which cater or set out to cater entirely for the supply of a particular commodity. There is always a danger, where a monopoly is placed in the hands of one firm or even of a small group of firms, that injustice may be done to the general public, or that inefficiency may creep into the management of that business. It will be the duty of this House, and the duty of the Minister, to see that, where protection is afforded to such industries, there is no exploitation of the public as a result of it.

Last year there came to the notice of Deputies of this House a circular sent out by a manufacturer in which the Minister was charged with having given certain privileges in regard to the import of essential materials in the clothing trade to one particular firm, and the firm in question was charged with exploiting their position by overcharging the other manufacturers engaged in the clothing business. These are very serious charges, and they got very wide publicity. I have no doubt that the Minister knows the firm to which I am referring, and I mention the matter in order that he may have an opportunity of replying to those charges. The charges were that one particular firm was given a monopoly for the importation of certain essential commodities required for the manufacture of women's and children's clothing and that they exploited their position to overcharge, to the detriment of other manufacturers engaged in the same business. In that connection, I do not see why a monopoly should be given to one particular firm where goods have to be imported. If certain goods must be imported, then I think that a licence to import should be given to anybody who has been in the habit of importing them. We had almost the same position in regard to the development of home-grown seeds. A monopoly was given to two firms, whereas the other firms which had been engaged in the import of seeds were completely cut out. Now, I do not think that that can be justified. If goods have to be imported, then I think that the firms engaged in the business concerned should be allowed to continue to import freely.

I want to make it clear that whatever developments may be intended for industry after the war, the essential factor is to ensure, first of all, that there is efficiency within those particular industries, and, secondly, that profiteering is eliminated. Undoubtedly, there has been profiteering in many branches of our industries, and many arguments have been put up to justify that profiteering. I hold that the State, having intervened, as it must intervene, in order to prevent the free importation of goods from all parts of the world, must bear full responsibility for ensuring that the interests of the home consumer are adequately protected. There are two definite lines of policy. One is to adopt a policy of free trade, give the consumer the benefit of the goods and commodities produced in every part of the world, and thereby ensure that prices will be kept at a competitive level. If you interfere with the ordinary law of supply and demand, if you interfere with the free importation of goods and commodities into the country, then you must follow that interference to its logical conclusion and ensure that the people of the country are protected as they are bound to be protected and should be protected.

As far as the ordinary farmers of this country are concerned, they will co-operate with sound industrial development. They are prepared to regard the genuine manufacturer as their brother, their fellow-producer; and the manufacturer in this country who is engaged in the production of goods, whether agricultural machinery, clothing, or any other essential commodity, is second only to the food producer, and he is most essential if we are to maintain a self-reliant and independent nation here, because there is no doubt that we cannot contemplate a decline in our population since that is what must inevitably come about if we do not promote the development of secondary industries here. Our population must decline if we do not develop these industries.

In speaking privately to a gentleman who has been very active in advocating free trade, I have learned from him that he believes in free emigration. Well, that is one line of policy, but it is a line of policy which I can never support, and I do not think this House will ever support it. If we are not to develop secondary industries, then we have to do either of two things. We have to maintain a large section of our people in complete idleness or, alternatively, emigrate them to some other country. Now, I do not believe that any section of this House will seriously support either of those alternatives, and, therefore, we are faced with the position that there is no alternative to a policy of intensive development of sound industrial enterprises within this State. That is the policy which this Party will wholeheartedly support, and no matter what pleas are put forward to the effect that industrial development is detrimental to the farmers' interests, we, as practical farmers, believe that it would be far more detrimental to our interests if we, the agricultural producers, were called upon to support in absolute idleness those who are now engaged in industrial employment in this country, and we believe that it would also be detrimental to the interests of the farmers or the farm workers if we were to permit a situation to develop in which all the people who might possibly find employment in secondary industries should be exported to the ends of the earth. I do not think that any farmer or farm worker relishes the prospect of exporting his children or his children's children to the ends of the earth in order to seek their means of livelihood. For that reason I believe it is time that a halt should be called to the type of dishonest propaganda which seeks to claim that the farmers' interests are detrimentally affected by those of the manufacturers, because I have made it clear in this House over a number of years that I do not accept the view that the farmers' means of livelihood are dependent upon the price level of the export of our agricultural surplus. Because of that, I believe we can build up an economic system here in which the manufacturer and the farmer, both working with the highest degree of efficiency, can increase the volume of output both in industry and agriculture until we reach the position in which we can maintain our entire population without having to resort to either the export of our people or the maintenance of a large section of our people on the dole.

Mr. Norton

I should like to know, Sir, whether the time limit on speeches is off.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. Bartley)

I am afraid I cannot say.

General Mulcahy

How long does the Deputy want?

Mr. Norton

It is not a question of how long I want. I only want to know whether that position of a time limit on speeches is being continued. However, I should like to know from the Minister if we are taking all these Industry and Commerce. Estimates together, or is it desirable to discuss them separately?

Mr. Lemass

They are being taken all together.

Mr. Dillon

But that does not include Supplies? I presume that it only includes Industry and Commerce?

Mr. Lemass

It does not include Supplies. It includes only the Industry and Commerce group.

Mr. Dillon

Which is separate?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Norton

There is one point which I wish to put to the Minister. In the case of persons who are eligible for unemployment benefit and whose residence is six or more miles from the nearest branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce, I understand that it is not necessary for such people to register at such a branch and that it is sufficient for them to register at the local Gárda barracks. What is happening is that evidence of unemployment is taken from the applicant on, I think, the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of each week. His entitlement to benefit, apparently, is computed on Friday, and I think he is notified on Friday evening of the amount of benefit due to him, while at the same time the post office for the area is similarly notified of the amount of benefit to be paid in that area and of the names of the persons entitled to benefit. I understand that these notifications reach the head office in the area on Saturday and the applicant for benefit whose claim has been granted does not get benefit until the week commencing Monday. Monday on the following week is the earliest day on which he can get benefit. I want to put it to the Minister that it is customary to shop on Fridays and Saturdays, and the fact that these people have to wait until Monday or perhaps Tuesday for their benefits seriously interferes with their normal domestic arrangements. There may be administrative difficulties in the way of having the benefit paid on Saturday, but I put it to the Minister that it is not an insurmountable difficulty and that he should examine this question sympathetically with a view to coming to some arrangement whereby these people can be paid on Saturday so that they might be able to do their shopping at the same time as the rest of the community and not be compelled to wait until the following week to purchase necessaries which their more happily circumstanced neighbours can purchase at the week-end. I do not think there can be any serious difficulty in the way of having these payments made on Saturdays and I am sure, having brought the matter to the Minister's notice, that he will examine the position as sympathetically as he can.

The Minister made reference to coal production and announced that he intends to amalgamate the Slievardagh Coal Company with the Mineral Development and Exploration Company. Anything that makes for increased coal production in this country has much to commend it and I am not at all satisfied that we are handling our coal development problem in a competent or satisfactory way. It is perfectly true that since the outbreak of war production has increased from the standpoint of coal mining, but it is equally true that the amount of coal produced in the country is absurdly inadequate for our national requirements. All the evidence clearly indicates that if coal mining is carried on on its present basis, with even the rate of progress recorded during the present year, we are not likely to get a fragment of our requirements. I have no faith in a scheme of coal mining which relies on a few small companies with very limited capital, hopelessly inadequate technical equipment, and with no sense of vision such as would induce them to plan a scheme of training of miners in the highly important and skilled task of winning coal from the earth. I see no future for coal mining in this country if we have to rely on small companies whose main incentive is, not to produce coal, but to make profit out of such coal as can be easily got either by mining or quarrying. Quarrying is really the method followed in many cases.

It has been stated on high technical authority that there are millions of tons of coal in the Leinster coalfield. The head of the Geological Survey Department reported some years ago that he was satisfied from his technical knowledge and by geological survey of the coalfields that there was an abundance of coal in what is described as the Leinster coalfield. It may be that a geological survey is not the most reliable method by which you can ascertain the actual extent of coal deposits and that a closer approximation of the actual deposits can be arrived at by boring the coalfields to ascertain the extent and the depths of the deposits. In that way it is said that a much more reliable record can be made of the coal deposits which are available. I suggest to the Minister, however, that he must now realise the vital necessity of developing whatever coal deposits we have. The emergency has taught us the lesson that it is bad national housekeeping to allow coal deposits to remain undeveloped while our industries are wilting because of the difficulty of procuring supplies of imported coal. I think, therefore, not only from the national point of view but from the point of view of winning a very valuable raw material from our soil, from the point of view of securing regular employment for a substantial section of the male population, we should endeavour to develop these coal deposits to a very much greater extent than is operative at present.

I believe that the only satisfactory way in which we can develop the coalfields in this country is by the adoption of the same methods as were employed for production of electricity. Nobody believes that the Shannon scheme would ever have been developed by private enterprise. It could be developed only by the State. It was made an outstanding success by the State and brought to a stage where no doubt private speculators would be willing to purchase it because of the income accruing and its dividend-distributing potentialities. If we are going to develop the coalfields I believe that can be done only by the same methods as made the Shannon scheme a success, by the State recognising that the production of coal is vital to the national life, by creating an organisation, a public utility society, such as the Electricity Supply Board, by developing coal deposits and mineral development generally with the credit resources of the State. I do not put that forward as a kind of economic dogma at all but I think, having examined the position of the production of coal under the small under-capitalized coal mining companies in this country, we are never likely to get a satisfactory scheme of coal development under such a system here. If we are going to get coal we must abandon reliance on a small group of speculators, small companies, and insist that development must be at the hands of the State which alone has the technical equipment, which alone has the capital and which alone is able to look at the matter in that long term way in which it is not possible for the small investor to look at it.

One other matter to which I should like to refer briefly is, the unemployment insurance code in this country. The Unemployment Insurance Act was originally passed in 1920. There have been some modifications of the Act but its main financial structure, as far as this country is concerned, has now stood for 24 years. I do not think that anybody can pretend to be satisfied either with the early structure of the Act, modified by such amendments as have been made in the meantime, or with the Act as it is administered now. The Act, in my opinion, has one very serious flaw. I am not unfamiliar with the difficulties of remedying that flaw, once the Act was put into operation on its original basis, but the normal position under the Act, if we eliminate the recent emergency increases which have been granted to meet the increase in the cost of living, is that an unemployed craftsman, having lost employment in which he earned £4 a week, gets a sum of only 15/- per week unemployment benefit. If he is married he gets 5/- for his wife and 1/- for each child. The result is that a man in these circumstances who is unemployed has got to content himself with a standard of living in the form of unemployment insurance benefit, which bears no relation whatever to his normal earning capacity or his normal income whereas you have a man, who earns a very much lesser wage receiving approximately the same rate of benefit, the rate of benefit in the second case representing a high percentage of the man's wages when employed.

I know, of course, that it will be said, as against that, that there is a standard rate of contribution and consequently a standard rate of benefit. Personally I would prefer if there were a variation in the amount of contribution and in the amount of benefit because I think in circumstances such as these, when a worker is employed at a high rate of wages because of his particular skill, he would probably prefer to insure during periods of employment for a higher rate of unemployment benefit. Under the Act there is no means by which he can do that. No matter what his inclination might be to provide a higher rate of unemployment insurance benefit for himself and his family while unemployed, he is caught in the treadmill and he can only pay the same contribution as everybody else. He has no means of making provision for the adversity which takes the form of unemployment. I suggest to the Minister that the present is the best opportunity we are likely to get for an examination of the whole unemployment insurance code. After the war, other problems will demand urgent and unremitting attention and it is unlikely that a matter of this kind will get the detailed examination and sympathetic consideration that will be necessary if we are to adapt the Act so as to meet the circumstances of to-day in this country. In the post-war period, it will be pleaded against any demand for an amendment of the Act and for its more sympathetic administration that there are many pressing problems to be dealt with and that modification or amendment of the unemployment insurance code is not a matter that can be given precedence over the other and, perhaps, in the circumstances, more pressing problems. I suggest that the present time, when the activities of the Department of Industry and Commerce must be modified to a considerable extent by external causes, should be availed of for the purpose of examining the unemployment insurance code. I know that trade unions organised through the Trade Union Congress have been anxious to get amendments made in the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am sure that they would welcome an examination of the whole unemployment insurance code. I suggest to the Minister that, in a matter of this kind, he should consult at the earliest possible date the Trade Union Congress, which represents organised workers and represents in the main insurable workers, with a view to setting up a committee to examine the whole question of the administration and financial basis of the unemployment insurance code so as to amend it in such a manner as will bring it more into conformity with present needs and import into the code the benefit of the experience gained during the past 24 years in its adminstration here. The present structure is an outmoded structure. It probably, suited the circumstances of 20 years ago but experience has revealed many flaws in the Act and in its administration. I think that the Minister might usefully, especially with an eye to post-war development, have the whole unemployment insurance code examined with a view to making it a better instrument for serving the purpose for which it was originally devised—providing a reasonable amount of unemployment insurance benefit while persons are involuntarily unemployed.

The Minister made reference to the unemployment position here. He expressed the opinion that the unemployment figures were less than they had been, but I think he admitted that that was due to the fact that there had been substantial emigration in recent years. If those who emigrated during the past three or four years had insisted on remaining in Ireland and had insisted that the Irish Government should provide them with a decent means of livelihood in their own land, we would to-day have an appalling unemployment problem. Because Britain was at war and the emigrant ship was waiting for large numbers of our people, who were attracted by the prospect of regular employment at high rates of wages, our unemployment problem has been substantially diminished. As I said, we had no right to expect those people to leave their own country in search of employment. We had no right to export those people to another country which offered them a standard of living which we were too lazy to provide for them here. We had no right to send those people into British munition factories and into the British Army to seek a livelihood there which they could not get here. It is only the docility of those people in going to work for a living there that has diminished the intensity of our unemployment problem. If we have not as serious an unemployment problem to-day as we would otherwise have, it is because sheer want and economic adversity drove large numbers of our people to seek in Britain the employment they could not get here. They are there at the moment.

One finds it hard to prophesy with any pretence to accuracy regarding the economic situation which will develop in Britain at the end of the war. One viewpoint is that there will be a considerable amount of work available after the war in construction schemes. Another viewpoint is that, when the war is over, the military spree which is on at present will have to be paid for and the inevitable effect will be that there will be widespread depression, so that Britain, having regard to her economic set-up and methods of production, will be able to live only by exporting her goods. The question then arises as to whether other countries will be in a position to purchase goods from Britain. Our emigrants may find employment for their energies in Britain or they may have to come home in large numbers because of lack of employment there. There is a third possibility, that a cycle of depression in Britain may force down the standard of wages there and make it impossible for those people to do as they are doing at present—keeping a home here as well as maintaining themselves in Britain. If, because of depression in Britain, or because their services are not required there after the war, large numbers of these emigrants come back, I suggest that they will create for us a very serious situation. Normally, we ought to welcome them back.

Every country in the world with a small population is endeavouring so to direct its social policy as to increase its population. The Government of New Zealand believes that what it requires to effect an enormous increase in the prosperity of that country is not the sending of New Zealanders to Britain but the multiplication of New Zealanders at home. We ought to be welcoming back our emigrants after the war. Many of them would prefer to come back and work here, but the difficulty I see is that, if we have no plans for their absorption in industry or agriculture after the war, a very serious economic and social problem will arise. These men and women have been used to high rates of wages in Britain—rates of wages which bought them a passport to excitement, a passport to a regular standard of living, a passport to pleasures they could not purchase on the wages which they had been earning here. When these folk come back with unemployment cards in their pockets, it will not be easy to tell them to go to the labour exchange to look for £1 a week on which to sustain themselves. It will not be easy to tell them to go to the home assistance officer to look for outdoor relief. Those folk will have worked under conditions in which that kind of green and red tape will make very little appeal to them. They will have lived in a country torn by war, and will put a valuation, a strength of mind, of arm and of character on conditions here much more than they did in the past. They will come back here and ask for their heritage, the right to a decent life in their own land.

If it is not provided for them a very serious situation will arise here. It is because I do not want that situation to arise, because I want to see them rehabilitated with the maximum smoothness into agricultural and industrial activities, that I suggest to the Minister and the Government that they ought to reveal to the nation, in as much detail as is practicable, what their post war plans are. They ought to indicate what direction these plans will take, and even now might circulate what might be described as a blue print of post-war plans, so as to give the community an opportunity of bringing intelligence to bear on the feasibility of such plans, and give the Dáil a similar opportunity of examining the details, away from that rigidity, from that type of convention and maze of procedure, inseparably associated with the implementation of plans in the form of a Bill going through this House. I think the Government should take the House into its confidence and reveal, in as much detail as is possible, its post-war plans so that we can create an informed view of their practicability. Everybody will wish the Government well in its efforts in the immediate post-war period to raise the standard of living here and to absorb the maximum number of returned emigrants. It is for that reason I urge the Minister very strongly, in regard to post-war plans, which are entirely a Government function, that there ought to be national post-war planning, and that they should invite, and endeavour to get, the maximum measure of cooperation in any plans that are devised for the advancement of our economic fabric, and especially for the purpose of re-absorbing into industry large numbers who are now out of this country. Large numbers of men will be discharged from the Army when the war ends, as well as large numbers who found employment in the auxiliary services.

Under the circumstances it was not possible for the Minister to review all the activities of the Department, which were commendable, especially having regard to the difficulties surrounding him in respect of industrial activities which are not under our own control, but are conditional, in a large measure, in present circumstances on the international situation, and by the inadequacy of the raw materials necessary to develop secondary industries. A detailed discussion of the Minister's plans now or next year would serve no useful purpose, in view of the circumstances into which we have been precipitated by the international situation, but one can at all events give the Minister broad directions as to the mind of the House on industrial development in the post-war period. We are a nation of 3,000,000 and it is our duty to plan a way of life in order to provide industries and employment for our people. At present agriculture represents, and will continue to represent, the real wealth of the country. The productivity of the land represents the greatest source of wealth of our people and it will determine their standard of living.

Mr. O'Donnell

Farmers cannot get men to work on the land.

Mr. Norton

They can if they are given prospects.

Mr. O'Donnell

Practically every farmer finds difficulty in getting men.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Norton. We will hear the other Deputies in due course if they desire to speak.

Mr. Norton

I suggest that it would be wise national policy to develop to the fullest extent secondary industries in the immediate post-war period. Industries suitable for development here ought to be developed in the most efficient way. I do not mean by that, that every person who wants to do so should be allowed to put up a factory in a tumbledown shed in a back lane, with three sheets of corrugated iron as a roof, and with every pane of glass in the windows broken. There ought to be an insistence that such factories should conform to certain minimum standards, and they should be high standards, as to the suitability of these industries for development, and the qualifications of persons claiming the ability to be able to do so, should be carefully scrutinised. Such industries should be adequately capitalised, and there should be evidence of ability to create expansion. In addition firms ought to be licensed, and their right to continue in industrial activity should be related to the standard of efficiency of each industry and by the standard of wages provided for workers.

Nobody wants to see industries grow up here that employ only young girls at notoriously inadequate rates of wages. What we want in the main is to try to develop industries that will provide employment for married men, the bread-winners and their sons, which in the main will give regular employment, where possible to males, believing as we do, that when the heads of families are provided for, in that way you ensure for the family the best protection against the shock of low wages and the poverty that goes with low wages. I suggest to the Minister that he will find widespread support for the view of protecting substantial industries. Let us bear in mind that nations which are able to plan gigantic operations in France, as well as the nations that are able to put up a substantial measure of resistance during the course of this war, will have the minds that stimulated the wonderful mechanised and scientific development that has taken place during the war. We may find such a situation then, in our circumstances, in which we will not be able to export £1 of industrial goods because of competition from elsewhere. That situation might be met by endeavouring to develop the home market for industrial goods, and that can only be done by protecting our industries against foreign competition.

As far as the farmers are concerned, I disagree with the view of Deputy Dillon in asking for freedom to allow into the country all types of industrial products that they require. We could do that, but we would pay a heavy price for it. If that was to be the policy of economic development here, then farmers would be in the position that they would be endeavouring to produce food and agricultural wealth, but if the workers in the towns and cities could not get employment, then the farmers would have to carry these on their backs. If farmers are to produce they are faced with the problem of selling in the towns and cities where there is regular employment for workers at decent rates of wages. The best market for Irish farmers is the Irish market, and it is the only market that can be protected for them. Being on a parity with sterling, Irish farmers have to take in the British market any price that is going, and have not the slightest influence on price levels of agricultural experts on the British markets. His best, his safest, and his most stable market is the Irish market. Farmers ought to realise that they can preserve the Irish market for themselves by providing regular employment for town and city workers, by creating in the towns and cities a demand for agricultural goods. When that has been created by the regular employment of city and town workers, it will sustain the farmer and bring prosperity to agriculture. When there is prosperity in agriculture, the farmer and his worker will then come into the towns and cities looking for the goods and services which are produced there and in that way you set up a cycle of prosperity from the town to the rural areas and from the rural areas to the towns. I do not want to delay the House further in view of the general acceptance of the time limit on speeches. I put it to the Minister that any plan to develop our secondary industries, which is based on efficiency and a decent standard of living for those employed in industry, he will have the warm-hearted support of this Party.

Mr. O'Donnell

When I visited the district where the Clare phosphates are being dug out, there was as little excitement there as one would see on a primitive country road. I was not very much impressed at the output. The output of 12,000 tons there will not go far to meet the demand of 100,000 tons, which is the Minister's estimate of the requirements of the country. That quantity will be of very little use when we think of the amount of phosphates the land needs as a result of the extra tillage. It may very well lead to a collapse in food production. The Minister referred to the coal mines at Slievardagh in East Tipperary. He referred to what he described as the pirate coal which farmers are not allowed to dig out of the land. It is a mineral which is regarded as the property of the nation since the Land Commission bought out the land. Personally, I do not think there would be anything wrong, especially during the emergency period, in allowing those farmers to dig out a little bit of coal here and there. The Arigna coal mines have been very well developed and there is a tremendous export of coal from them. Why it was that the Government did not get machinery to develop the Slievardagh mines, I do not know. It is a mystery to us down in Tipperary. At present the coal could be dug out, and if that were allowed it would give a good deal of employment to the people. The geological experts report that the coal deposits there compare favourably in quality with the Arigna coal.

On the main Dublin to Cork road, between Cahir and Mitchelstown, at a place called Kilcoran, there is some little dispute about a roadway to the Galtees. There miles from that road there is an inexhaustible supply of the best of turf. It has been suggested that the road should be reconditioned so that the turf which is there to a depth of 30 or 40 feet might be developed.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a matter for the Department of Supplies and not for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. O'Donnell

As coal was being discussed, I thought that turf, being a kindred subject, might also be discussed. There is splendid turf there, and it is a pity that it is not being developed. The Minister spoke about his post-war plans and the employment that will be given. Recently, a White Paper was laid on the Table of the British House of Commons—I believe as a result of a suggestion that was made in this House—in connection with a national water survey. It got wide publicity from the daily newspapers in England and from agricultural papers circulating in that country. A search in the archives of the British House of Commons revealed that an estimate was made some years ago of the cost of putting water into every rural home in England, Scotland and Wales. The estimate was £24,000,000. For Scotland alone, it was £6,500,000, and that would be about the cost, I suppose, of a similar scheme here. Our Party intends putting down a motion at a convenient date dealing with this subject. A scheme of that sort would give a tremendous amount of employment. Proposals in favour of it have already been adopted by 16 county councils. The original proposal came from the South Tipperary County Council. Deputies who come from the rural areas know all the drudgery there is in drawing water to farms. Personally, I think that a water survey has a prior claim over further electricity development, although I must say that I am 100 per cent. pro-electric myself. I know the needs of our farmers well. I put water No. 1, and electricity would not come far behind it, from the point of view of the advantage and convenience it would be to farmers.

About three months ago the newspapers announced that the Government had in mind the promotion of an electric lighting scheme for the country which is estimated to cost £30,000,000. That would mean the supply of electricity at the expense of waterless farms. I do not see eye-to-eye with a proposal of that sort. Water, in my opinion, has first claim, though we want electricity as well. It was suggested in the newspapers some time ago that it was possible to get electricity from the sea. If we take Athlone as the centre of the country, no area would be more remote from the sea than, say, 40 miles. It should be possible to develop electricity from the sea and from the rivers of Ireland. The catchment areas from which water is supplied to the rivers could be used for the waterless farms. The hydro-electrical engineers are a very powerful body, but yet we have nobody to look after our waterless farms.

The Minister mentioned that 39,000 of our people had emigrated to England in recent times. Percy French said that our principal exports to England were bullocks and emigrants. In the early days of Sinn Féin—40 years ago—the late Arthur Griffith and David P. Moran made a special study of this subject. They estimated that every young boy and girl up to the age of 19 who left the country meant a loss to it of £200 each. I would put the figure myself at £300. My estimate is that the country is robbed of £300 in the case of every young boy and girl of 19 or 20 years of age who leaves it. If we take the figure of £200, the amount which the country loses by the emigration of the number of people the Minister mentioned, is £7,800,000, while if my figure of £300 is accepted, the loss runs up to £11,500,000. That is a very serious consideration. Yet we have also £300,000,000 of Irish capital exported from this country, while those electricity and water schemes are needed. The farmhouse near the mountain to the centre of the plains produced that wealth, which passed into the hands of the merchants and was exported. I suppose there is about £40,000,000 in Burma at present which, if the war takes a certain turn, will not be worth the paper it is written on. That money should not have been allowed out of the country.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is outside the Estimate for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. O'Donnell

You cannot develop very much without money. The money is needed and I respectfully submit that this has a great bearing on it. The most important problem at the moment is that we cannot get men to work on the farm. A fellow passed along the road the other day, who was supposed to be unemployed, and there were 20 or 30 people looking after him. Here is the harvest facing us and we cannot get anyone to work, while we are working 14 hours a day ourselves. Much has been said about the unemployment here, but I could place 300 men at the moment if I could get them in Tipperary. Deputy Norton has been speaking about unemployment, but I do not know what is to happen when the men come back from England, unless we have big schemes and the money is not allowed out of the country, as it was in the past. In regard to getting hold of the banks, Deputy Flanagan will have to look after that, as I could not deal with Professor O'Rahilly. Somebody will have to see that work is provided for all.

Mr. D. Morrissey

With regard to the matter spoken of by Deputy Norton and my colleague, Deputy O'Donnell, it is quite true that it is very difficult to get sufficient labour for farm work at the moment; but Deputy O'Donnell knows as well as I do that there is a reason for that, that it is not the fault of the unemployed. For the last two, three or four years, the farmers were able to employ and pay men but Deputy O'Donnell knows they could not do that in the previous six or eight years. What employment was available for men on the farm then and what farmer could pay them? Because they could not get employment and wages on the land, they had to leave the country. That is the answer, and everyone knows it.

Mr. O'Donnell

When we were willing to pay them, the Deputy did not vote with us.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Deputy O'Donnell knows quite well the farmers are able to pay men now and are paying them. There is no use in trying to evade the point I made, which he knows perfectly well is true. He himself has reason to know that it is true, that six or eight years ago they were not able to pay men. However, I do not wish to develop that point further.

We have heard the names of the plans which the Government has in mind for post-war work and, in that respect, so far as the type of work is concerned, most of the schemes under examination, we are told, are needed in the country and will be reproductive. But there seems to be a great mystery about them. Neither in this House nor in the country do we know by whom the schemes are being examined. We do not know whether any bodies which are formulating, examining or analysing these schemes have amongst their number any men of practical experience or of expert scientific knowledge, or whether those bodies are composed purely of men drawn from the Civil Service.

Whilst the projects are sound and good for the country in themselves— rural electrification, housing, roads, drainage and so on—can anyone say that they will be available to do any good immediately after the war? From what I can learn so far, I do not believe that any one of the big schemes mentioned will be started for at least five years after the war. I want to know what proposals the Government have which can be put into operation immediately the war finishes. I am afraid of the five-year gap between the end of the war and the coming into operation of the Government's post-war schemes. The only one scheme we have any knowledge of is that contained in the recent Arterial Drainage Bill. Long before the Arterial Drainage Bill was prepared, a lot of the material on which it was based had been collected in the country. Drainage will be one of the most important things in providing employment and assisting the development of agriculture and should be one of the most important schemes; but we are told that it will be five years after the war at least before it is started and that it will be at least 28 years before the draining of the country is finished. Does anybody think that that so-called progressive mentality will produce for us the schemes which we will want immediately after the war? The scheme which will require less machinery than any other, which will give more work to unskilled labour than any other, regarding which most of the information is now at the disposal of the Board of Works, is to take five years to get started after the war—and one knows what happens when the Department says it will take five years.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. O'Grady)

Who said so?

Mr. D. Morrissey

We are told it will be 28 years before it is finished. One would think that we were undertaking the draining of the Continent of America.

Mr. O'Grady

Who said the preparations would take five years?

Mr. D. Morrissey

If the Parliamentary Secretary were in the House he would know. If he would look up the Official Report of the debate on the Second Reading of the Arterial Drainage Bill, he would find that I am quite correct and that that was said from the Front Bench on which he is now sitting. I am putting that to the House, as an example. If it be five years before we get started on the national drainage scheme, how long will it be before we start on other schemes?

Mr. O'Grady

I was in the House on the occasion and I have no recollection of a mention of five years. I remember the 28 years' period being mentioned.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Does the Parliamentary Secretary now state that it was not stated in this House from the Government Front Bench that it would take five years?

Mr. O'Grady

No, but I would like to ask the Deputy if the statement was made by any Deputy with authority to make it?

Mr. D. Morrissey

That can be found in the Official Reports. I put it to the House for its consideration that it will be fatal if we go on in this easy sort of way. We should have plans ready to put our men at work immediately the war is over. We certainly will not, unless there is a complete and radical change. We have not got one piece of official information with regard to any scheme outside what we got in connection with the Drainage Bill.

The British Government have been mentioned. Notwithstanding the fact that they are fighting for their lives, the British Government have produced and presented White Papers on four or five of the more important aspects of their national life. There is a paper on fuel and one on employment; another has been produced as a result of conferences between farmers and farm workers; another paper deals with medical and health services and there is a paper concerned with electricity development. With all their war preoccupations, with the whole of their national resources going into the production of war materials, they have found time to get commissions and committees to consider various aspects of their national problems; they have got expert and practical information from working farmers, medical men and social workers of all descriptions in order to present reports, and they have circulated those reports not only to their Parliament but to their people; these reports are available to any person in Great Britain or in this country.

We do not know what our Government are doing. We are told there are plans in contemplation. Figures have been mentioned—anything from £69,000,000 to £138,000,000. What we have to concern ourselves with is that if the war ended three months from now and if, within another three months, there were 50,000 men sent back from Britain and another 30,000 or 40,000 released from our Army, what would we be able to do with them? It has been said, and quite truly said, that our main hope for useful permanent employment is agriculture. Is there a farmer in Ireland to-day who has any idea of what his position will be 12 months after this war is over? Can he estimate what prices he will get for anything he produces? He has not been given any indication in that connection.

I am not suggesting that prices will be worsened, or that there will be any revolutionary switch-over 12 months or two years post-war from our present type of farming, but the fact is that no one can estimate what the position will be like. The farmers have not been given any guarantees and I suggest they should be given some idea of the position of agriculture in the post-war period. Notwithstanding the fixed maximum prices Orders, there are farmers to-day in this country who, if they want to save the harvest—the corn which they have grown, some of them because they were compelled to grow it—are paying as much as £200 for a second-hand reaper and binder. Is a farmer to be expected to pay £200 for a reaper and binder that he does not know will be of any use to him two years from now? There is too much vagueness and the Government should take the House and the country into their confidence.

Deputy Norton said that, in regard to national affairs, matters affecting the well-being of the State, and in relation in particular to anything that can be done to enable us to face the terribly difficult time immediately post-war, the Minister will have the wholehearted co-operation of every Party. That was, I believe, quite a sincere statement from this side of the House. If we are to be of any use by way of offering constructive criticism or suggestions, we can only be helpful if we know what the Government are aiming at. The trouble is that they will not tell us.

I do not want to go into the question of protection for the farmers or for industries; this is not the time for it. Unlike other members of the House, I am not an expert in financial matters, nor indeed am I an expert in matters relating to tariff reform, or whatever they call it, but I think it is commonsense to say that we know that our industries in the last 20 years expanded and were maintained under tremendous difficulties and they had to get every conceivable form of protection and assistance that the State could give them so that they could be given an opportunity to show the people that we were able to produce goods at least as good as could be got from outside. That assistance was given to an extent that, in a great many cases, was unfair to the consumer. Does anyone deny that to develop and maintain these industries after the war will be ten times more difficult than in pre-war days?

Does not everybody know that when the war is over the whole economic and social face of the world will be changed as compared with ten or 15 years ago? Do we not well know that there will be very little consideration for small nations such as ours? Do we not know that whatever the future will be like, it will be moulded largely, if not altogether, by the big nations, particularly by the nations which will be victorious in this war? I have heard nothing, even during the general election, from any responsible Government spokesman that would lead me to believe that there are any schemes under consideration that can be put into operation and that will absorb our unemployed immediately the war is over. Farmers are supposed to be enjoying a great measure of prosperity. Comparatively speaking, they are well off, but it must be remembered the country is carrying a load of taxation to the extent of £50,000,000.

Mr. O'Donnell

The farmers are well off? They are working 15 or 16 hours a day.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I am sure Deputy O'Donnell does not want to misrepresent me when I say that, comparatively speaking, the farmers are well off.

Mr. O'Donnell

They are working under slave conditions. Do you accept that?

Mr. D. Morrissey

I do not accept that any farmer that I know in Tipperary is working under slave conditions.

Mr. O'Donnell

Absolutely.

Mr. D. Morrissey

That is not my conception of slave conditions. I know farmers are working very hard and for very long hours. They are producing food and fuel for the nation and they are getting paid for it and I know the vast majority of them are not grumbling. They are not grumbling even under this enormous load of taxation. The point I am anxious to bring out is that, whilst we in this country may be able, because of the prices which have been brought about by the war and not by any particular action taken by the Government, to meet that bill of £50,000,000, I doubt if we will be in a position to meet anything like that amount when we are affected by the depression that will almost inevitably come after the war.

There is no use in talking about what cannot be helped. I know that the most urgent requirement of the farmer is fertilisers. But if I could be satisfied that, financially, the farmers of this country would not be any worse off in the next ten years than they are to-day, I would be perfectly satisfied. There are exceptions. I am talking about the agricultural community in general, and if I could see every other section of the community, particularly the working-class section, and particularly those who will come out of the Army and those who will return from England, in as good a position financially and as assured of three square meals per day as the agricultural community is, I would be perfectly satisfied and probably would not be raising these fears I have about the development of industry to absorb our unemployed. When we talk about the development of industry, when we talk about post-war plans and schemes, what we are really asking the Government is, what are they doing to see that the working man is going to get employment which will give him enough wages at the end of the week to get at least three meals per day for himself and his dependants. That is the difference.

Mr. McCarthy

I should like to say a few words on some of the points raised by Deputy Morrissey. He spoke about progressive mentality, but I think he could have included a little retrospection and a little introspection in regard to the facts that he wished to bring out. He knows quite well that during the period he referred to when, as he states, farmers were unable to pay their workers, there was an inspired and active campaign to prevent wheat-growing. If that campaign had succeeded, the mills would be idle to-day——

Mr. Keating

Nonsense.

Mr. McCarthy

—there would be no demand for reapers and binders and there would be no complaints about prices. It would also have prevented the growing of beet which has helped subsidiary industries. We all know that three new beet factories were established, that at these factories 30,000 tons of coal are used per campaign and that 18,000 to 20,000 tons of that is Irish coal. The duff that was piling up on the banks of these collieries for years past is now being utilised and is responsible for better returns which enable the collieries to pay more to the workers engaged in them. Deputy Morrissey should also know that it is the progressive mentality of the Government that enables £7,000 per week to be paid from each factory to the railways for transport, and that that has been responsible for the continuance in employment of workers who could not have been so continued if the condition of affairs that obtained during the six years to which he referred had been allowed to prevail and if the Government had not insisted on its programme being put into effect.

Undoubtedly, there are steps that must be taken for the further promotion of agriculture and the maintenance of prices for agricultural produce which will enable those engaged in agriculture to maintain their families in some measure of comfort and to pay their workers. The Government has shown its earnestness in that regard. Government policy will preserve an equal balance between agriculture and industry by developing the other industries which the Minister for Industry and Commerce referred to in the course of his remarks to-day and on previous occasions.

There is one point to which I should like to draw attention in regard to industries which are now being developed. Take, for example, our coal mines. At the commencement of this emergency these coal mines were not able to supply the railways with their requirements and, in some cases, I believe, they stated that it was all they could do to supply their regular customers. During the emergency they have succeeded in getting extra production. The Government should insist, when this emergency is over, that those firms who purchased goods from abroad, when they could have used Irish products, will not again adopt that policy, leaving these mines to go out of production or to fall back to the position in which they were at the commencement of the emergency. A certain amount of protection will be needed. A certain amount of initiative will be required. A complaint was made in the course of the debate here that there were not more skilled miners. The obvious reason is that in normal times these mines provided merely for their steady trade. It should be the object of the Government to maintain the trade that has since been developed. When the miners are paid a reasonable rate it will encourage more men to become skilled in this particular activity.

There is another point which I wish to bring before the Minister and before his Department. In the universities of this country there are departments of geology and various other departments. Instead of working in a purely academic way, I think it would be wise that in co-operation with Government Departments the students who are being trained in the universities should get a knowledge of the practical side of surveying the industries of the country and possible mineral resources. For example, not far from Crosshaven there is a point where, in the year 1837, 400 men were employed mining lead. That mine is still there. I presume it was the famine that caused the closing down of the mine. The stream flowing down from that mine has considerable lead content and cannot be used for domestic purposes. In a great part of that area iron was worked in years gone by and the places where it was worked can still be pointed out. There are chalybeate springs all over the place which show the presence of iron. In former surveys it was said that there was manganese in the composition of the surface. There is iron ore there. I admit that some of it is bog ore. That bog ore was exported in years gone by for, I think, the purification of certain gases. At any rate, in my opinion, there is considerable natural mineral wealth in this country, apart from the collieries, and it would pay the Government to make extensive and exhaustive surveys and to use the universities for that purpose. The university colleges in Dublin could be used in regard to Leinster; in Galway for the west and in Cork for the southern counties. There is a great sphere of activity there and no purpose can be served by delaying too long in that matter.

I do not wish to take up the time of the House in referring to all the matters that have been brought before the Dáil in the Minister's statement, but we all know that there are schemes of national development which have been put before the House in the form of Bills which will be enacted in a very short time and to which, surely, the Government means to give effect. It is for Deputies from all sides to co-operate in making the programme of the Government a success.

Mr. Coburn

One can sympathise with the Minister in the very difficult position in which he finds himself, due to circumstances over which, in the main, he has no control. I was glad to hear him state that, so far as the future is concerned, he is confident that sufficient iron will be available for blacksmiths to enable them to carry on their work and also to enable the farmers to repair their agricultural machinery. The Minister also referred to timber and other things and I only hope that he will be able to remove some of the difficulties that obtain at present. The Minister also referred to the number of people who have gone across to Great Britain. Everybody knows that from time immemorial there has been emigration from this country. I think the Minister made a rather significant remark in connection with the issuing of exit permits when he said that the issuing of these permits would be contingent upon a sort of guarantee from the British Government that workers going from here would be in a position to return if they found it necessary to do so for sufficient reasons. I wonder could the Minister give us any idea as to when the ban will be removed on anybody who wishes to go to Great Britain and who has got the offer of employment there, because I think it is unconstitutional to prevent a man from earning his living elsewhere if he cannot do it in his own country. Notwithstanding the mouthings of Deputy Corry and other backbenchers about all the employment we are providing in this country, the fact remains that large numbers of workers who have been offered work in Great Britain are prevented from going there because they cannot get an exit permit. That is not right or proper and the Minister should impress upon the Minister for External Affairs the necessity for restoring the status quo in regard to people going from this country to work in Great Britain.

The question of Government plans for the solution of the unemployment problem has been raised. I wonder when will Deputies get it into their heads that no Government in the world can solve the unemployment problem. A Government can do much by wise and useful legislation to enable those who are giving employment to continue giving it and, if possible, extend that employment. So far as the Government solving the unemployment problem is concerned, it would possibly suit me as a member of the Opposition to throw the onus on the Government, but I think it would be thoroughly dishonest and unpatriotic. I think I would be doing a great disservice to the country if, for the sake of getting a few votes, I promulgated from a platform that it is the Government's duty to solve the unemployment problem. I say it is not. It requires initiative on the part of the people to do something for themselves. In fact, I deplore the tendency of the people of this country to look to the Government for everything. It does not show much of that self-reliance which we are supposed to have.

While giving the Government credit for all they have done in starting new industries and the extra employment they have provided, the fact still remains that there are just as many unemployed to-day as there were ten, 12 or 15 years ago if not more. The population has not increased. Therefore there must be some reason other than the inactivity of the Government. It is all right for the Government to undertake big schemes involving large sums, such as the Shannon scheme, the beet factories, the new electrification scheme and the scheme of arterial drainage. As regards drainage, a good part of that could have been done by the farmers themselves and in many instances drainage has been carried out by farmers. I am longing to see the day, and I hope it will not be long, after the war is over when there will be as little interference as possible on the part of whatever Government is in power with the ordinary business of the country. When all is said and done, the success of any country depends upon the efforts of the individuals who live in the country, and those who pin their faith on the Government to solve their difficulties will meet with great disappointment. As I said, it might suit me, for political purposes, to criticise the Government on that head, but I do not think they can be criticised. The only thing I would criticise the Government for is that at one time they said they had a plan to solve the unemployment problem. I said then that it could not be done and that at the end of a certain number of years they would be convinced that the view I took was the correct one.

Reference has been made to what will happen when the war is over. There is a great deal of what you might call bidding the devil good morrow before you meet him. No one knows what will happen when the war is over. We all know that things will be changed. We know that it is very difficult to make plans to-day that will suit the post-war period. Plans might be made to-day which would be obsolete the following year, just as certain types of aeroplanes made during the war are obsolete to-day. Nobody can tell what the conditions will be when the war is over. Therefore, it is no use in indulging in wishful thinking or in asking the Government to assume the rôle of prophets so that they will be in a position to plan for the conditions which will exist after the war.

We have heard about the setting up of industries, and, again in that respect, one would think, listening to many of the Deputies, that we were dealing with one vast continent. This is only a small country—somebody described it at one time as a cabbage garden—but we speak of setting up industries as if we could set them up all over the place and had millions of people to buy the products of these industries. In fact, we have a very small population and we cannot put very many more people on the land. We hear talk of "back to the land" and "the land will give more employment", but it will not. In the northern part of my county, there are thousands of farmers who could do with 20 extra acres, and, in face of that state of affairs, which I expect is applicable to most farmers in most counties, what is the use of this talk about getting back to the land and getting more employment on the land, when the man on the land at the moment in many cases has not half enough land to keep those already there fully employed? That is the position as it exists.

While I do not want to go in for anything in the nature of doleful prophecy, I think the Government would be wise to hasten slowly in the plans they are preparing for the post-war conditions of affairs. Mention has been made of housing, and, in that respect again, one cannot tell what the future holds. It is not a question of money. If we had £1,000,000,000 here to-morrow, we could not build houses because we have not got the material. There is no use in Deputy O'Donnell talking nonsense about bringing back money invested in foreign countries, as if we could live here and forget all about the outside world. It is about time we gave up that class of soft, childish talk about bringing back money from abroad and investing it here.

The position is that we cannot do certain things because we have not got the materials. I know something about house-building and even if we had the materials, it must be remembered that that trade does not give continuous employment. Houses last for 60 or 70 years and there is always bound to be unemployment in that trade. It is not a means towards a permanent solution of unemployment. It is a trade in which employment goes up and down and sometimes more harm than good is done to it by having boom years followed by lean years. Thousands of men are brought into it, but the moment the work is finished, all are idle, including men who have followed that trade for years. We cannot do things in that fashion in this little country.

As I say, we need to resign ourselves to the fact that we will be up against difficult times and to resign ourselves to the fact that what people call a decent standard of living is something which can be got only by hard work. There are, of course, many definitions of the phrase, "a decent standard of living," but the fact remains that we cannot have all these things and give employment to all these people. Reference has been made to the farmers being in a position to pay, but there is no use in the farmer being able to do so one year and unable to do so the next year. These are some of the difficulties which will confront not alone the Government but the people, and it is well that we should face them now. In facing the difficulties which beset us, we must, above all, realise our limitations and we have limitations due to the size of our country. Being an island, we cannot extend by the amount of land which would sod a lark. We shall have to recognise these facts and possibly with co-operation and a spirit of give and take on all sides, we may be able to surmount our difficulties.

The great obstacle will be our inclination to do things in a hurry and our anxiety to get results too quickly. Planning will take time. We are not masters of the situation, no matter how we may try to hide the fact. We have to depend, and no one knows it better than the Minister, to a very large extent on outside sources for many of the supplies without which we would find it impossible to carry on, even as we have carried on for the last few years. I am prepared to do all I possibly can to co-operate with the Department because I know the difficulties lie ahead, and it is only by co-operation and a willingness on the part of everyone to make a certain amount of sacrifice that we shall be able to meet and overcome these difficulties.

Mr. Dillon

There are one or two details to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention which affect the present position very vitally. It is extremely difficult to discover what is the real situation in regard to permits to go to Great Britain. I want to say at once that I cannot discharge myself from some responsibility for my inability to understand the regulations because I have had nothing but courtesy and consideration from the Minister's Department in respect of any inquiries I have addressed to them, but this situation prevails. You get the impression that all permits are stopped for a period and that nobody is allowed to go to England. Somebody comes in, and says: "I want to get to England." You say: "Come back in six weeks' or a couple of months' time because all permits are stopped and nobody is allowed to go, except on urgent Government business and even then only on condition that the business cannot be postponed"— whereupon that fellow's next door neighbour marches in and starts for England the following Tuesday.

That has happened several times recently. Whether it is that persons who have got their permits some weeks ago for a future date are still being allowed to go on the permits they got some time ago, or whether it is that there are some exceptional classes of whom I know nothing who are still being permitted to go, I do not understand, but I think most Deputies will have shared my experience, and it would be of material assistance to us all if the Minister could explicitly state what the present position is with regard to exit permits to Great Britain for labour there, and whether in the near future he expects a new situation to obtain in regard to that matter.

There is a second matter to which I wish to direct the Minister's attention and perhaps he will be good enough to indicate to me if it more appropriately arises on the Vote for Supplies. In connection with the scarcities which have arisen, the Minister has indicated that it would be of assistance to him if certain trades organised themselves. Let us take the wholesale leather trade. What happens is this; a small group of wholesalers combine and establish contact with the tanneries here in Ireland and apparently present the picture to the Minister that they are the only leather wholesalers in the country.

On that basis, a scheme is worked out for the distribution of available leather supplies, and this small body of wholesalers are designated the channel through which supplies must pass from the tanneries to retailers. When the scheme is published, some leather wholesaler in rural Ireland says: "I bought my leather wholesale all my life from tanneries in Great Britain and elsewhere. Now I am being constrained to purchase my leather from a wholesaler in Dublin who is a competitor of mine in the rural area where I operate."

As the Minister will readily understand, the wholesale leather merchant's business in rural Ireland consists largely in supplying bends of leather to individual shoe repairers. From inquiries it will emerge that the rural merchant is a retailer and a wholesaler. Eventually, after a good deal of huggermugger it becomes clear that unless the tanner will indicate his readiness to recognise the shopkeeper as a wholesaler the Minister is not prepared to require the tanner to supply him on wholesale terms. The tanners have established an agreement with this small group of wholesalers in Dublin. It is much more convenient for the tanners to dispose of their entire output through four or five large merchants in Dublin, and leave it to those four or five large merchants to distribute it in smaller quantities throughout the country. There is a price fixed by the Minister from the tanner to the wholesaler; there is a price fixed by the Minister from the wholesaler to the retailer, and then there is a price fixed from the retailer to the individual who wants to buy a pair of soles for his own shoes. The difficulty is that the cobbler, the shoe repairer in rural Ireland, who buys his bend of leather is entitled to buy his bend of leather from the wholesale monopoly in Dublin at the same price as that at which the rural supplier who, used to supply it is now entitled to get the leather. That means the rural supplier is completely cut off from his normal wholesale trade, because there is no margin of profit left for him.

I recognise the difficulties here, but I do think that some kind of independent body, in the Department or elsewhere, should be set up, before which the person who claims to have done a legitimate wholesale trade in the past can place the evidence of his bona fides. If that independent body is satisfied that the man did engage in a bona fide wholesale trade, the Minister could then direct the tanner to deem such and such to be a wholesale firm for the purpose of the price Orders, to supply him in accordance with whatever quota was fixed for him, and to charge him the price appropriate to a wholesaler. I will not pursue that matter through all the trades in which the difficulty habitually arises. The Minister knows as well as I do that I am a country shopkeeper, and I could quote various textiles and pins and needles and numerous different commodities, all of which might impress Deputies in the House with my omniscience but would explain the case no more fully to the Minister than the particulars I have given him in respect of the leather trade. He will find that occurring in various branches of trade, and the same remedy would be adequate in every branch where that difficulty arises.

I am not inclined to be unduly critical of the Minister, either in his capacity as Minister for Industry and Commerce or as Minister for Supplies, in the present situation in 1944. There is no use in shedding tears over what happened in 1939, 1940 and 1941. Many of us might have done differently from what he did then, but the situation with which we are confronted now is not the situation in 1939 or 1940 or 1941, but the situation in 1944. So far as I know, I doubt very much if anybody could do very much more than he is doing at the present time to hold together such industrial activity as there is in the country, and secure supplies from the very exiguous sources that still remain to him, and which I believe would not be a bit more abundant no matter what Minister was in Kildare Street.

Accordingly, I turn to the post-war period. I have said before and I want again to say emphatically that I regard all this talk of planning with considerable suspicion, because my experience of 20 years in public life is that everybody is always most willing to plan me but nobody wants me to plan him. Everybody is always anxious to plan his neighbour, but when it comes to being planned himself he proceeds to demonstrate that he is quite an exceptional case. However, I suppose so long as we have zealous creatures in the world at all they will busy themselves about their neighbours' business. Provided they are kept within certain limits, I suppose it is a harmless enough kind of occupation. But it does seem to me that there is one work which every reasonable person would agree will have to be undertaken sooner or later; a work which will give immense quantities of employment to the unskilled labourer, the problem child of the unemployment situation; work which can be undertaken without dependence on very large quantities of foreign materials in the immediate post-war period when there may be an acute scarcity of supplies from abroad; and that is the building of a system of roads adequate to carry the bulk of our internal traffic as the railways go to their inevitable decline.

I do not believe that any reasonable person who has taken any interest at all in transport will long maintain the thesis that in a country the size of Ireland railways were ever economical or now can long survive. Every conceivable transport argument seems to me to indicate the necessity for getting our transport on to the roads. Transport by rail involves the labour of loading at the point of departure, of transferring to the railway waggon, of unloading from the railway waggon at the point of arrival, reloading and transferring from the railway station to the consignee's yard. Transport by road obviates the whole business of bringing livestock from the fair to the railway station; the very great abuse which the cattle must get from expeditious loading on to specials about to leave the station according to a pretty strict schedule, and the very long time they remain in the waggons with the serious consequential loss. Picture the difference between consigning goods to a shop in Ballagaderreen by rail and consigning them by road. Take a consignment coming to the Sligo docks. It is taken off the ship and the carters' union demands I think 2/6 a ton for carrying it from the ship's side across the quay and depositing it in the warehouse. It has then to be unwarehoused into the railway waggon. It comes to a railway junction where the waggon is broken loose, connected on a side line and brought down to Ballaghaderreen. It is there unwaggoned again, loaded on to horse carts and brought down to my yard. Compare that with the same consignment on the roads. The lorry draws up beside the ship, the consignment is put on the lorry, the lorry leaves the ship's side and can drive straight to my stores and unload the merchandise there.

Take the case of cattle. There are many excellent fair centres in this country which have no railway sidings at all and from which cattle must be driven, in many cases, eight or ten miles to the nearest railway siding, but even leaving such fairs out of account, and taking into consideration fair centres where you have railway sidings and other conveniences, the cattle have to be driven from the fair down to the railway station, and very few of these railway stations are provided with elaborate cattle pens, with the result that the cattle are driven here and there and battered about in every way until, eventually, accommodation can be provided for them in the railway waggons. I do not know if the Minister has ever seen cattle being loaded into these railway waggons, but those of us who have seen that operation taking place are aware of the terrible abuse which the cattle often suffer, tails broken and so on, and I think it is right to say that most experienced men in the trade will agree that a beast travelling from the West of Ireland to the North Wall in Dublin may be reckoned to lose—well, I cannot remember the exact amount, but certainly a very considerable weight in the actual passage. I think that it could be reckoned as one cwt. of a loss.

Mr. O'Grady

Almost one cwt.

Mr. Dillon

That is, in the transport from the West of Ireland to the North Wall. Personally, I think that that is rather a pessimistic figure, but in the case of a beast of 12 or 14 cwt., I think they might lose three-quarters of a cwt. on that journey. Now, picture that in comparison with a system of specially designed cattle lorries, or cattle waggons on wheels, which could be driven straight into the fair and have the cattle loaded on to them there. These waggons would be capable of taking eight cattle, which is the same number that the present railway waggons are capable of taking. The process of loading the cattle would not be so terrifying as it is at present, and those waggons could be driven to the North Wall within three hours of being loaded if a proper road system were provided. I cannot see how anybody can argue that in a country of the size of this, where there is not a long haul, no matter where you draw stuff from or whither it is going, the railways ever can be an economic or an efficient means of transport.

Mind you, I make no apology for directing the Minister's attention to that particular argument, because it is on the conclusion reached in that argument that the post-war policy, when it arises, must in some measure depend. If the Minister shares my view that ultimately the railways are to vanish, then I suggest to him that we should at once seek to design a system of roads which will carry, not all the traffic now available, but all the traffic that reasonable men might anticipate would be available in 30 years' time. Let him not fall into the same error that the Post Office has habitually fallen into, and that is that they ascertain what is the volume of telephone traffic available to-day, and when they are informed that it is 15 per cent. more than the present lines will carry they thereupon increase the existing lines by 15 per cent., but by the time the scheme is completed, they review the position again, only to discover that the volume of traffic is now 20 per cent. greater than the development of the telephone system which they undertook in order to meet the original deficit.

I hold that in a matter of public services of that kind, instead of supplying the services of to-day our object should be to supply equipment which would be far in excess of our present requirements and which would be designed to meet the demand which the special facilities we create to-day will elicit from those gratified by the efficiency of the service they are getting. Now, I do not want the Minister or anybody in the House to imagine that I am advocating that next year or the year after we should suddenly scrap the railways and throw the whole transport of the country on the roads. I do not think that is the way to do it at all. I believe that if we provide an adequate road system, the railways will slowly die, in the same way as the Bianconi coaches of a few generations ago died, because it will be found that the public prefer the facilities of the road. My view would be that even although we knew that the railways would go and might properly be swept away at the end of five years, it would be preferable in that case to hasten slowly and leave the railways there, slowly withering away, for five or ten years after it became quite manifest that they were going to go, because although it might be more efficient to eliminate them suddenly, all new departures of this kind do better if they are strengthened from their beginning with universal goodwill, and there will be more forbearance with any little hitch or difficulty that may arise, whereas, if you sweep aside the railways suddenly and set at nought the ideas of a number of individuals in this country who have almost a superstitious veneration for the railways you will have a large number of people spending the rest of their lives grumbling and complaining because there is nothing but road transport provided for them and the lovely old railways, etc., have been swept away.

I say, therefore, to the Minister that he will have my support if he resolutely makes up his mind to build up such a system of roads as, in the opinion of his experts, will carry all traffic in this country in the next 25 years. Having done that, it will be necessary for the central authority to acquire the necessary land and to prepare what, I think, are called bills of quantity, and these things will have to be put in hands at once. It will also be necessary to plan the recruitment of the necessary labour force, just as the Electricity Supply Board had to do in 1924. All these things will have to be set up, and if that is done I think the Minister will find himself with something in hand which will be well calculated to produce something like a shortage of unskilled labour in certain parts of the country post-war. What greater prospect for the relief of unemployment in this country could conceivably be provided? Some Deputies think that the creating of roads means just the provision of cement, sand, stones, and so on, but I think that it would mean the use of large quantities of steel, and Deputy Cogan is only blathering when he talks about bringing back money from foreign parts. I think it would be better to leave the money where it is wanted to pay for the steel, which is not to be got in this country, or iron either.

Now, housing will be an important matter in this country for many years. I think that all sides of the House are agreed as to the desirability of rehousing the people, whether rich or poor, where the houses are insanitary. In this country, however, we have introduced a system of family allowances, and that is an attempt by the community to create a situation in which every man in this country earning a wage is going to be provided with a family wage of a living wage. Now, that is one approach to a very important reform in my opinion, and I hope to see that system of family allowances developed until every Deputy here is satisfied that the community, acting partly through the Exchequer and partly through the employers, are securing for every citizen of this State what is truly a living wage. That is the popular side of it and, of course, everybody will cheer the proposition of providing everybody with a living wage. But the unpopular part of it is this: if everybody is to be provided with a living wage, are you going to subsidise their houses, and if you are going to subsidise their houses, when will you start subsidising mine? If a living wage is provided for a working man, why should the working man's house be subsidised any more than mine is? Therefore, if the Minister is going to follow up the family allowances plan to the point where he and his colleagues can say that this system now ensures a living wage for every citizen in employment, if he can satisfy himself that we have arrived at that position, then I think the whole housing programme will have to be reconsidered with a view to seeing that a system of rents is designed to amortise the entire advance for housing within a reasonable period of time, with interest and so on included.

I ask the Minister, therefore, who, so far as I know, is a radically-minded man, is it seriously intended in the post-war period that this community is going to permit the banks of this country to levy 5 per cent. on the money they lend the community? Is this community going to suffer having levied upon itself current rates of interest in respect of money spent by the Government in the erection of houses designed to be set at economic rents? That is a rent designed to amortise the entire advance within a reasonable limit of time. Surely that would be absurd. I do not believe in inflation; I do not believe in tearing up institutions; I do not believe in printing money or printing presses but there are limits beyond which no reasonable body of men should go in the sacred name of orthodoxy. It does seem to me fantastic that our people should be paying to small groups of gentlemen whose sanction we do not require, whose intervention we do not require, a heavy annual contribution for poking their noses in where they are not wanted. If we can find a reasonable, even a conservative solution of that problem of credit for the purpose of housing, and fix economic rents—that is a rent which will extinguish the cost of the house within a given time—then I believe the Minister will have, in the house-building schemes post-war, work well calculated to deal with the considerable volume of what otherwise might be painful and oppressive unemployment.

The last point with which I want to deal—and when I say the last point I shall not follow the example of Deputy Cogan by dealing with 17 last points— is the question of whether we are going to fall into the same error post-war as that into which we fell pre-war. We have an infinite capacity in this country for not perceiving that which we do not care to see. Newfoundland was an independent State pre-war and her basic industry, bulking in her economy as agriculture does in ours, was fisheries. An industrial-minded Government came into office in Newfoundland. They had no time for fishing, fisheries or fishermen. Their whole concern was the establishment of secondary industries in Newfoundland. They pursued that policy so vigorously that the fisheries collapsed and they found then to their astonishment that, despite all the subsidies for the establishment of industries, with the collapse of the fisheries everything else collapsed as well, to such effect that the independent Government which they had had to invite in three British Treasury officials to run that country. That course was open to Newfoundland as it was a colony. They did not seriously compromise their national honour in reverting to a condition whence they had voluntarily emerged and by calling in the assistance of the mother country. That course is not open to us. If we tear down the economic fabric of this State we have no mother-in-law to invite back to take up the Government of the country.

I want to put to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that heretofore, in the promotion of the industries he has favoured, he has considered himself free heavily to tax what are in effect the raw materials of the agricultural industry. He is responsible for recommending a tariff on artificial manures, on feeding stuffs, on agricultural implements, on agricultural machinery and on all the other things that a farmer uses on his land for the production of the finished product which ultimately he has got to sell in the unprotected British market subject to the competition from the four corners of the earth. I say that industrial development based on such proceedings is economic suicide. I want to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to consider a compromise without back-pedalling on the general scheme he has initiated for the development of industry through protective tariffs. Is he prepared to make any concession to the view, firstly, that the raw materials of the agricultural industry should not be taxed, even giving a very closely restricted interpretation to the definition of raw materials of the agricultural industry? Is he prepared to see that these one-firm industries to which he has referred, which are in fact naked monopolies, will be abolished except in so far as they are being operated by the community for the community?

I suggest to him that the maintenance of one firm monopolies under licence to prey on the consuming public is fantastic and that any attempt effectively to control their prices is perfectly futile for the simple reason that price consists of two elements. It consists of the money price exacted for the product plus the quality of the product in respect of which the price is charged. You may, for instance, have a face towel which was selling at 1/-. The monopoly may produce a face towel to sell at 1/- also, but the towel you used to be able to get at 1/- was a thick cotton towel, 1 yard long by 18 inches wide. The towel which the monopoly now gives you for 1/- is 18 inches long by 9 inches wide. It may be argued that you are still getting a face towel at 1/- but, in fact, you would be getting much better value if the price of the original towel had been advanced to 1/9. If you make representations to the Department of Industry and Commerce on a matter of that kind the Minister will say: "Look here, I am not a cotton man. I am not going to say what the weight, quality or size of the towel should be. Suffice it to say that you were getting a face towel for 1/- before and you are getting a face towel for 1/- now." The case I quote is an extreme case but bring that down to the point of infinitesimal difference between the quality of the home-produced article and the quality of the imported article and you will see at once that control of prices, where you have a monopoly operating, is absolutely impossible. I ask the Minister to undertake that, in the post-war era, monopolies will be operated only by the community for the community and that no individual will be permitted to rob the public through the instrumentality of such institutions.

When I hear Deputy Cogan, speaking on behalf of the farmers, calling for greater and greater employment of our domestic resources, to the exclusion of anything from outside, I must ask the Minister if he intends in the post-war world to proceed alone on his doctrine of self-sufficiency. Does he not realise that the answer to his queries about unemployment in every civilised country is that unemployment can be effectively abolished or mitigated only by the co-operation of all nations and the freedom of trade? Is Ireland to stand out as the one country in the world that rejects the now self-evident economic fact, that unemployment is an evil which can be eliminated in no one country single-handed? Unemployment must be eliminated or reduced the world over or it cannot be eliminated at all. The only means of effectively attacking that problem in a comprehensive and enduring way is to ensure that, as between one country and another, there will be as free a flow of goods as possible, in the certainty that under that system we will not have exotic industries for the manufacture of lock-knit yarn goods or the manufacture of ladies' underwear which gave rise to the sort of correspondence Deputy Cogan mentioned. Under that system, however, were created Arthur Guinness, W.R. Jacob, Harland and Wolff, the linen trade, the woollen trade and virtually every valuable industry in the country. If Deputies reflect for a moment, they will realise that those industries were created, established, developed and consolidated into some of the greatest industrial units in the world under a system of full-blooded, 100 per cent. free trade when there was no question of tariff protection or restriction of any kind. Under that system, our people were able to establish the greatest brewery of the world in the City of Dublin and a dozen others scattered throughout the country, one of the greatest biscuit factories in the world in the City of Dublin, the greatest shipbuilding yard in the world in the City of Belfast, the greatest linen industry in the world in the North of Ireland, a substantial exporting woollen industry, a substantial boot industry and a variety of other industries. Those were due not to protection, not to reservation of the home market, not to any attempt by a Government to support them; they were developed despite the not infrequent intervention of Governments that were very inimical to Irish industrial development of any kind and in an arena where the full blast of free trade competition was allowed to operate without let or hindrance.

Mr. O'Leary

What about the flour mills?

Mr. Dillon

What about what flour mills?

Mr. O'Leary

What protected them?

Mr. Dillon

Joe Rank, if you want to know. Do not let us go into that. I have told the Dáil the story of the flour milling combine so often that I do not want to raise a contentious issue again. National Labour has now emerged as the champion of Ranks.

Mr. O'Leary

Not at all.

Mr. Dillon

That is the most astonishing thing that has happened in this country. God forbid that I should get in between the two contestant fragments of the Labour Party, but if National Labour is going to emerge as the champion of Ranks' milling combine, then it is certainly the eighth wonder of the world. Many things that have happened in this House should have consternated, dumbfounded me——

Mr. O'Leary

You are not national.

Mr. Dillon

The intervention of the National Labour Deputy from Wexford is the first thing that ever staggered me. Rank and Labour hand in hand— that staggers me and leaves me dumbfounded.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. M. O'Reilly)

Has the Deputy concluded?

Mr. Dillon

I am dumbfounded.

Mr. Corry

Listening to Deputy Dillon I thought I was at the peace conference owing to the high platitudes which were poured out with nothing behind them.

Mr. O'Leary

Deputy Dillon always leaves the House when he has finished speaking.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Dillon spoke about post-war planning. He said that everybody was prepared to plan him but that nobody was going to allow him to plan anybody else. He wound up by telling us that the unemployment problem in this country would be solved by the co-operation of all nations. They are all going to plan for us. Deputies should place Deputy Dillon's speech of a couple of days ago side by side with his attack on Deputy Cogan's argument to-day. He wants to give everybody in this country a living wage and he told us on Monday that every profession here was dependent on the farmer and that the price the farmer would get after the war would depend on the price he would obtain for his surplus agricultural exports on the British market. That is to be the basis of the standard of living of our people after the war according to Deputy Dillon. That standard will be based on the 70/- per cwt. which Britain was prepared to pay us for our butter at the commencement of this war—a price which would allow of about twopence per gallon for milk at the creameries. Figure out the standard of living that that would give us. On the day before yesterday, Deputy Dillon described Irish industry as the Old Man of the Sea laid upon the backs of the unfortunate agricultural community. He expanded that picture. I look on our industrial revival from 1932 onwards as a portion of the insurance policy which this Government took out, when the first acre of wheat was planted. I say without fear of contradiction from anybody that our industrial policy has justified itself just as much as the first acre of wheat we planted justified itself. Consider the position of the agricultural community who are to be saddled with this "Old Man of the Sea." Consider the agricultural community for the past four years without a shovel, a spade, a slean, a fork, a plough, a harrow, a mowing machine or even a horseshoe. That is the position the agriculturist would have been in if we had not had Seán Lemass as Minister for Industry and Commerce from 1932 to 1944.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-day.