Committee on Finance. - Vote 68—Supplies. – Dáil Éireann (12th Dáil) – Wednesday, 20 Jun 1945

Committee on Finance. - Vote 68—Supplies.

Minister for Supplies (Mr. Lemass)

I move:—

That a sum not exceeding £3,570,059 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1946, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Supplies, including payment of certain Subsidies and sundry Grants-in-Aid.

Deputies will have noted the introduction to-day of a Bill to wind up the Office of the Minister for Supplies and to transfer his functions, from a date to be fixed, to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That Bill will make provision for the financial consequences of its enactment, including the transfer to the Minister for Industry and Commerce any unexpended balances of the amounts voted for the Department of Supplies which will be available to the Minister for Industry and Commerce for expenditure under the same headings. In view, however, of the pending disappearance of the Department of Supplies the House will not expect me to review in detail the organisation of the Department such as might be customary on the introduction of the annual Estimate. The Department of Industry and Commerce will, from some date in the present year, absorb the Department of Supplies, and certain rearrangements of staff and so forth will then become necessary to enable the functions of the Department of Supplies to be continued.

Mr. D. Morrissey

Is that not all the more reason why we should have a detailed statement from the Minister now—the fact that the Department of Supplies is about to disappear?

Mr. Lemass

I propose to give an account of all relevant matters which arose in the working of the Department of Supplies during the course of the past year. I was merely excusing myself from dealing in detail with the Department's organisation in view of the fact that that organisation is about to be wound up. There were, in fact, only comparatively minor changes in the staff of the Department of Supplies during the year. Although the provision for salaries and allowances shows an increase, that increase is attributable solely to decisions which have affected the Civil Service generally. In fact, the number of officers in the service of the Department decreased by 109 in the financial year, due mainly to a reorganisation of various sections of the Department, and only in a minor degree to the disappearance of some of the functions. The Estimate for the Department of Supplies shows an increase of £431,935, but that increase is due entirely to the necessity for making increased provision for food and fuel subsidies to which I shall refer later. The House is aware that the functions of the Department of Supplies fall under two main headings, firstly, the procuring of supplies from abroad and, secondly, the internal distribution of essential goods which are scarce. The position concerning supplies from abroad has not materially altered, except in some respects for the worse, since I spoke on this Estimate last year.

Following the removal of censorship the Irish newspapers have been giving exceptional publicity to shipping affairs. That is, perhaps, a normal reaction from the time when they were prohibited from publishing any news concerning shipping activities. Unfortunately, however, many of the reports which have been published, and which attracted considerable attention in recent weeks, were highly inaccurate, and have tended to convey an impression of our overseas supplies position which could be mildly described as being unduly optimistic. It may be difficult now to catch up with any false impressions that have been created by these highly-coloured newspaper reports, but it is desirable that the Dáil should understand that there is no immediate prospect, so far ahead as it is practicable to forecast, of shipping facilities being available for other than our most essential needs. It is, indeed, problematical whether we will have shipping facilities for essential needs. There is certainly not the slightest prospect of conditions so improving as to make it possible to provide facilities for the importation of oranges, bananas or other commodities which the newspapers have spoken of, or of luxury goods of any kind. However desirable it might be that supplies of these goods should be available again, there is nothing in the situation which would justify me in holding out the slightest prospect that shipping facilities would be given for them.

Mr. Morrissey

Is the Minister referring to Irish shipping facilities only?

Mr. Lemass

I am referring to the total shipping facilities available for this country.

Mr. Norton

That includes neutral and other sources as well as Irish ships?

Mr. Lemass

From all sources. Certain changes did follow on the conclusion of the war in Europe. The circuitous route which our ships in the North Atlantic had to take to meet the requirements of the belligerent Powers has been shortened but, on the other hand, it has become necessary to effect shipments from Montreal instead of St. John's which, in some respects, affects the carrying capacity we had, and we have also to face the prospect of losing the services of one of the largest ships which we procured during the war on a contract which required us to release it again at the conclusion of hostilities. Despite the efforts of the Board of Irish Shipping, Ltd., during the whole of the year it was not found possible to increase the amount of ocean-going tonnage available to us. In recent weeks some British colliers have been temporarily restored to the cross-Channel coal trade. The result of that temporary improvement in shipping facilities for the coal trade is the possibility of placing again on the Lisbon route some of the smaller Irish ships with which we previously imported coal from British ports.

I want to emphasise that the services of British colliers on the cross-Channel trade, and the restoration of Irish shipping to Lisbon do not involve any increase either in imports of coal from Britain or of commodities via Lisbon. How long it will be possible for the British authorities to allow the colliers to remain on the cross-Channel trade I cannot attempt to forecast. It is true that ships which are adapted for the carriage of coal, unlike the ships we had to use in their absence, permit coal allocations to this country being imported more promptly and more regularly than had previously been possible, but they do not permit of any increase in the quantity of coal. Similarly, the restoration of our ships to the Lisbon route in limited numbers may permit goods being transmitted from that port in greater regularity than was previously possible, but it must be assumed that that will not result in any increase in the total quantity over a period of such goods.

During the year we had 12 ships in service on the Atlantic route. Unfortunately, one large ship was out of commission for about six months of the year due to an inter-union dispute at the Dublin Dockyard. The loss of the services of that ship had a considerable effect on the total tonnage of goods imported. Altogether the ships on the Atlantic service imported during the year 240,000 tons. It will serve to emphasise our dependence on foreign wheat supply and, perhaps, bring home to the people concerned what a tremendous advantage it would be if we could increase further the total production of wheat when I say that of that 240,000 tons of goods imported by Irish Shipping, Ltd., no less than 215,000 tons, or 90 per cent. of the total, were composed of wheat. If we had been able to do with less wheat from abroad, the tonnage of other goods which could have been imported would have been substantially increased. Of the total quantity of goods imported during the year, 50 per cent. passed through the port of Dublin, 25 per cent. through the port of Cork, 17 per cent. through the port of Limerick and seven per cent. through Waterford. I mention this as I notice a tendency in some quarters to assert that undue preference was shown to the port of Dublin in the routeing of Irish ships. These figures, I think, demonstrate that such was not the case. It is necessary to route our ships in such a manner as to ensure maximum use. That must be the primary consideration. Nothing else can be taken into account. This programme, based on procuring the maximum use of ships, and ignoring other considerations, has resulted in the importation through Cork, Limerick and Waterford of a higher percentage of goods for this country than the pre-war imports of these ports represented.

During the course of the year, there was a further reduction in freights on the Atlantic service of Irish Shipping, Limited. The new reduced freight became operative on the 1st January of this year and was the fourth successive reduction in freights on the Atlantic service since that service was established. In fact, the present freight for wheat on the ships of Irish Shipping, Limited, is no less than 61.5 per cent. below the freight which had to be charged when that service was inaugurated. These freights are still high by pre-war standards. They are high by reason of the exceptional circumstances under which the ships have to be operated. They are higher because of the higher depreciation charges which have to be met, the higher repair bill which has to be met, and the fact that it has not been found, up to the present, practicable to arrange for outward cargoes. The ending of hostilities in the European theatre has, however, tended to reduce the cost of operating the service. Consequently, it must be assumed that the tendency will be for these freights to fall further. I should like to emphasise that, although the freights which Irish Shipping, Limited, have to charge are high as compared with pre-war standards they compare very favourably, indeed, with the freights charged to Irish importers for neutral tonnage to Lisbon.

As the House is aware, our difficulties in procuring supplies from abroad are twofold. The first and major difficulty is the scarcity of shipping; the second difficulty, which is now of growing importance, is the restriction imposed by foreign governments upon the export of goods. During the course of the year, the restrictions which foreign governments had imposed on the export of goods were intensified. They were intensified in two senses. New classes of goods became subject to restriction and the goods which had been previously restricted became still more difficult to obtain. The ending of hostilities in Europe has not altered that situation. On the contrary, the fact that many European countries are now in a position to seek goods from overseas countries from which they were previously cut off has tended to make the problem of obtaining supplies from abroad more difficult, rather than less difficult. The optimistic assumption entertained in some quarters that the ending of hostilities would immediately result in an easement of our supply difficulties left that important consideration out of account. It will, in fact, be many months before we can hope for any significant alteration in the position. Not merely has international trade been disorganised as a result of the long war in Europe but there is still a major war in progress in the Far East in which all the great industrial States of the world are engaged. While that war continues to be fought, it is improbable that any of the restrictions upon the export of essential goods which other governments have had to impose in their own interest will be modified, nor can any improvement in the shipping position be expected. So much for the general picture.

I should like to give the Dáil a brief indication of our position in respect of the more important commodities. The most important of all commodities is, of course, wheat, on which our supply of flour and bread depends. During the course of the year, Deputies will have noticed that the Emergency Powers Orders requiring traders in flour and bread to be licensed were repealed. These Orders were made when it was anticipated that the curtailment of wheat supplies would compel us to ration flour and bread. The most difficult period in respect of wheat, however, passed without the necessity for introducing a formal rationing scheme and the present position is such that we can entertain reasonable hopes of getting to the end of the emergency with unrestricted sales of bread and flour. The need for maintaining a licensing system for traders in these commodities having passed, the Orders were revoked. During the year, flour of 85 per cent. extraction, derived entirely from wheat, was generally available. The compulsory introduction of a percentage of barley into the grist for production of flour was withdrawn on the 1st November last. Since then our flour has been an all-wheaten product of 85 per cent. extraction. At 85 per cent. extraction we require, approximately, 465,000 tons per year to maintain a full supply of flour and bread. During the past year we met that requirement to the extent of 300,000 tons from the native harvest and imported wheat 165,000 tons.

A very interesting feature which developed during the year and which is worthy of comment was the change in demand by consumers from shop flour to bakers' bread. No doubt, that change in the demand must be mainly attributed to fuel difficulties—the difficulty which housewives would have in home baking. The change disorganised, to some extent, the arrangements made for distribution of flour but the necessary adjustments were carried out. In the years before the war, approximately 40 per cent. of our total production of flour went to bakers and 60 per cent. to the retail trade. During the last year, 54 per cent. of our flour was used by bakers and 46 per cent. was sold by retailers. That increase in the demand for bakers' bread tended to create a problem in providing an adequate supply of yeast. The demand for yeast rose from 27 tons to 35 tons per week and that higher demand taxes to its limits the capacity of the available plant for the production of yeast.

The next commodity I want to mention—next in popularity if not in importance—is tea. Some weeks ago, the tea ration was reduced again to ½ ounce per head per week. The arrival of 20 tons of Mozambique tea as part of a cargo of a ship which reached Dublin some weeks ago obtained such publicity in the newspapers that many people assumed that an increase in the tea ration was likely to follow. It will help Deputies to appreciate the insignificance of that consignment when I point out that, to enable that ration of ½ ounce per head to be maintained, we must import 40 tons per week.

The 20 tons of Mozambique tea, therefore, made so little difference in our total supplies that no alteration in the ration could follow from it. The 40 tons a week which we require to maintain the half-ounce ration is obtained through the British Tea Control. The quantity so allocated is equivalent to half an ounce per head, per week, or, roughly, 25 per cent. of our normal consumption. The House will remember that we purchased a substantial amount of tea in India prior to the war in the East, and that we succeeded in getting some of it transhipped here before the war in the East started. That quantity was held as a reserve stock, and was used to increase our ration. That stock is now almost exhausted. Some smaller quantities have been coming in, intermittently, from West Africa and South America, and it will be possible to increase the ration to ¾ of an ounce per head, per week, for a few months in the coming winter, but there is no indication that it will be possible to get in tea on such a scale as to permit of an all-round increase in the ration. The price of tea, it will be observed, continues to be subsidised, and there is, included in this Vote, a sum of £53,000 for that purpose.

The position in regard to sugar can be described as good. There was an exceptionally good harvest of sugar-beet last year and, despite substantial difficulties arising out of the problem of maintaining the machinery of the factories, which were experienced by the sugar company, production was kept up on a reasonably satisfactory scale. Stocks of sugar now available are sufficient to maintain the existing ration for the whole of the period from now until the new sugar campaign opens.

Mr. Norton

Irrespective of the probability of having to send sugar to Europe?

Mr. Lemass

I shall deal with that matter later on. As I was saying, stocks of sugar are sufficient to maintain the existing ration for the whole of the period until the new campaign opens. The crop of beet which has been contracted for in the present year is sufficient for the production of between 80,000 and 90,000 tons of sugar next year. Our normal consumption was slightly over 100,000 tons of sugar; so it can be seen, therefore, that our output of sugar will not fall far short of our normal needs. It will be remembered that it had been agreed to provide a quantity of sugar to meet the need of Continental countries that are suffering from a lack of food, and that that would have necessitated a reduction of our sugar ration to ½ lb. per head, per week, from the 1st June. However, no arrangements having been made before 1st June by the countries concerned for the shipping of sugar to these countries, it was decided not to effect that reduction in the ration of sugar; nor does it seem likely that such arrangements will be completed in time to require us to effect a reduction in the ration on the 1st July. I could not forecast to what extent the offer then made will be availed of. There is a slight margin available to us, which would enable us to export some quantity of sugar without reducing the ration to our own people, but, to export sugar on the scale we contemplated, and which was announced, would not be possible except by cutting the ration to half a pound per week, per head. The position is that the quantity of sugar can be made available for the purpose by cutting our own ration, which we can do at any time, and by maintaining that reduced ration for the necessary period. It seems undesirable, however, that we should bring the reduced ration into effect until the Continental countries concerned find it possible to make the necessary transport arrangements.

The very restricted ration of tea which it has been possible to arrange for during the war years has meant, of course, a substantial increase in the consumption of cocoa and coffee. The production of cocoa, which was limited only by the capacity of the cocoa manufacturers to produce it, was fully maintained during the year, although the stocks of cocoa beans have fallen to such an extent that it will be necessary to import additional supplies within the next few months. Coffee, which we previously imported subject only to the question of shipping available for that purpose, is now, during the past year, subject to international control, and it is no longer possible for us to purchase coffee as we choose, as was the case in the past. We are now subject to a quota in the matter of coffee, which has been imposed under the international control to which I referred.

I informed the Dáil, when tea was scarce, that the quantity of coffee which had been imported was equivalent to what would be, normally, ten years' supply; but so great has been the expansion in the demand for coffee in recent years, these stocks, which appeared ample at the time, have now been reduced to somewhat less than one year's supply, on the basis of the present demand, and it will, therefore, be necessary to make some provision for extra shipping, since, under the present circumstances, coffee, as well as tea, must come under the description of essential goods.

General Mulcahy

Could the Minister say what is our present coffee quota of imports?

Mr. Lemass

It is substantially above what our normal imports were, pre-war, but it would be somewhat lower than our present requirements.

Mr. Norton

Could the Minister give an indication as to the percentage between our present requirements and the pre-war requirements?

Mr. Lemass

It would be somewhere about 400 per cent. higher. Now, with regard to oatmeal, adequate stocks are held by the millers. When oatmeal was scarce, there was very considerable agitation about that fact, but when adequate stocks were available, the sales of oatmeal declined by about 25 per cent. I am not trying to draw a moral from that. Possibly, it was due to an abundance of supplies of other foodstuffs, but that was the fact. In connection with butter production, the hopes that we held last year, that a higher price to the producers for milk would result in a higher butter production, were not realised. Last year, I expressed the hope that, as a result of the increased price to the producers, butter production would enable us to provide a six-ounce ration of butter per head of the population per week for six months of the year, and an eight-ounce ration of butter for the rest of the year; but, in fact, the amount of creamery butter that was available barely sufficed to maintain the eight-ounce ration for a period of three months. In fact, during the final weeks of that period, supplies were very tight indeed, and, one week, retailers were unable to get the entire requirements for their customers in one lot, and had to receive it in two lots.

The reason for that decline in butter production may be the unsatisfactory weather conditions last year, when Deputies will remember there was a very long drought in the spring and summer months. Those, however, who have been studying our statistics will know that the decline in butter production has been continuous for many years. The total production of creamery butter last year was 575,000 cwts., as against 599,000 cwts. in 1943, and 620,000 cwts. in 1942. I do not think we can anticipate any considerable increase in butter production this year. Some evidence of an increase occurred in the first weeks of the season, out it would be wrong, I think, to arrange the butter ration on the assumption that that increase will be maintained. The ration, therefore, will be maintained on the six-ounce basis during the summer and autumn, and whatever stocks may be accumulated in cold store over and above those necessary to maintain a six-ounce ration during the summer months, will be used to provide an increased ration for the longest possible period in winter.

During the year the manufacture of margarine was resumed for the first time since a stoppage of supplies shut down our margarine factories four years ago. A ration of two ounces per head per week was possible, and efforts are being made now to maintain the supply of materials to the manufacturers to enable production at that rate to be maintained. I cannot say that these efforts will be successful. The House is, no doubt, aware that there is a scarcity of oils and fats throughout the world, and again we have to purchase our supplies subject to quota. Circumstances are such, however, that it has not always been possible for us to obtain the total quantity allocated to this country under the quota arrangement. It has been either found impossible to secure supplies or difficult to ship them from countries where supplies are available. I should like here to pay a tribute to the margarine manufacturers who have in my opinion produced what is a very satisfactory product from the materials available. These materials are, to a very great extent, quite different from those which the different margarine manufacturers normally use. I do not mean to suggest that their food value is any the less, but that the materials are not so suitable to the processes of manufacture which were ordinarily employed here.

If the production of margarine can be maintained at the present rate for the year, then the total output during the year will be equal to our pre-war consumption of margarine. I indicate, however, that it is not certain that we shall be able to maintain production at that level during the whole year. The House is aware that butter consumption has increased substantially during the war. The butter consumption last year, despite rationing, or perhaps because of rationing, was 135,000 cwts. above the consumption in an average pre-war year. It will be seen, therefore, that despite the difficulties of the time, despite the introduction of a ration for butter and margarine, the total consumption of these commodities, butter and margarine, which are regarded as essential to health, has increased substantially above the pre-war consumption. That is a fact about which we can congratulate ourselves, and it would tend to indicate that the supply difficulties we have experienced need not necessarily have any detrimental effects on the health of the country.

Turning now from food products to textile products, I am afraid I cannot give as satisfactory a picture.

Mr. O'Donnell

How does the supply of jams stand?

Mr. Lemass

The supply of jam is practically 100 per cent. normal. It is determined solely by the quantity of sugar we can make available for the purpose. No doubt, the jam manufacturers have had some difficulty in procuring a full supply of the types of fruits they desire, but they have been able to maintain the jam output at the pre-war level.

Mr. Davin

To what extent has the increased butter consumption taken place in hotels as against ordinary households?

Mr. Lemass

I should say that the consumption of butter in hotels has decreased. Certainly, the regulations which were made for the rationing of butter were intended to ensure a decrease in the consumption of butter in hotels.

Mr. Davin

The cross-Border visitors consume a lot of it.

Mr. Lemass

During the year the allocation of cotton yarns and cotton piece goods from the United Kingdom was very substantially reduced. That created a problem of very considerable magnitude in regard to maintenance of clothing supplies. Efforts were made to secure alternative supplies in North and South America. In North America, of course, there were difficulties caused by the restrictions which the Government of the United States considered it necessary to maintain. In the case of South America, the problem of shipping supplies from there to Lisbon and from Lisbon to this country was very considerable. Nevertheless, we succeeded in obtaining from North and South America supplies of cotton yarns and cotton piece goods sufficient to enable the total quantity available here to reach about one-third of our normal consumption of these goods.

For the first time in three years, some linen yarn became available, although the quantity was only 5 per cent. of our normal imports of linen yarn. The total quantity of linen yarn which was secured was utilised almost entirely for the production of linen thread for boot manufacturers and harness manufacturers. Imports of art silk yarn were maintained at 33? per cent. of normal consumption. Art silk piece goods to the extent of 37 per cent. of our requirements were imported almost entirely from Switzerland, via Lisbon. Our imports of woollen and worsted tissues were only 3 per cent. of our normal imports, that is to say, they were practically negligible. The supply of woollen and worsted piece goods from our own mills is about 50 per cent. of the supply from all sources in the pre-war period.

The production of footwear was maintained at about 80 per cent. of the pre-war output, but owing to the stoppage of imports and the cessation of the manufacture of rubber footwear, the total supplies available to the public were substantially less than requirements. Having regard to these circumstances, I had to decide that there was nothing in the situation which would justify an easement in the rationing regulations. On the contrary, circumstances are such that some increase in coupon values might have been justified but, proceeding on the basis that conditions might improve before the end of the rationing period, it was decided to maintain the clothes rationing in this period on the same basis as for last year.

In the case of fuel, the very exceptional difficulties which we experienced at this time last year were not fortunately repeated during this season. These difficulties of last year were due, not solely to the difficulty of obtaining imported coal, but also to the exceptional weather conditions of that period, which reduced substantially the output of electricity from the Shannon. This year the weather has not been so unkind and coal imports have been slightly better. It would be perhaps too pessimistic to say that there has been no prospect of a significant improvement in coal imports. But it is true to say that there is no sign yet of any such improvement, and we must proceed upon the assumption that such an improvement will not take place, and endeavour to make arrangements to meet the requirements of essential fuel users from our own resources as far as possible. Another reason why we should do that is the fact that the reserve stocks which we built up before the war and in the early war years and which were available to avoid a crisis developing at various periods during the war are now entirely exhausted and we are dependent upon current production or current imports to meet even our most essential needs.

17/9 for turf produced on an average at 22/- a ton.

Mr. Lemass

Many optimists have been broadcasting rumours of increased petrol rations, and even the reappearance of private cars on the road, with a basic ration of petrol for private car owners. I cannot hold out any hope whatever of that position arising in the near future. The petrol position continued difficult all during last year, and as yet there is no sign of an improvement. There were, in fact, times during the course of the year at which petrol stocks became very low, and at which we had to contemplate bringing into immediate operation drastic curtailments of public transport services, plans which were averted only by the timely arrival of supplies. There was, in fact, during the year, no hold-up in issues of coupons or permits such as had occurred in the previous year, but we were very close to it on many occasions. We obtained during the whole of the year supplies of petrol equivalent to about 24 per cent. of our pre-war consumption. I think it would be unduly optimistic to assume that there is likely to be any improvement in that position while the war continues in the Far East. I should imagine that the main difficulty at the present time arises through shortage of tanker tonnage, and the circumstances of the Far Eastern war are such that the demand for tankers for belligerent purposes is likely to increase rather than decrease. In the case of other petroleum products, supplies arrived regularly, and it was possible to obtain rations without difficulty, but again I can hold out at present no prospect of an increase in those rations.

Deputies will, no doubt, have something to say concerning the activities of the Department of Supplies in relation to price control. During the war, we endeavoured to exercise supervision over the prices of commodities by two methods, first, by the obvious method of making Government Orders fixing the maximum prices at which goods could be sold, and making it an offence for people to charge more than those prices; and, secondly, by endeavouring to regulate the gross profits earned by manufacturers. There are in operation at the present time 128 price fixing Orders. I cannot say, however, that those Orders have been obeyed with any marked enthusiasm by the trading community generally. No doubt a very large number of traders endeavoured to conform to all those Orders, but the evidence is strong that a substantial proportion of them are determined to evade them when they can. During the past year, no less than 3,240 prosecutions were instituted for offences against price control Orders, and in 3,053 of those cases the prosecutions were successful. Following prosecutions for offences in relation to tea, sugar, butter and certain other commodities, the convicted traders were deprived of their licences to continue trading in those commodities. Many Deputies have from time to time represented that that practice has been unduly harsh, but I would urge them to consider that the present circumstances are such that we cannot hope to secure compliance with those price fixing Orders unless there are drastic penalties imposed upon those who are attempting to evade them. We are endeavouring by those Orders to stop in an artificial way economic forces which, if they were given full sway, under present circumstances, would drive prices up much higher than in fact they have risen. We cannot hope to check those forces unless we can make it clear that we are not prepared to allow to continue trading in essential commodities which are scarce traders who by their conduct have shown that they are not fit to be entrusted with the distribution of those commodities amongst the people who need them.

The practice, therefore, of revoking licences on conviction for offences under Emergency Powers Orders was maintained during the last year, and I think must be continued to be maintained until there has been a sufficient easement in the situation to enable us to regard as less serious offences of that character. In the case of manufacturers, the practice in the earlier years of control was to endeavour to arrive by agreement with those manufacturers at a margin of profit which they would endeavour not to exceed. It is, of course, difficult in a number of industries to decide in advance what profit will be the result of any particular series of prices in circumstances of uncertain supply of materials. Where the commodity was such that fixed prices could be enforced, prices were fixed, but over a great range of industrial products fixed prices are impossible. We found, however, that some manufacturers—a minority, it is true, but a sufficiently large minority to shake our faith in the efficacy of the arrangements we had made—ignored their agreements, broke their contracts with the Department, and continued to charge prices which realised profits substantially in excess of those which it had been decided would be reasonable. Consequently, it was decided to put that method of controlling the profits of manufacturers on a different basis, and, instead of proceeding by agreement, we proceeded by giving statutory directions to those manufacturers as to the gross profits they were to earn on a year's trading. The effect of that change is to permit those manufacturers who disregard the directions given them to be subjected to criminal proceedings. In case there are any manufacturers who think that the termination of the emergency conditions and the improvement in the supply position will secure for them more lenient treatment when offences are detected and cases are brought against them, I want to make it quite clear that, whether the emergency ends or not, it is the intention to proceed with all the rigour of the law against any manufacturer who is found in future to have disregarded any statutory direction of that kind which has been given to him. There are at present 359 such statutory directions in force.

I intended to deal with that particular matter on the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce. The section controlling building is in the Department of Industry and Commerce. I was going to say merely in conclusion that it is necessary to recognise that nothing has happened as yet in the general situation which justifies any easement of the restrictions which we found necessary to impose during the war, either the restrictions on supply or the restrictions upon the price of goods. The aim of the Government will be to remove those restrictions as quickly as possible as soon as they feel they can do so without detriment to the public interest. I feel sure, however, that the House will agree that, so long as essential goods are scarce, it is necessary to keep their distribution and sale under control, otherwise the public interest would suffer. But, in the case of every commodity where the supply problem eases, the intention of the Government is to remove these emergency controls without delay and, if necessary, to take the risk of removing them too soon rather than the risk of maintaining them too long.

Mr. Blowick

Will the Minister say what is the situation with regard to leather for footwear?

Mr. Lemass

The situation with regard to leather for footwear is roughly this: that we are producing practically our full normal production of sole leather, although there are certain problems in the matter of maintaining the supply of tanning materials. The supplies of upper leather are not so easy. Some has been imported, but it is of such a low quality that it could in fact be said to be unsuitable for footwear manufacture, although a large proportion of it is being used for that purpose. The difficulty of maintaining boot production is largely one of securing tanning materials for the tanners and supplies of grindery and similar products for the manufacturers. The output has been maintained, as I mentioned, at about 80 per cent. of normal.

Mr. D. Morrissey

The Minister has undoubtedly given a very long and fairly comprehensive survey and review of the position which comes to be dealt with by the Department of Supplies. The position, as outlined by the Minister, certainly will not make very satisfactory reading for the people of this country. I am not so sure that, notwithstanding the length of the speech, and the apparent detail of the Minister's review, it was very enlightening. One thing emerged anyway—the Minister responsible for the Department of Supplies conveyed to the people this evening that, so far as they are concerned, the supply position has not been improved by the ending of the European war, but rather has been worsened. I think that is a fair summing up of the Minister's statement. But one would have expected, now that the war in Europe has ended, that the Minister would have given some information as to what efforts were being made by his Department and by himself to secure better supplies for this country. Not once during the whole of his long speech did the Minister tell us what machinery, if any, was in operation, what contacts, if any, had been made and were being made, and what efforts were being made to contact other countries with a view to obtaining necessary and essential supplies.

The Minister's statement, so far as that aspect of it was concerned, was just the same as we have had every year for the past five years. What some of us would like to know, and what the people of the country would like to know, is whether there are direct contacts with Great Britain, the continents of America, North and South, or with any other countries from which we might hope to get supplies. We might be told, for instance, why it is that there cannot be an increase in the supply of tea. One can understand more readily why there could not be an immediate improvement in, let us say, the supply of rubber. One would like to have had a more explicit statement from the Minister with regard to that very essential commodity, coal. The Minister spoke on that subject for some time, but I do not think he was very clear.

This Department was set up about six months before the war broke out. It is now about to disappear, notwithstanding that we are told by the Minister that the supply position, at least for the coming year, will be worse than it has been at any period during the war years. Perhaps it would not be out of place at this point to say, now that the Department is to disappear as a separate and distinct department, that while at the beginning they were slow—at least some of us thought so— in getting down to work, and while in the beginning there was a certain amount of chaos and confusion, perhaps a good deal of it inevitable, it is only fair to say now that once the Department did get into its stride, having regard to all the difficulties that had to be confronted, it did its work very well. I really think it did its work well, having regard to the tremendous difficulties that faced it; having regard to the fact that staffs had to be recruited, some of them completely new to the service, and that most of the heads were seconded from other Departments and had to undertake work of which they had no previous experience whatever. In my opinion they acquitted themselves well and, so far as it was possible, in the difficult circumstances, to give satisfaction to consumers and traders, and in particular to members of this House, that satisfaction was given to the fullest extent that it was possible for the officials to give it, consistent with carrying out their duties under the numerous regulations.

The Minister spoke about controlling prices. He said the difficulty was that traders would not adhere to the prices laid down as maximum prices by his Department. There is no doubt that in a great many cases traders did not adhere to the maximum prices fixed by the Department; that those prices became, in most cases, if not in nearly every case, minimum prices. There is one very notable exception relating to a very important branch of trade in this country. That very notable exception is the clothing and drapery trade. I brought this matter to the Minister's notice on other occasions. I indicated that prices were fixed so high that it was a far more common thing to find traders selling garments under the Government-fixed price than attempting to get over that price. I do not think there can be any question whatever about that; I think it must be common knowledge. I raised this matter last year and I got, I will not say an undertaking, but some sort of hope from the Minister that there would be a review of the situation. The great trouble that the average person, the average wage earner, has had was not a scarcity of supplies, but the terrific prices charged, plus the very inferior quality of the articles. The price which has to be paid for a suit of clothes, especially for children's clothes, is outrageous, having regard to the quality of the cloth. The complaint in relation to clothes is exceeded by the complaint with regard to boots and shoes. The boots and shoes offered to people in this country are nothing short of a scandal. I do not know why it is that we cannot get decent material for boots and shoes. What we are getting is shoddy, most inferior material.

Surely we ought to be able to produce a certain amount of good material. Probably I shall be told I am trying to sabotage Irish industry. I am merely trying to state facts, to repeat what one hears every day from persons of every class, to indicate what is the experience of the average consumer. You will buy a pair of boots or shoes for a youth and, regardless of the price, you will be fortunate if the soles do not fall off within a month. You then take them to the boot repairer and you pay almost the price of a new pair to get them repaired, and within a fortnight the soles will be off again. That is no exaggeration. I am not speaking from hearsay, but from personal knowledge. That has put a strain on all sections of the community, but there is a particular strain placed upon the ordinary wage earner, the man who is compelled by one of the Minister's Orders to work for anything from 35/- to 45/- a week and expected to rear a family on that.

I am not trying to minimise the difficulties that have to be faced by the Department. I am not attempting to suggest that in price or quality we can expect what we used to get in normal times, but there ought to be some recognition of the fact that not only are our people called upon to pay greatly increased prices, but they are also called upon to pay those increased prices for goods of an inferior quality. I think it would be fair to say that a pair of boots or shoes purchased within the past three or four years would have about one-third the life of a pair of boots or shoes purchased for the same or a lower price in pre-war days. May I say in passing that that is an aspect of the cost of living which apparently is never taken into account when the question of giving increases in wages or cost-of-living bonuses comes to be decided?

We come now to fuel and turf. I do not know whether the Minister knows —he probably does—but I doubt if there is anybody else who knows what turf is costing per ton. If one takes what it costs to produce turf on the bog, what it costs Fuel Importers, what Fuel Importers charge the turf merchant, what the turf merchant charges the consumer and what has to be made up to Fuel Importers by the State, one gets a certain amount. Then we have the Turf Development Board in respect of which there is another pretty substantial sum. I agree with the Minister that, in this matter of turf and fuel generally, we cannot talk as we would in normal times of producing it at an economic price. It is a question of producing the turf and having it there, but there is in relation to the production and distribution of turf what, in my opinion, amounts almost to criminal negligence. The subsidy is far greater than it need be. I gave here some time ago a concrete example. In the southern half of my own county, there was a debate recently about turf production last year. There was a loss of something in the neighbourhood of £30,000. The matter was debated by the county council, and the assistant county manager, speaking for himself and the engineers, made this statement, which is on record:

"Although we were satisfied that we could not produce turf beyond the middle of July with any prospect of saving it, as a result of the special appeal made by the Taoiseach we continued cutting turf to 30th September."

That is what I call waste.

Mr. Davin

It is on the bog yet.

Mr. D. Morrissey

It may be, but I know that if you cut turf to 30th September, you will not save it in that year. It cannot be done. There are parts of the country in which, if you cut turf after to-day, you will not save it, unless, of course, you get a very exceptional year, the sort of year you get once in, maybe, 20 years.

Let me give the example of another county where 25,000 tons of turf were produced at a cost of £54,000. I asked certain questions as to what became of the 25,000 tons of turf. So much was sold to Fuel Importers, Limited, so much went for local institutions, and so on. Of the 25,000 tons, 8,725 tons were left on the bog. I cannot give accurate figures and I do not believe anybody could, but I venture to say it would not be an exaggeration if I claimed that, of those 8,725 tons left on the bog since last August or September, two-thirds was not brought off the bog and the one-third brought off was of an inferior quality. That is what I mean by criminal waste.

I want to make it clear that my point of view on this matter is that the fuel must be produced, and if it had cost £6, £7, £8 or £10 per ton during the last five years, we would have had to produce it, but there is no sense in cutting turf merely for the sake of cutting it and throwing most of it back into the bog-hole later in the year or in the beginning of the following year when the spreading grounds have to be cleared for the new cutting. That is where I say there is a very considerable waste of money, labour and time. I can speak only for what I know my self. I do not know what is happening in other counties, but I am sure they are no more efficient than my county, and there is no more waste in my county than there is in others.

Transport, as the Minister said, is the most serious question of all. It is a matter which has its reactions, not only on turf, but on wheat, beet, and most of the grain produced in this country. That is due to the fact that our turf season dovetails into the grain season, which, in turn, dovetails into the beet season, with the result that there is a heavy load on our transport at practically the one time. I know it is very difficult, and that methods and means of transport which in normal times would be looked on as very wasteful, have to be undertaken during a period such as this.

Another matter about which I should like some information, now that the need for censorship no longer exists, is the number of ships, both our own ships and ships conveying goods to this country, which were sunk during the war, so far as that information is at the Minister's disposal. I should also like to know the number of our own ships, that is, ships owned by the State, which were lost at sea during that period. The Minister might also tell us the number of ships owned by the State which are at the moment employed in carrying goods to this country, and whether he has been able to purchase, or has got any promise of being able to purchase in the near future, any further ships. There is another aspect of that matter into which I do not propose to go at the moment, but I should like the Minister to give us what information he can on these points.

In order to relieve the public mind and to relieve Deputies of a great deal of trouble and worry, I should like to get a statement from the Minister with regard to the issuing of permits for hackney motor cars. There is a general feeling that there are ten times as many hackney cars on the road at the moment as in pre-war days, and if one were to judge by the number of cars one sees in the City of Dublin, labelled hackney cars as distinct from taxis, one could quite credit that statement. Generally through the country one sees cars of all descriptions labelled as hackney cars but driven by people whom one would not usually associate with the hackney trade. I am sure that other Deputies, as well as myself, have been asked why it is that so-and-so can get a hackney plate for his car while somebody else cannot get one. All sorts of suggestions have been made. I think it would be a good thing if the Minister would give the number of hackney permits issued within the past two years.

I had hoped for some information from the Minister regarding the prospect of importing essential farm machinery. One of the great troubles with farmers at the moment is that they have not been able to replace broken or worn-out agricultural implements or machinery during the past five and a half years. Many of them have done their best to try to carry on with machines which are almost completely worn out. They are obliged to patch them up from day to day. I think it is correct to say that any new machines that became available during the last two or three years had, necessarily, to be allocated to the counties in which, in pre-war days, little or no tillage was done. The result was that when war broke out the farmers in those counties had little or no machinery for tillage work. The farmers in the tillage counties, such as Tipperary, Wexford, Carlow, Cork, Louth, Kildare, Kilkenny and the others had machinery and implements from pre-war days that were adequate to deal with the tillage that was being done in those days, but the fact is that in many cases it has become worn out.

Deputies who are better qualified to speak on this subject than I am are aware that substantial quantities of grain which might be manufactured into food have been lost, due to defective reapers and binders, and more so from the employment of defective threshing machines. I know myself that we have threshing machines going through the country in the autumn which are so defective that, as the people say, there is more wheat going out in the chaff than in the bag. That represents a very great loss. I would be glad if the Minister would give the House any information that he may have at his disposal as to what the prospects are of being able to import essential farm machinery.

As there are many other Deputies who want to speak on the Estimate it is not my intention to delay the House unduly. The Minister has given us a gloomy picture. It was certainly not very cheering. We have not got any indication from him—perhaps it was not in his power to give it—as to whether our position will be any better this time 12 months than it is to-day. The one thing that we have got definitely from him is that, so far as supplies for this country are concerned, the position is just as bad as, if not worse than it was during the war. I understood the Minister to say, when he was dealing with the wheat figures, that we had to import one-third of our normal requirements; in other words, that notwithstanding the great efforts made during the emergency we were able to produce only two-thirds of our flour requirements. The only cheerful news that the Minister had for us was that there would be an increase of 40 per cent. in the quantities of fertilisers available as compared with last year. I would be glad to know from him how much of that 40 per cent. increase is due to increased imports.

Mr. Lemass

All the increase is due to imports.

Mr. Blowick

I think it will be generally acknowledged that the Department of Supplies did a fairly good job of work during the emergency. I would not like to take up the attitude of criticising it to the extent of saying that it did not do anything right. In my view, there are certain flaws in the management of the Department. At the same time, I want to say that I fully realise that when the Department was first set up it was faced with very big difficulties. It had to start from the bottom and organise personnel to take on a job that all were unfamiliar with because it was the first time in the history of our country that work of that kind had to be undertaken. Nevertheless, I am afraid that in some respects and in some branches of the Department the Minister deserves censure. Take the question of turf. I cannot for the life of me see why turf should cost a total of £5 3s. 9d. a ton. When I heard the Minister give that figure I was astonished. I thought that the controlled price of 64/- a ton covered all. I was astonished because I know that there are private people in the West who produced good quality turf at 15/- a ton, turf which came to Dublin. I saw turf produced by the county surveyor at, roughly, 28/- a ton. Even if we allow that it cost 30/- a ton there is a big deficiency to be accounted for between that figure and the £5 odd per ton which the Minister quoted. Let us assume that the turf is produced in the bogs at 30/- a ton. It is then stacked on the roadside. The lorries take it to the railway station. That is the first charge on it. The second charge is involved in emptying it into the railway wagons. The third charge is concerned with the payment to the railway company for bringing it to Dublin. Probably there would be some other small charges to be added. There will be the charge of taking it from the railway station in Dublin to the dumps, and a charge for stacking it there. But, even allowing for all these charges, I do not see why there should be this difference between the 30/-, the original cost of production, and the figure of £5 3s. 9d. given by the Minister. It would appear to me that there is something definitely wrong.

Perhaps the Minister in his reply will be able to give a reasonable explanation for the difference. I, at any rate, find it hard to understand it. I will give the Minister my opinion about turf. Last winter and the winter before I saw turf that was purchased in Dublin by poor people, by hotels and others. In hotels I have seen the maids make a vain attempt to coax the turf in hotel grates into cheerfulness at 10 o'clock in the morning, and when I returned to the hotel at 10 o'clock at night I saw the same old sods in the grate. I can say that when that turf left its native bog it was in a perfectly sound condition. I want to give the Minister and his officials my experience of how the turf should be dealt with. When the turf leaves the bog it is in a fairly good seasoned condition, good enough to produce the cheerful fires that we all like to see in a farmer's house when we call in on a winter's night. The turf is brought from the bogs to the railway station in open lorries, where it is loaded on uncovered wagons and taken to Dublin. During that period it absorbs all the rain that falls on it. In my opinion, the railway wagons should be covered. Even during the emergency, I do not think it should be beyond the power of the Department of Supplies to provide cheap tarpaulin covers for the railway wagons so that the turf would reach Dublin in a dry condition.

I have seen the dumps in the Phænix Park. I think that the method adopted for stacking the turf there is all wrong. If the most illiterate farmer in the West were to do as is done there—to build his turf stack wrongly, or in an unsheltered situation, then he would be bound to have nothing more than a heap of mud. We had a chance to make something good out of this campaign for the production of a national fuel in the form of turf, and for that reason I think it is a pity the Minister did not take steps to have suitable sheds, after the pattern of hay barns, erected in which to stack the turf. We had disused tramlines which could have been used for the purpose. I am not suggesting that the sides of the sheds should be sheeted. The sides might be laced with wire or fencing to keep the turf from falling out. The turf should be left in those sheds for a period of not less than seven or eight months, so that it might become fully seasoned. If that were done the turf would become properly seasoned, and the people would be provided with 100 per cent. dry turf that they could burn.

It puzzles me how people in Dublin ever coax the turf that I have seen in the park and other dumps into a fire. I think the Minister should take my suggestion seriously. The people in Dublin and in other cities are so disgusted and poisoned with the turf they are getting that I am afraid—when the war is over—whatever chance we had of keeping the industry on its feet we have already killed it. That, I think, is a pity.

The production of turf provided a considerable proportion of the income of many poor homes in the West of Ireland. In my county it enabled many of our young men to remain at home and engage in work here, men who would otherwise have had to go across the water in search of work. In that way money was earned during the summer period when no other local employment was available. It would be well if turf production could be carried on. Coal is requisite for certain purposes, but it has to be imported. I consider that a great blow was struck at what might have been a great industry by the mismanagement of turf supplies. Many poor people in Dublin do not now want to hear anything about turf because of their experience with wet turf. The obvious thing to do with turf when it is brought to Dublin is to have it stacked and roofed. That could be done by a small expenditure under this Estimate. If turf was stored and covered in that way for six or seven months it would be "saved." Anybody who goes into a farmer's place in Mayo knows that it is even more essential to have turf under a roof than grain or hay. In future I suggest that turf when it is brought to Dublin should be kept in sheds and that these sheds should be convenient to the railway sidings. In that way it would not be necessary to put young fellows into wagons where the turf is trampled upon. I do not want to criticise what has been done in the past but to suggest that as turf is an agricultural product it should be properly stored. It is a pity that the people of Dublin were so badly treated by getting wet turf owing to mismanagement, but even at this late hour an effort could be made to have good quality turf supplied. When outside supplies of coal were cut off we were glad to have supplies of turf. I believe that difficulties which impaired a plentiful supply of good turf could be met. There is a loss in weight through moisture, but when turf is dry it provides a cheerful fire.

I have also received complaints from bootmakers and repairers about the distribution of leather. The Department allocates quotas to merchants at different prices. If they buy a full hide or bend they can cut these into small pieces and are permitted to increase prices. As a result these merchants, in many cases, have refused to supply former customers with the amount of leather to which they considered themselves entitled, because better prices could be obtained by selling in small quantities. In that way some bootmakers and repairers were put out of business. There should be some proviso whereby boot repairers would get the quantity of leather to which they are entitled. At the present time these men have to beg merchants to give them leather supplies and the Department appears to be powerless to intervene on their behalf. During the course of the war a man who returned from America was unable to get a supply of leather which would enable him to carry on his business. I urge the Minister to make an Order which will compel leather merchants to give a fair quota to former customers.

In recent years blacksmiths had to use very inferior coal, but it was the best that could be got during the emergency. Now that there is a prospect of the coal situation easing, I ask the Minister to facilitate supplies of coal for blacksmiths, because these men are the farmers' best friends. shoeing horses and repairing agricultural machinery. I consider that blacksmiths should be given a special allocation of suitable coal as soon as it is available, thereby helping farmers in their efforts for food production.

I spoke some time ago about rubber tyres for tractors. I suppose the rubber situation will hardly ease in the near future. Notwithstanding that, I trust that the Minister will, at the first available opportunity, endeavour to procure supplies of rubber, whether in the United States, South America, England or Japan, because the rubber tyres of nearly all the tractors which had them are worn out or damaged. Those tractor-owners who do not want to incur the displeasure of the law by using the wheels of their vehicles on the road have no option but to stay off the road.

On the question of hackney-car permits, a very peculiar system seems to obtain. When the owner of a hackney-car commits an offence against the regulations, he is immediately pounced upon. The Gárdaí report that he attended a race meeting or some other sporting event. In these circumstances, the car-owner has to act the part of a private detective so far as his passengers are concerned. I suggest that the onus should not be exclusively placed on the hackney-car owner. Most of those owners have made a fair effort to keep within the law. It is very unfair that, if a hackney-car owner brings his car out for the service of passengers who represent that they are going on business, he should incur the penalty if they choose to attend a sporting event. The passengers may leave him at some friend's house and proceed to a race meeting a mile off. They may drive to that race meeting. It is unfair that, in a case like that, the responsibility should be placed on the car owner who has been deceived by his passengers. In several cases in respect of which I had to intercede with the Department of Supplies, I was aware that the owners of the cars had been deceived. There should be some other method of dealing with cases of this kind. It is unfair to place the car owner in the invidious position of acting as private detective in respect of every person who enters his car.

Catering establishments and restaurants which entered upon business since the emergency will not get a ration of tea, sugar or butter. There should, I think, be a relaxation of the restrictions in some of these cases. There must have been cases in which people were cut down in their supplies because they were not entitled to the amount they were getting and that must have resulted in a saving to the Department.

I suggest that, where representations are made to the Minister in such cases as I mention, and where the person concerned has no other means of livelihood, the regulations in this regard should be relaxed. I know a case in which a person saved the household ration for 18 months and set up in a nice, little business. Now that the supplies which the person concerned provided in that way are on the point of exhaustion, he has no other means of livelihood. The Department is not so pinched for tea, sugar and other rationed commodities that they could not lend a helping hand in cases of that kind. As regards the question of tea, I agree with Deputy Morrissey that the Minister did not satisfactorily explain why we are so short of tea now. Surely, the tea problem of the world is virtually unaffected by the war. It is strange that arrangements cannot be made to obtain a more reasonable supply of tea. It is the principal joy of the old people—particularly the old women—and we should all welcome a return to a better ration.

The Vote for the Department of Supplies raises the important point of the failure of our Governments during the past 20 years, since we got a little bit of freedom, to provide a mercantile marine. Neither the Cumann na nGaedheal Government nor the present Government made any attempt to do that. It was very depressing to find that, at the outbreak of war, one of our Ministers had to go to a country, then about to embark on war, and which wanted every available ounce of tonnage, to beg for ships. I shall say no more than that. We should start at the bottom and build up a little mercantile marine of our own which will carry our own essential goods to our shores, carry out any exportable surplus we may have and which will fly our flag in every port which it enters. We should do that instead of employing the shipowners of other countries to do it for us. They may do it all right, but I think that this war caught us on the wrong foot so far as shipping is concerned. This matter pertains more directly to the Department of Industry and Commerce than to the Department of Supplies, and I shall have an opportunity of dealing with it further on that Vote.

Mr. Norton

I want to put a few questions on this Vote, touching matters which were not referred to in sufficient detail by the Minister, and I want to make some comments on the activities of the Department. The Minister told us that he had been compelled to utilise for the transportation of wheat 90 per cent. of the ocean-going tonnage which we had in commis sion last year, the result being that our wheat supply consisted last year of 300,000 tons of home-grown wheat, supplemented by, approximately, 165,000 tons of imported wheat. This space in the ocean-going vessels was occupied by wheat to the exclusion of many other commodities. I understand from the Minister's statement that that was the position last year. Judging by the statements made this year, there is reason to believe that the internal wheat position may be better. I understand that the area under cultivation is larger than it was last year and that, with a continuance of the weather we are having at present, we may reasonably look forward to a larger wheat crop this year than we had last year. Could the Minister now give us any information as to whether he expects it will be necessary to import a similar quantity of wheat from the time of the next harvest until the harvest of 1946 and, if not, whether he proposes to utilise the ocean-going tonnage for the purpose of transporting goods which had to be excluded previously because of the overwhelming amount of tonnage required for the importation of wheat? If the Minister could give us some information of the type I have mentioned, we could look forward to making our ocean-going ships available for the transportation of goods which the Minister said might have been available were it not that we had to give a pronounced priority to wheat.

The Minister told us of the Government's turf activities and, to some extent, of the Government's turf proposals. He was less informative regarding the Government's proposals in respect of turf than he was in respect of their activities during the past year. A considerable number of people are asking what the future policy of the Government is to be in respect of fuel production. Are we to concentrate, from the standpoint of production of fuel for ordinary domestic purposes, on the exploitation of the bogs? Our timber resources for the purpose of fuel supply are now negligible. We shall have three sources of fuel supply in the future— (1) electricity, (2) coal, and (3) turf. Electricity, so far as the rural areas are concerned and so far as many of the small towns and cities are concerned, has not been the most attractive method of heating because, in many households, the cost of the electrical installations is such as to prohibit their utilisation.

We are, therefore, placed in the position in which, so far as the ordinary citizens are concerned, the method of heating and cooking is by means of either coal or turf. Now, what are the Government's proposals in that regard? Do they intend, as part of a national policy, to concentrate on turf production and endeavour to ensure that turf is used to the greatest maximum extent, or do they intend to use the legislation that was introduced some years ago in order to compel people to purchase a certain quantity of turf as well as a certain quantity of coal, and in that way to ensure the development of our bogs? I think that the Minister would render a great service to the community if he were to concentrate attention on the value to the nation of the production of turf to the greatest extent and get the community to think of our national future, and indicate what the Government intends to do with regard to the turf deposits in this country.

A considerable amount of money has been spent on the development of our turf resources, on the building of roads into the bogs, and on the drainage of bogs, and, in that connection, let me say that there will be a considerable loss of employment if these bogs, on which such an amount of money has been spent, are now to be allowed to become prairie lands again, covered by weeds and vegetation, and not used for the production of fuel. I am afraid that, in the absence of a Government drive to teach our people to regard turf as one of the essential needs for our fuel supply, turf will take a second place, and that the tendency will be to ask for coal, coal, and more coal. One can understand, of course, that the price at which turf is sold now and the price at which coal is sold—the present generation, of course, will never see coal sold at pre-war prices, because it was produced by the blood and sweat of the people who produced it in England at the prices at which it was sold under pre-war conditions— will be different, as compared with pre-war conditions. We have to consider the fact that the coal workers have made up their minds that they are not going back to the scale of prices or wages that operated in pre-war years.

What I am asking is this: What is the Government's policy in respect of turf production? What plans have the Government in regard to the supply of turf? What plans have the Government in connection with the production of coal as related to the production of turf? What steps do the Government propose to take in order to induce our community to pay the price? In that connection, it seems to me that the figures given by the Minister this evening were rather staggering. He told us that turf, bought and sold by Fuel Importers, Limited, cost 39/9 to sell; that the turf was eventually sold at 64/- a ton, but that in order to do that, the price of a ton of turf, bought by Fuel Importers, Limited, and ultimately sold by them, was £5 3s. 9d. I think that anybody who knows anything about the economics of turf production will agree that that figure is very staggering. Take the case of turf production in Kildare, where the cost is about 23/- a ton. It seems amazing that a commodity that costs 23/- a ton to produce should be sold at £5 3s 9d. This is not a question of a raw commodity. It is actually a finished commodity. By the time it is produced from the bog it is a finished commodity, which costs 23/- a ton, and, yet, by the time it is purchased and sold by Fuel Importers, Limited, the turf costs 103/- a ton. That means that the cost of handling, transporting, rehandling, stacking, and so on, of the turf to Dublin costs £4, which means that you tack on to the original cost of 23/- something like £5 for that purpose, which seems to be a staggering figure. It may be that the Minister will say that that is the lowest price at which the turf can be sold here, but I think that it is amazing that turf which, in Kildare, costs 23/- a ton to produce—which is cheaper than the cost of production in other areas—should cost £5 a ton here. I think it will take a long time to convince the public that the putting on of a charge of £4 a ton is an unavoidable charge and one that cannot be reduced, and I think that the Minister should invite some Committee of the Dáil, or some other type of committee, if he likes, to examine the whole question of the production of turf and whether that is a justifiable price to charge, which costs the consumer about 64/- a ton and an additional subsidy, which has to be paid by the consumer, of about 39/- a ton, making, in all, an extra price of about £4 a ton.

The Minister has pointed out that in regard to normal fuel requirements, the transport position is still very difficult. The one thing that struck me when the Minister was speaking on that matter was his apparent inability to indicate whether the situation was likely to improve or to deteriorate in the future. The overriding impression left on my mind, in respect to the Minister's views on transport, was that he was completely at sea as to what our position was likely to be in respect to petrol and oil supplies in the future, chiefly petrol supplies. I think the general expectation of the community both here and elsewhere—and there was beginning to be some grounds for optimism because that optimism has been translated into tangible concessions elsewhere—was that, on the cessation of hostilities in Europe, there would be an easing in the petrol situation and that the community could look forward to the probability of more petrol being made available, with a corresponding improvement in transport services. Everybody knows that public transport services, whether in Dublin or throughout the country, are very far from satisfactory. Indeed the public have been unusually patient in tolerating the type of services they have been getting in the city here. One sees large queues lining up for buses which they cannot get because the transport provided is inadequate for public requirements at the present moment.

I put it to the Minister that he should be able to give the House a closer approximation as to what we may expect regarding transport services in future, with particular reference to the question of when more buses will be available. Secondly, he should be able to tell us when the people are likely to get a later bus service in the city. At present the last bus leaves at 9.30—an appalling transport service, particularly during the summer months. Thirdly, he should be able to tell us when the public are likely to get a bus service on Sundays. To a person who can travel in a motorcar, a bus service does not much matter but for the large section of the community, those who have to work six days per week and who have only one day free, that being Sunday, who have to try to utilise that day to the fullest advantage from the point of view of undertaking some essential journey or from the point of view of getting some much-needed relaxation at the seaside or on a mountain top, a Sunday service is vital. I should like to ascertain from the Minister whether he can hold out any hope of an early introduction of a Sunday transport service so as to provide people in the city and elsewhere with what they have always regarded as an essential part of normal life.

The question of price margins was adverted to by the Minister in the course of his speech. The Minister again was rather vague as to what his proposals were in respect to a continuation of price control here. At one stage he intimated that he wanted to get rid of certain restrictions as soon as possible, to take a chance of getting rid of them too early rather than holding on to them too long. I want to support the point of view expressed by Deputy Morrissey in this matter. The Minister admitted last year that price margins in many respects had been found to be too high and that folk had been allowed to make profits on the basis of yielding a return on their invested capital, even though they might be producing or distributing a lesser quantity of goods to-day. He indicated, I think, that he intended to examine more closely the whole price margin level with a view to getting prices down to a lower level than that which had obtained last year.

Frankly I cannot see that the Minister has done anything in that regard nor does the index figure compiled by his own Department indicate that he has been conspicuously successful in that respect. It is a well-known fact that certain shops in Dublin advertise a particular article or commodity and say: "Control price so much; our price so much less." These firms are not in business for the good of their health nor are they notorious philanthropists. When a firm that is making a pretty good profit and has not distinguished itself by any particular philanthropy advertises commodities on the basis that the control price is so much and that it will sell it at a lesser price than the controlled price, I think that is prima facie evidence that the price margins allowed in respect of that commodity are too high. I think the Minister would be well advised to examine these price margins with at view to ensuring that a lesser price margin is fixed and that the community are not compelled to pay prices which are admitted by these advertisements to be prices which are not in accordance with reasonable or just standards.

I think that in the drapery trade— I have said this before and I want to repeat it—unreasonable profits are being made by certain firms. As a matter of fact, it is in the drapery trade that in many cases one can get commodities at a price lower than the controlled price. Apparently, in order to get sale for certain goods, traders are prepared to sell them at something less than the margin permitted by the Minister. That fact must be within the Minister's knowledge. It is certainly within the knowledge of Deputies. I would ask the Minister to have the matter examined because the public are entitled to protection against that type of trading. Many firms sell goods at less than the controlled price and still can make a substantial profit.

In this connection, I should like to ask the Minister to investigate the price of boots suitable for agricultural workers and also the quality of boots sold at exorbitant prices to such workers. In rural areas it is definitely impossible to get a decent pair of agricultural boots. Almost any price is charged for the small quantity of agricultural boots that are available. In fact, I have known of cases—I reported two of them to the Department of Supplies some considerable time ago—in which agricultural workers were asked to pay as high as 50/- and 55/- for a pair of agricultural boots. What would any member of this House think if he had to lay out his entire week's income for a pair of boots? Yet an agricultural worker who is paid a wage of 39/- per week is expected to put another 16/- to that in order to get a pair of boots. What provision can he make in that particular week for his wife or children? How can he provide the necessaries of life for that week for those who are dependent on him? I think there is a notorious ramp in the sale of boots suitable for agricultural workers. The material used in the boots is so inferior and the cost of repairs so high that probably one could maintain a new motor car for less than it costs to maintain a pair of these boots.

In connection with the Estimate generally, the impression left on my mind by the Minister's speech is that, with the exception of sugar, in respect of which he saw the future with some clarity, although only a limited future, he was rather vague in his survey of other commodities and could not give any real indication as to when there would be an improvement in the supply position, as to how long it would be necessary to maintain rationing or when we could expect to be entering a period in which supplies would be available in greater abundance. While the Minister was giving us what I consider was on the whole a rather sombre review, it struck me that he is probably out of contacts which he ought to have with the centres on which we depend for our imports. Apparently our negotiations with Britain, the United States, Canada and South America are being carried on entirely on a Legation basis, that is, that such representatives as we have in these countries make contacts with those countries and endeavour to radiate contacts which may result in some supplies being available to us, and that we supplement that by contacts made by civil servants. I do not think that is a satisfactory method of dealing with the supply position. If we are going to rely in the immediate post-war period on contacts of that kind, we will be very badly left in the race for commodities. Other countries will not do things in that Micawber-like fashion. They will be much more diligent and pertinacious in seeking goods. We, apparently, are content to rely on Legation and Civil Service methods.

We have here, as Minister for Supplies, a very energetic Minister and, let me add, a Minister with very considerable ability, very considerable resourcefulness. In the situation in which we are short of a very considerable number of commodities and in which we can see no prospect of importing these commodities, the sensible thing to do is to send the present Minister for Supplies to Britain and to permit him to make contacts there and to use his energies, abilities and resourcefulness in making some arrangement with Britain whereby we may get from Britain the commodities which she can give us and give her the commodities which are surplus to our requirements and, when the Minister has negotiated with the British, he ought to go to the United States to negotiate with the people there and then he ought to be sent to South America to exercise his talents there. The Minister would be much more usefully employed in a world tour of that kind, making essential contacts on a Ministerial basis, with countries with which, because of old associations, we have some right to expect that reciprocal trade arrangements can be made. We sent the Minister for Coordination of Defensive Measures to America some years ago to look for ships. I suggest that it is much more important, in the immediate post-war period, to send the Minister for Supplies there, to look for ships, if you like, but especially to look for those civilian needs which America will produce in future to a greater extent than she has done in the past. The other countries which constitute the United Nations bloc will probably not be put at any disadvantage in importing commodities from America or Britain. We, because of our policy of neutrality, may not be treated in the same favourable manner in regard to supplies. If we procrastinate, if we do not undertake the task of securing these goods now, we may find ourselves badly left.

I wish to conclude by recommending to the Minister and, through him, to the Government, that the Minister should take his energies, his undoubted abilities, and his resourcefulness to Britain, the United States and South America and there, as Deputy-Prime Minister of Ireland, as Minister for Supplies and Minister for Industry and Commerce, endeavour to make the best trade agreements possible. If this matter is allowed to drag on purely on the basis of a Minister Plenipotentiary from this small country interviewing a Minister Plenipotentiary of some large country, I am afraid we will not get any quantity of goods in the future. If the Minister himself would essay the task of negotiating trade agreements such as I have indicated, I feel sure that between now and next year he would be able to do so and he would be in a position to come to the House next year and to make a speech, not of the nature of the rather sombre speech he made to-day, but a cheerful speech, and I am sure the House would applaud his efforts in the national interest.

Mr. Hughes

I was very disappointed with the Minister's speech, not so much because it was a sombre speech, as it has been described by Deputy Norton, because we must be realistic in the circumstances of the time, but because the Minister did not face up to the problems that face us, and did not give the House some information about those problems. The Minister devoted the greater part of his speech to a review of the work of the Department during the last 12 months. I agree that that is the normal procedure on the occasion of an Estimate and that it is the practice to review administration and to estimate the cost of the Department for the coming year. We got little information from the Minister and the information we did get in regard to the activities of the Department for the last 12 months was almost identical to the information we got 12 months ago. There does not appear to have been any great change in the methods employed, in the costs of production or in the details relating to the cost of production of turf and the variety of commodities over which the Minister's Department exercises control. I felt that at this stage, particularly in view of the cessation of hostilities in Europe, the Minister should have availed of this opportunity to discuss the future supply position of the country fully and frankly in the House. On matters of supply the Minister has spoken to people outside this House. In recent months he has addressed chambers of commerce on important fundamental matters and far-reaching problems affecting the future of the country and difficulties in securing and purchasing supplies. It is not by any means as simple as Deputy Norton suggests. Even if the goods are available in South America, the United States and Great Britain, as the Minister has stated outside this House, there is the problem of paying for them. I expected that we would hear from the Minister some indication of the problem along those lines. I believed that he was going to discuss the matter fully and frankly with the House. He gave us all the information he could on our shipping position and the amount of tonnage available at the present time, but in the matter of securing supplies from the United States and from America generally I wonder if he would tell us when he is replying whether we are exceeding our present resources in dollars, or what is the position in that regard.

The Minister has raised outside the matter of sterling conversion. If that matter is to be discussed, surely this is the place to discuss it. If the Minister anticipates problems— and problems of exchange are almost certain to be there—surely the House is entitled to be fully informed in the matter. He has not touched that problem at all. He has not given us any information as to the provision of machinery to explore the possibilities not merely of securing goods at the present time, but of booking goods for the future. He has not told us whether he anticipates that there will be priorities in operation, and what our position will be if such priorities are in force. I was keenly disappointed because the Minister ignored that most important aspect of our position. We have heard a good deal about the preparation of post-war plans in one form or another, but all those plans are worthless if the raw materials essential to the implementation of those plans are not available. No matter how efficient or inefficient the Minister's Department may have been during the emergency, it is time to get away from that, and to face up to the post-war period. It is time that the House should be given all the information available in the Minister's Department as to future supplies. What attempt is being make to book orders, particularly in regard to machinery and other essential supplies of that sort? What has been done to deal with the very big problem which the Minister has raised outside—the exchange problem? I should like to know whether we are exhausting our dollar resources at the present time? When he is replying, the Minister should give the House whatever information is available.

Having dealt with shipping, the Minister went on to deal with wheat supplies, and indicated to the House that, notwithstanding all our efforts here at home to produce wheat to our maximum capacity, 90 per cent. of our Irish shipping tonnage was used to convey wheat to this country in the last 12 months. That is astounding, but I can assure the Minister—Deputy Morrissey has already referred to the matter—that it is due to lack of equipment and lack of raw material. I will go one further than Deputy Morrissey, and say that it is due to lack of organisation in agriculture. Our production would have been much higher if there had been a better attempt at organising our agricultural resources here, instead of leaving the matter solely to the efforts of individual farmers. Ignorance of efficient methods, lack of equipment, lack of capital, and lack of fertilisers are responsible for our failure to reach the target.

The Minister has also given us some information about the supply of fertilisers. He anticipates that the supply will be 74,000 tons for the coming year, an increase of 40 per cent. That figure represents only 25 per cent. of our 1939 supplies, and we have to bear in mind that our supplies in 1939 were considerably less than they were for some years prior to that. The Minister did not classify the fertilisers into phosphate, nitrate or potash. In plant colouration all over the country, in the tillage districts particularly, there is ample evidence of exhaustion of potash, and every possible effort should be made to secure supplies for the coming year. Our supplies were mainly in the form of kainite from Alsace-Lorraine. I wonder could the Minister give us any information on that? I imagine that the Department of Agriculture is pressing him to explore the possibilities of securing kainite for next season. I would expect that the French Government would be making every effort to develop the export trade in kainite now for exchange purposes, and it is vital to our primary industry that we should secure supplies of potash at the earliest possible moment. I asked the Minister a Parliamentary question to-day relating to the price of phosphates. It is true that we have had some supplies of phosphates during the emergency, and my question was designed to elicit some information regarding the cost of production. I know it is the Minister's policy to try to keep up profits, to try to keep up employment. But the volume of employment given at any time by manure manufacturers in this country was not very great. It never got beyond the thousand figure, and I think only about 100 skilled men were employed. The price of phosphates was out of all proportion to the value of the manure. This season, there is no difficulty in securing supplies of phosphates, because a lot of farmers consider it prohibitive at £12 a ton. When we talk about prices generally, about the high price of food and the high cost of living, we very often overlook that important aspect of the matter from the point of view of our primary producers. The cost of raw material so far as our primary producers is concerned is outrageous. The price of artificials in any form is outrageously high here compared with the price paid by the British farmer.

The information that I got from the Minister to-day was of little value. On several aspects of the matter, the Minister was not prepared to give me any information. That made it impossible for me to examine the problem and to try to satisfy myself as to what is the actual cost of manufacture and what are the net profits so far as the manufacturer is concerned. The Minister is responsible for fixing the price and he assured me to-day that the price was satisfactory. I take it he means that there is not an exorbitant profit. But I want to stress that, no matter what the supplies are, the price fixed by the Minister at present is not satisfactory from the agricultural point of view. There is no inducement, so far as agriculture is concerned, to use a raw material that is of doubtful value, in fact, I do not think it is of any great value at all. Possibly it may stimulate a crop so as to get it established in its early growth. Beyond that, the average farmer would not set any value on it. I intend to ask the Minister for Agriculture to carry out some research or experimental work on this. I would appeal to the Minister to have this whole matter reviewed, as it is a very important element and raw material in our activities in food production at home.

There is another aspect of this matter of fertilisers to which I want to draw the Minister's attention and that is the supply of nitrates, especially sulphate of ammonia. There does not appear to be any immediate hope of early supplies of sulphate of ammonia from Great Britain with the war still on. Nitrates are necessary for explosive purposes and Bellingham appears to be strained to supply the requirements of Great Britain herself. We have been depending on Imperial Chemicals for our supplies of sulphate of ammonia for many years. I know that some examination was given to the possibility of establishing a factory here for the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia. I want the Minister to give the House some information as to what he proposes to do about supplies of sulphate of ammonia for the immediate post-war years. Does he intend to go on with the establishment of the factory at home? It may not be possible to secure the necessary equipment for it at the moment.

Realising how essential it is, and having had no supplies of nitrate for five or six years, I think the Minister should give this matter his early attention and have the whole problem of supplies fully examined. Are we going to produce our requirements at home? What efforts are being made to secure early supplies of sulphate of ammonia? These are matters as to which I would have thought the Minister would have anticipated what the House expects from him and given us all the information that was available so far as his Department is concerned.

The question of turf production has been dealt with in detail by previous speakers, and I do not propose to go into any great detail about it. With the rapid development and expansion of turf production in this country under the emergency conditions, we had to secure supplies of fuel regardless of price. The more important aspect of the problem. I should say was having it supplied rather than having it supplied at what might be called an economic price. Accepting that as an explanation for the high cost of production in the early years of the emergency, surely we should have now arrived at a degree of efficiency in production, organisation and transport which would have reflected itself in the price. But we have just the same old story. The price is 64/- per ton, and the subsidy is 39/9; the merchant, after losses of one kind or another, is netting 17/9. One cannot describe it by any other term than inefficiency. Surely the House is entitled to expect, having reached the present development, and taking into consideration the engineering staffs in the Turf Development Board, the experience of production and transport, and the development of the most efficient methods of handling, that we would have arrived at a situation where all these factors would be definitely reflected in a lower price. But the Minister does not appear to be in a position to give the House or the country any hope that we can anticipate an early reduction in the cost of this fuel. He has been beautifully vague about what the future holds so far as the fuel supply for the country generally is concerned; what the coal position will be; how far the country will have to rely on turf as a fuel; and whether the Government have definiately faced up to that situation and made a decision in the matter. If the country has to rely to a much greater extent in the future on turf than it had in the pre-war years, I suggest that the House would expect that the whole method of organisation and handling of this big bulky fuel should have shown greater efficiency and better development than is reflected in the review given by the Minister this evening.

So far as the shipping position is concerned, the Minister has told us that 90 per cent. of our Irish shipping is taken up with the transport of wheat. On the figures he has given—215,000 tons—I think there is some margin over and above our actual requirements. I believe we can definitely anticipate a substantially higher production from native wheat, as there is an increase in the acreage and the crop looks like being the best since the emergency started. The year has been particularly favourable and if it continues so and if we get a decent bit of sunshine to ripen the crop, we may definitely hope for a bumper yield. That should help to release shipping to carry other essential requirements. I hope the Minister will give special attention to my comment on fertilisers, as the shortage has been all along a very severe handicap to the primary producers. It is not only a question of phosphate supplies; the potash and nitrate shortage is a very urgent problem also.

The Minister gave us some information about textiles. The cotton supplies from the United Kingdom and other countries have been reduced considerably and I think he told us, too, that our woollen and worsted piece goods position is about 50 per cent. of our requirements. I join with other Deputies in stating that the Minister's activity in price control and price fixation constitutes one aspect of our supply position where there is a good deal of daylight robbery going on. It is positively disgraceful that such profits should be made in clothes generally, when one takes into account the cost of the raw materials, which the Minister has so nicely kept down, Irish wool being about 1/9 or 1/10 a lb.

Mr. O'Donnell

It is 1/4 for the white wool.

Mr. Hughes

The average would work out at 1/10 or 1/11. It is true that the raw material is a very small item, so there is no justification for the high cost of clothing generally. In the case of shirts, for instance, the average trader in this country will tell you that he can sell shirts at 5/- or 6/- less than the fixed prices marked on them.

It is a great hardship on the agricultural worker, especially the married man who is working for £2 a week, if he has to buy clothes or boots, not merely for himself but for his family. If the Minister's policy has been to keep up the profits and so keep employment going, there is that other aspect, too, that it has reacted in a very severe way and caused great hardship to workers generally. The worker on a low wage finds it impossible to buy clothes and boots, and the quality, as Deputy Morrissey mentioned, is so poor that he has to buy more often.

The Minister has not given us any information about the supply of machinery and tools. There is a lot of machinery which has been working for years and is completely worn out. It is being nursed along from year to year by being patched up each year. The quality of the machinery and tools manufactured in this country is extremely poor. I am criticising this in a constructive way, in an effort to improve the position. The ordinary agricultural tool, the fork or the shovel, is not properly turned out. The handles are shocking, due to downright carelessness, as we have good ash here suitable for handles and it is only a matter of selecting decent timber. All sorts of warped, cross-grained and knotted timber, absolutely unsuitable for the purpose, is being used, and the handles are being rammed into the tools, which are then sold at a very high price. Surely, if we are to develop and encourage the use of Irish tools, we must fulfil the essential prerequisite and make a definite effort to supply a decent tool which will compare favourably with tools manufactured in other countries.

It is the same with machinery made here. Some of our machines are designed on patterns that are completely obsolete. I can never understand why manufacturers do not make some effort to bring their designs up to date, to conform with modern ideas. I will give the Minister one example. There is an artificial manure distributor made in this country and its design is obsolete by about 20 years, being on the Westphalian principle. It is ridiculous to manufacture that type of machinery, when our people are entitled to the latest idea in design.

The Minister has talked about the importance of our export trade for exchange purposes. If we are to compete in the export market with people who are better equipped with modern machinery, our Irish farmers are entitled at least to expect that those designing our machinery will provide a type that suits our conditions, and which will embody in it the latest principles in design.

So far as petrol is concerned, the Minister has stated that he knows that people generally were anticipating an early basic supply, at all events, for private purposes. He has not encouraged us to hope for an early resumption of transport and the country generally has been left absolutely at the mercy of the people operating hackney-cars. Deputy Morrissey has mentioned the number of hackney-cars on the road. Many people are trying to secure hackney permits, because of the profit to be gained. The cost of the hackney service is far too high. The Minister may defend it by saying that the allocation made to individual hackney owners is so small that they can make very few runs in a month. There we see the Minister's anxiety to keep up the income of the permit holders. I do not know where the petrol comes from, but every car carrying a hackney-plate appears to me to be on the road every day of the month. There is very keen anxiety to secure a plate, as the running of a hackney-car brings a substantial profit.

The Minister has given the House information as to the number of permits he has revoked and as to the enforcement of the regulations, under which he has continued to revoke permits. I have expressed before here strong disapproval of the way in which the regulations are administered. I feel that hardship has resulted in a number of cases. It is inevitable that that would happen, in view of the big number of revocations. It is extraordinary that, where the Minister revokes tea and sugar licences, the people are directed by the Minister's inspector to get their goods in some other house.

What right has the Minister to direct people to any particular house? I heard some compliments paid to the Minister's Department which, under new legislation, is supposed to terminate its activities, but in reality it will be combined with the Department of Industry and Commerce. So far as this Department is concerned, I think it will remain as active as ever.

There is no doubt that our people have been regimented a good deal. I suppose that was inevitable where goods were in short supply. There has been considerable infringement of the liberty of the individual. I cannot see where the Minister has any right to direct citizens to become the customers of a particular trader. I know of cases where licences were revoked and the customers were directed to other houses. It might happen that customers would not feel comfortable going to a particular trader. I know of one case where there was revocation of a tea licence and the details of that case convinced me that there was not very much justice in the decision to revoke the licence and transfer the customers elsewhere. The customers were transferred to a man who was reputed to be active in the black market, while decent, reputable traders were passed over. It has occurred that a man's tea and sugar licence was revoked and, for no reason, three or four decent traders in the same street were passed over and a man further down the street was selected to take over the customers of the trader whose licence was revoked. Why is it necessary to do that? Why is the customer not left free to select his own trader?

I think the Minister is going too far when he compels any individual to deal with a particular trader to whom he may not wish to go. If I want tea and sugar and butter I must go to a trader selected for me by the Minister. I think the Minister is going too far when, through his inspectors, he compels citizens to buy their tea and sugar from a trader selected by them. That procedure gives rise to all sorts of doubt and there is a danger of corruption there all the time. A keen trader, seeking to collect customers, when he realises that another trader's permit is about to be revoked, might be tempted to offer a bribe to the Minister's inspector in his anxiety to secure the customers. That procedure would be altogether wrong and it would be intolerable if the House were expected to stand over such action.

It means an infringement of the liberty of the individual if people are to be dragooned and regimented in that fashion by the Minister or his inspectors. It amounts to telling us that we have no right to trade with the man who best suits us and gives us most satisfaction. I was told recently of cases where that occurred, and I think it is highly objectionable. Deputies should make it clear that they will not tolerate that type of thing, and that they will not invest such intolerable control in the Minister. A certain amount of regimentation was inevitable when the Minister had to control goods that were in short supply, so as to have an equitable distribution of those goods.

When a trader is prosecuted, the case ought to be dealt with by a court, and the decision of that court should be accepted. We ought not to have the justice fixing a penalty which he considers fair, and which he is well qualified to determine as such, and then have the Minister sitting in judgment on the trader and imposing a further penalty without giving the trader an opportunity to defend himself. In all these cases, the recommendation for revocation should come from a court. The evidence should be put before the court and the public mind should be satisfied that justice is being done. I am not saying that if a man breaks a regulation he ought not to be punished; I do not advocate that, and I do not want to be misunderstood. It is the responsibility of the Minister to ensure that the regulations are carried out, so that we can have what is desired by all, a fair distribution of the goods. I think the present system of dealing with traders should be vigorously condemned, because it leaves a lot of doubt in people's minds.

The same applies to the revocation of permits in relation to hackney-cars. Two or three men came to me recently to tell me how their permits were revoked. They conveyed people to greyhound race meetings. They pointed out that another man committed the same offence, but he had his car out again in a fortnight. These men were laid off for three or four months. Surely, if you administer justice through a Department of State and through civil servants, you are bound to have something of that sort. If evidence is taken in court, and a decision arrived at, the public mind is satisfied that justice is done and that there is no wirepulling. In his own interest, the Minister should ensure that the interests of the community are being safeguarded, and he ought to satisfy the public that there is justification for whatever decisions are made. He can not satisfy the public that the methods now in operation are satisfactory.

The sooner we get away from the present system of control the better, because it has not left any good impression on people's minds. Deputy Morrissey complimented the Minister and his Department on the work they performed during the emergency. I think they have grossly abused the Emergency Powers Act. The House never intended to give the Minister the powers he has arrogated to himself, particularly in cases of the type to which I have referred. I do not want to minimise the difficulties that had to be faced and the problems that had to be solved.

There is one aspect of this matter that often struck me as being somewhat harsh. No provision was made for new people anxious to enter business. Take the case of young people getting married, buying a house and trying to get into business. The whole system of rationing was based on a particular period and bringing new people into business would, I can quite understand, mean upsetting the allocation of goods among traders; but the world goes on and people go into business, people drop out, people die and so on, and if individuals who are anxious to go into business, young people anxious to get married, to settle down and to start in business, are asked to wait for six, seven or eight years, it is a very grave hardship, and the Minister should have made some provision to cover cases of that sort. However, it is rather late in the day to go into these details.

I want to say, in conclusion, that I hope the Minister in his reply will make some attempt to give us more definite information about the future, about what provision he has made in his own Department and what steps the Government have taken to secure goods and about his anticipations in the matter of supplies. I should like him to be more frank with the House so far as the supply position and its effect on our various activities— agriculture, industry, housing and so on—is concerned. I expected that the Minister would start off on that note and not merely give us a review of his activities over the past 12 months. The whole country is anxious to face up to the future and its difficulties, and the success or failure, the prosperity or otherwise, of the country depend to a very great extent on how far we can secure the raw materials necessary for production.

Mr. Dillon

I put first something which I consider to be of first importance. No one can exaggerate the gravity in this or any other community of the crime of black marketing, but, where you are faced with crime of exceptional gravity, there is always an insidious temptation to resort to draconian judicial methods, but the very atmosphere of a tribunal of justice should be as far divorced from natural indignation as it is humanly possible to make it. Under our law, no man is guilty until he is proved guilty; every man is deemed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. So strongly does public opinion in this and every other country react against the allegation of black marketing that the very fact that you are charged with it is in itself calculated to create a prima facie suspicion in the minds of most people that you are guilty.

That fact being so, it is all the more important that the most scrupulous regard should be had to providing the maximum judicial protection for the person on trial. In times of acute stress and difficulty, it is hard for the voice of reason to make itself heard. Fortunately, the greatest threat, the threat of Nazi domination of Europe, has now passed and we can settle back to a more reasoned approach to most problems, now that we know that that menace is destroyed, and accordingly I want to represent to this House most strongly that the practice of bringing persons accused of black market offences, or of offences against the Emergency Orders connected with supplies, before special courts consisting of military officers, should be put an end to. It is right that heavy penalties should be imposed on persons found guilty of charges of that kind, but if public support for the draconian penalties which justice demands in cases of that sort is to be maintained, the public mind must be reassured that the person to be punished has had a fair and full trial.

It is no reflection on the officers who constitute that court to say that a soldier's training does not equip him to dispense justice in accordance with the law, and it is certainly true that every citizen is entitled to justice according to the law. I have seen recently a number of persons brought before the special tribunal, and I have seen distinguished members of our legal profession protesting desperately against the character of evidence which was admitted and against the nature of the proceedings which were tolerated. I have seen resort had to the Court of Criminal Appeal, with responsible members of the Irish Bar representing to that court that the prisoners never had a chance, that no man could conduct his defence under the rules of evidence which obtained in the court of first instance.

I am not blaming the officers who constitute that court because they were directed by resolution of this House, and, I think, even by Act of this House, to allow into evidence a very much wider range of material than would ordinarily be accepted in a criminal court of law; but I ask the House to remember the circumstances under which we passed that Act and gave that injunction to the court. We were then confronted with a conspiracy between the I.R.A. and the German Minister to foment civil war in this country. We knew that, and I stated that at the time in this House as the ground on which I was prepared to give these powers, but I do not believe that anyone in the House ever foresaw that powers shaped to meet a threat designed to upset the whole State would be invoked against a woman who was alleged to have charged an excess price for a pound of tea.

I do not want to refer to individual cases that have recently come before the courts, because one might easily stumble into referring to some case which was sub judice on appeal. I do urge Deputies to bear in mind that it is easy to shake off responsibility for a fellow-citizen's misfortunes, but it is a shocking thing, if one wakes up one day and finds oneself confronted by a prosecution before such a tribunal, to realise that you no longer have the protection of an independent judiciary which is the very keystone of all the liberties that the people of this country have fought to win. In the last analysis freedom means that every citizen of this State has standing between him and the Executive of the day an independent judiciary that will compel the Executive not only to allege crime against citizens but to prove it according to law, and that in the absence of that proof an independent judiciary will discharge the accused and restore him to liberty.

When emergencies assume sufficiently great dimensions it becomes the detestable duty of the democratically chosen representatives of the people temporarily to put in trust the liberties of the people in order effectively to protect them against those who seek permanently to destroy them. We put those liberties in trust with the Executive of the day some years ago because we knew that there were forces in this country which sought, with external aid, to take them from our people for all time. We were well-advised.

These draconian powers were used, and effectively used, to destroy that conspiracy. That danger is now, for the time being at least, past, and I ask the Government and the Minister for Supplies to declare that, in future, for the prosecution of offences against Emergency Powers Orders made or retained for the defence of essential supplies for this country, persons who are alleged to have infringed them will be given the benefit of a fair trial before a competent court presided over by a member of an independent and trained judiciary. The denial of that right to the humblest citizen in this State can no longer be justified. I beg Deputies to realise the immense danger of growing callous in the presence of the denial of that right. It was a right most dearly won by men all over the world, and once lost would be terribly difficult to recover. Without it freedom, liberty, constitutional rights and democracy would become the mere facade of mockery, but so long as they obtain, coupled with free speech and a free Press, any people worthy of their freedom will never lose them. But deprive people of their freedom of speech, freedom of the Press, and all recourse to an independent judiciary and you prepare the road for tyranny. You open the door for tyranny to put its foot in. Let us, in this House, who are the democratic representatives of a free people, insist, now that the greater danger is past, that that essential right will be restored to all people from the humblest to the greatest in the knowledge that, in insisting on those three essentials of freedom, we are preserving for our own people the instruments with which they can preserve their liberties against all comers. Let us insist upon its early restoration—upon its prompt restoration—in the knowledge that if we fail to assert the right to that privilege, of a fair trial before an independent judiciary, we are betraying those who trust us, and we are opening a chink into which the foot of tyranny can be thrust. Should that once happen we may discover that our combined strength was not sufficient to beat back that unwelcome intruder.

Do not make any mistake. The persons prosecuted may be humble and insignificant and the offences may be trivial, but if a respectable man or woman in rural Ireland is convicted before his or her neighbours of having defrauded them of their due and is sent to gaol albeit it is only a month, then for the rest of their lives they are marked people in the community in which they live and their children are indelibly marked.

To us sitting in Dublin that may seem a trivial thing. To them it is all their life—more precious than all they own—and when that is at stake, no matter how humble they are, they have the right of recourse to the most learned judge that our Bench can provide, and they have the right to all the due processes of law, just as if the wealthiest member of this community were defending his all. I think that in pressing this case on the House, if I can bring Deputies to realise the significance of the case I am making, I shall not have to seek far for support, but the danger is that, having endured this system of military courts for the last four or five years, we may forget the nature of the emergency that induced us to consent to it. We may fail to realise that that terrible emergency is now happily gone. We may grow careless and indifferent and say to ourselves: "This plan has worked, and why interfere with it?" It would be a shocking disaster for this country if we were to adopt that attitude. The time has come to end it; the time has come to revert to the old principle which, I hope some day, we will also be able to abandon, and that is that every man and woman in this country, if charged with crime, is entitled to trial by jury presided over by a member of an independent judiciary, excepting those criminals who challenge the right of our courts to try them and who proclaim their own right to murder jurymen, witnesses and the judges in our courts. So long as any man or group of men combine to assert that right, then let there be constituted any kind of court that will vindicate the law, but so long as men come before a tribunal readily acknowledging its right to try, to sentence and to determine the cause, they have the right to a jury and to an independent judiciary. The time has come to reestablish that right, except for the diminishing class to which I have referred. The sooner we do that the better it will be for all of us.

Having dealt with that matter, perhaps the most important item turns on the price of fish. The Minister for Supplies fixed a price for fish some months ago, and the Minister for Fisheries came here and explained the vital necessity of maintaining the largest possible market for fish caught by our fishermen. I would imagine that the Minister's colleagues in the Cabinet would have gone out of their way in their efforts to develop new markets. Those of us who have affiliations with fishing areas sympathise with the fishermen, and did all we could to promote the popularity of fish. I became a fishmonger. I have been a very successful fishmonger in meeting a demand for fish that did not exist before. I refer to wet fish. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will know what I mean by black fish as distinct from salt fish landed on our coasts by fishermen. I have to buy fish in the Dublin market. The reason I have to buy fish in the Dublin market is because trawlers' catches consist of various kinds of fish, which must be brought to some centre of varied demand where catches can be divided up, one class for fish and chip shops, another class for luxury restaurants, a third-class for ordinary fishmongers, of which I am one, and another class is disposed of to the artificial manure people. That is why I had to buy in Dublin. The Minister fixed a retail price and a wholesale price for Dublin. I have no case to make about that. When I came to buy fish at the wholesale price fixed by the Minister in Dublin, or when my constituents in Monaghan bought fish in Dublin, we found that the wholesale price, plus the freight to these centres of fish distribution on the quantity we were in a position to take, was greater than the retail price. We were constrained to sell the fish either at less than we paid for it, or else give up selling fish, with the result that the fish we would have taken off the wholesale market in Dublin was thrown back on that wholesale market, creating a surplus of fish there, plus operating to reduce prices for the fishermen.

I wrote to the Department of Supplies asking if it would allow us to add to the retail price a sum equal to the transport charges in Dublin, no more than that—1d. or 2d. per lb. would meet the situation—and I got not the usual reply but a rather tart and impudent kind of one. There was no foul language; it was just an impudent reply intimating that attention was directed to the terms of an Order made by the Minister which the Minister is not prepared to amend. There was nothing outrageous about it; just impudence. I know that it is pretty exasperating to be asked the question 45 times in the day, but I think the Minister might have done what he did in respect of a large number of other commodities. He fixed prices for Dublin and various rural shopkeepers could charge those prices plus the actual cost of carriage from Dublin. As it is very desirable to get a market for fish I urge the Minister before the autumn to reconsider his decision in regard to fish, and to permit those in rural Ireland to add to the fixed price a sum not greater than what they actually paid on the freight from the wholesale market to their premises.

I want to ask the Minister another question. When is he going to deal with the question of permitting people in the restricted areas to use their own transport again? Many people in this country imagine simply because the war is over that there must be an abundance of petrol. I think comparatively speaking there is, but these people forget that the Japanese are still playing their capers in the Federated Malay States. They do not know if the Minister is content with the present supply of tyres and rubber. With the limited resources at his disposal the Minister takes up the position that he must keep reserves for essential services that might break down if the shortage of rubber continues longer than we expect. I do not blame him for that. I sympathise with the Minister's difficulty, and I recognise that he was probably right to take the steps he has taken. What I complain of is this, having thus created a transport monopoly for certain areas of the country he stood idly by while Córas Iompair Eireann altered radically their whole terms of business with the mercantile community. Up to June 1st, any merchant desiring to send merchandise by a public transport company could tender it "carriage paid" or "carriage forward." Bear in mind that the Minister has no statutory function in regard to that matter at present. He has no power to do this or that but many people have done things in this country in the last six years because of difficulties that arose. The Minister explained his difficulty and asked for help. He often stated that he would rather get people to co-operate with him voluntarily rather than have to force them to do so. Córas Iompair Eireann issued a notice that from June 1st they would not accept any goods unless they were "carriage paid." I am not denying their right to do that. If a merchant was left with the alternative of putting his own transport on the road, he could say: "I do not like these terms for that part of my trade, and for that part I do not wish to consign merchandise through you but will send it on my own lorry." Córas Iompair Eireann would naturally say that if he found their service more convenient, more economical, and more efficient they would expect him to come back to them.

They are merely passing the charge from the producer to the consumer.

Mr. Dillon

There is another matter to which I should like to refer briefly; it relates to the production of heavy boots. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty in regard to this matter up to a point. Up to recently there were demands from the Army, and it was right that the Army should have prior claim on the attenuated resources at our disposal. It is reasonable to anticipate, however, a substantial reduction in the number of men in the Army, and that should release for agricultural use heavy boots. I do not think it would entail any hardship for the Army. I am quite certain serving members of the Army would be glad to endure, for the last six weeks or three months of their service, wornout boots, boots that ordinarily should be replaced if they were to continue in the service, if they could thereby release ample supplies of heavy boots for the farmers who have the winter months before them. I pressed that on the Minister for Supplies and the Minister for Defence repeatedly. I do again strongly urge upon them that the time has passed when men who are working on the land should be asked to content themselves with the kind of boot which, after one day's wetting, has a sponge for a sole and a jelly for a top. I am tired of unfortunate countrymen coming in to me shaking the sole of their boots like castanets, and of my being obliged to say to them: "Well, the manufacturer says he cannot be responsible for the materials now put into these boots." I do not blame the manufacturer, because he has been obliged to put all the first-class leather into Army boots. It will be readily conceded that while men were liable to be called on active service at any moment, they were entitled to have the best type of boots obtainable. That time now is past; let us get rid of the castanets as early as possible, so that our agricultural workers can get boots which will last them for more than six weeks. It is ridiculous asking men to go out and cut turf with light shoes. Surely we have not reached the stage, despite the hair-shirt policy, in which the soles of our shoes are not strong enough to push a sléan into a bank?

There is another subject of complaint with which I have come in contact in the last 12 months. At the present time the supplies of shirts, overalls and boiler-suits are not quite as straitened as they have been but this peculiar fact has emerged. The average distributor in rural Ireland will take all the shirts he can get from the wholesale supplier or the manufacturer. He will take all the blue overalls he can get because there is an ample demand for every garment he can put on his shelf. Every garment coming from the manufacturer now has the retail price stamped on it—a most admirable departure, but this astonishing fact emerges. One fellow will write to you and say that he has four dozen shirts to offer and that if you send on the coupons you can have them. You send him on the coupons and the shirts duly arrive marked at 13/9 each. A week later he says that he has three dozen more to offer and you send him on further coupons. Then you get a shirt, identical or perhaps inferior in quality, and the price is marked 19/4. Again you will get one week a supply of blue delaine overalls on which a price of, say, 12/- is marked and a week later an inferior garment will arrive and the price will be 18/9. If the Minister will inquire into this matter, I think he will find that the different prices marked, particularly on shirts, cotton underwear and delaine overalls are a subject of bewilderment to retail traders. I remember getting a consignment not so long ago of men's cotton singlets of which the fixed price was 6/3. I solomnly assure the House that they were superior to cotton singlets which I saw arriving in another merchant's house and which had 11/6 marked on them. Now what the explanation of that is, I am at a loss to understand. It does not make very much difference to the retail distributor. As I told the House, the retail price is marked on every article and he simply puts it on the counter and shows the customer the marked price.

Mr. Cafferky

And he gets a good profit.

Mr. Dillon

Mind you, the profit was good but under my direction the Minister reduced the rate of profit. I explained to the Minister how the wool was pulled over his eyes by certain people. On my explaining that to him, he investigated the matter and he found out that I was right, as I always am. He then adjusted the prices. I am prepared to say now, whether it pleases Clann na Talmhan or not, that the rates charged on drapery goods are on the whole reasonable as between wholesaler and retailer, and that if they were brought lower, they would operate to make a very considerable number of small retail merchants in rural Ireland bankrupt. A lot of people who do not know the trade may deny that. I do know the trade. I spent 20 years in it and I know the kind of shopkeepers who are my neighbours. I am not talking of the boys who have windows 20 feet high in Dublin City, Cork or Galway. I am talking of the small farmer's son who comes in to found a family in a small country town and builds up a shop. He is entitled to his livelihood, the same as everybody else. I do not believe in giving him the right to exploit his neighbours but I do not believe in giving his neighbours the right to exploit him. I agree with Deputy Cafferky that the margin of profit was excessive until——

Mr. Cafferky

Can the Deputy explain why it is that a suit that costs £10 in the country will cost £14 in Dublin?

Mr. Dillon

So, having got together all the claims from all Ireland, they called in a group of experienced men in the trade, asked them if they could depend on their absolute discretion, elicited from them a promise, which I have every reason to believe was honourably kept, that they would regard everything they learned in the perusal of these documents as a strict secret. They reviewed everybody's claim and if it was within the bounds of reason and probability they admitted it and any that appeared extravagant were submitted to more close and searching investigation. On that basis they allocated all the available quantities of cloth to the various retailers in the country. Many retailers and I suppose many manufacturers and wholesalers felt they had a grievance, that they did not get their due. Some retailers with whom I am intimately acquainted felt that very strongly but, as the scheme went on working, these persons of whose business I had intimate knowledge, felt that on the whole, comparing what they heard from others, in other places, substantial justice was being done.

Then, a very odd thing happened. It was suddenly discovered that two manufacturers in the whole country, and only two, had received a supplementary allocation of 10,000 square yards. Bear the history of the case in mind. The Minister called in a limited number of responsible figures in the trade, bound them to secrecy and asked them to help in doing substantial justice between all comers. Their personal honour, their integrity and their special knowledge were involved in the question of whether substantial justice was being done or not.

Therefore, if there was to be any wide alteration—we will not bother about marginal changes which might be made necessary by a variety of unforeseen circumstances—but if there was to be any radical change in the allocation between one and another, surely these men should have been consulted and should have been told that there was some incredible oversight, that the datum year in respect of these men was misinterpreted, or that some urgent matter of public policy demanded that there should be a departure from the original arrangement and that if they wished to dissociate themselves publicly from that departure, they would be afforded liberal opportunity to do so. Was such opportunity afforded? Were these men consulted? If they were, what justification was there for taking from the merchants in Clones, Monaghan, Castleblayney, Ballybeg, Carrickmacross, a tithe of their modest allocations to give to two firms 10,000 square yards extra? That is what it meant. The quantity of cloth was limited. Once it was ascertained, it was to be equitably divided in accordance with the formula determined by the method I have described to the House. Once there was a substantial departure from that formula, it had to be taken from somebody else. Why was it just to take 20,000 square yards from the rest and give two units of 10,000 square yards to two firms who, for a protracted period, while the evidence had been examined, counter-examined, and further scrutinised, had been receiving the allocation devised by the first formula and had admitted that it was just? I want an answer to that question, and I intend to pursue that question until I get one.

We note in the newspapers that the British Board of Trade is releasing certain categories of merchandise which heretofore were subject to British Board of Trade licence before they could be exported from that country to this. We are aware that a wide variety of essential materials for the successful prosecution of the agricultural industry are in short supply in this country. I think offhand of buckets, of spades, of, in fact, the main implements manufactured of metal. I want to ask the Minister if it becomes possible for us to get supplies of those commodities from abroad, and if we enter into contractual relations for the delivery of those commodities within a reasonable period over which the shortage emergency can be expected to extend, are those who by their enterprise get such commodities for the people guaranteed against the sudden imposition of tariffs and quotas that would make their ultimate import impossible? I have one item, for instance, in mind. Most farmers in this country remember the immense difficulties of getting iron during recent years—iron for making tyres for carts, iron bars for making shoes for horses. We have been paying in rural Ireland 8d. a lb. for such iron. I can remember a time when it was sold for 1½d. It is now available, albeit in limited quantities, at a price which will permit of its being sold at 3d. a lb. instead of 8d. Are those who are in a position to imports it free to do so in the knowledge that they will be allowed to pass on that benefit to the farming community, or must they enter into contracts for the supplies of that commodity under the sword of Damocles—a tariff of 50/- a cwt. or a quota making the import of the commodity impossible altogether? That is a question which I think the Minister ought to be frank and open in answering, so that those of us who are concerned with getting supplies for the farmers of the country can say to the distributors who ordinarily supply them: "Go boldly ahead in seeking foreign markets to get these supplies that are so badly needed," or "do not attempt it lest at the last moment your efforts should be rendered futile by Government action."

The last question I want to ask is this: Irish Shipping, Limited, is a firm that has been established here for the purchase of boats and the operation of shipping services. A large percentage of the strikingly high prices that have had to be paid for imports brought in here during recent years has been due to the freight charged upon them. Most people imagine that all the ships plying under the Irish registration and flag are owned by Irish Shipping, Limited. That, of course, is not true. A good number of ships are plying under private ownership—under the same owners as before the emergency came upon us, or before Irish Shipping, Limited, had ever been heard of. I want to know from the Minister on what basis was the management of those ships recompensed, because I do not think this House ever heard the basis on which Irish Shipping, Limited, has been operated. People often urge against me that I speak harshly, with a desire to strike the people who are personally inimical to myself. Let me say at once that most of the directors of Irish Shipping, Limited, are men for whom I have the utmost admiration, and some of them are men whose personal friendship I enjoy. But the fact that I like them, the fact that I admire them, does not discharge me from the duty of saying what I deem it to be right to say in Dáil Éireann, whether those who are my friends like it or do not like it. I want to know is it true that Irish Shipping, Limited, owned the ships; that the directors of Irish Shipping, Limited, in fact represented a number of Irish shipping firms; and that each of the firms of which those gentlemen were directors received a contract from Irish Shipping, Limited, under which they managed the ships? While the Minister for Supplies was entitled to get up here and say: "All those gentlemen who are serving Irish Shipping, Limited, are serving without fee or reward", the fact was that, while they got no fee or reward as directors of Irish Shipping, Limited, each one of them was receiving fees on foot of the contract which the firm to which each one of them belonged— the several firms to which they belonged—had with Irish Shipping, Limited, for the management of the ships.

Now, there is nothing scandalous in that. Who more naturally would be asked to manage ships than shippers? Who else in our community could do it? There was nothing wrong, there was nothing shady, there was nothing improper in remunerating people for doing honest work. It is just as proper to remunerate people for managing ships as to remunerate a lawyer for pleading a case or a doctor for curing a patient. But on what basis was that remuneration paid? Why is it that, when quasi public money was involved, we have never been able to elicit in this House what proportion of that quasi public money was going to those who did no more than manage the ships? It was quasi-public money. A great part of the cost of every commodity used by our people and carried on those ships, and a substantial part of the annual subsidy provided by this House for the reduction of the price of wheat, went to defray the freight charges levied by Irish Shipping Limited on the cargoes they brought in here, and those freight charges were in no small measure conditioned by the fees that had to be paid to those responsible for the management of the ships. We know that the bulk of the mountainous charges that were levied in the initial stages of the enterprise were designed to redeem the capital expenditure on the ships in a very short time. We know that, with the development of the marine insurance business on our own and other cargoes, it has been possible out of those profits to reduce the freight charges, but we have never been told, though we have often inquired, what was the basis of the remuneration to those firms whose directors were described by the Minister for Supplies as working for Irish Shipping without fee or reward. That statement in its implications was incorrect. It was in consideration of their being directors that their firms received management contracts. It was in consideration of their firms receiving management contracts that those gentlemen acted as directors of the company and placed their technical knowledge at the disposal of Irish Shipping Limited. What reason is there to suppress the facts-about that transaction? Why cannot this House be told what proportion of the public moneys and the quasi public moneys which were levied in connection with our sea transport operations was made necessary by the fees or commissions paid to the firms who managed the ships for Irish Shipping Limited?

I understand that shortly we will be called upon to pass a Bill abolishing the Ministry of Supplies. In dealing with Fianna Fáil, I am always reluctant even to give praise where praise is due, because magnanimity is a thing which has perished in the soul of the Fianna Fáil Party. If you speak the truth, if you give them the credit, the limited credit that they sometimes earn, instead of an honourable, honest-to God acknowledgment of it, you are liable to get a snarling, impudent rejoinder of the kind for which the Minister for Local Government and Public Health is so notorious.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy deal with the Minister for Supplies?

Seamus Diolún

Tá fhois ag an gCeann Comhairle go n-aithníonn ciaróg ciaróg eile.

An Ceann Comhairle

Níl ach aon chiaróg amháin díobh os comhair an Choiste fá láthair.

Seamus Diolún

Cím sin ach foghlaimíonn siad óna céile uaireanta. I think the Department of Supplies made a great many mistakes in the job they had to do. I think that in the initial stages the officers, doing strange and extremely difficult work, were very often arbitrary and unreasonable. But I am bound to say this, and I came a great deal in contact with the Department of Supplies, that as they grew in experience and maturity in relation to the entirely strange and foreign task they had to do, it seems to me that they approached closer and closer to the degree of efficiency, courtesy and consideration that one could not honestly pretend characterised their operations in the early stages of their career. It has been borne in on me, and I have had a good deal to do with the Department, that, if there were crudities and if there did appear to be, at times, a harsh reluctance to understand the difficulties of those who had to contend with them in the field, it was due more to lack of experience than to indifference to the difficulties which had to be faced.

I know it would be easy to denounce them in unmeasured language and that such a course would probably sound a responsive chord in the hearts of a great many people who collided with them from time to time; but I could not in justice do that. I know that they made egregious errors that we are all aware of. Who will ever forget the Sack Order which prohibited anyone from repairing a sack except in a licensed sack repairers? That meant that if I tore a bag of flour on a nail as it was coming down outside, I would have to pour the flour on the side of the road, send the sack to Dublin to be repaired, bring it back and put the flour in the sack again, because every time I put a stitch in a sack I broke the law. In these circumstances, we broke the law and the Department's face got red, but there was a mutual understanding that we would say no more about it.

On the whole, I am constrained to say to the Minister that he and the men who supported him in the administration of that Department, considering the vast difficulties they had, did a good job. We had to say many rough things about them and a great deal of their virtue is due to the severe chastisement which we have administered in this House from time to time. Bearing in mind the precept of Solomon: "Spare the rod and spoil the child", we have always kept the rod supple on the desk beside us. For that, I have no doubt, the Minister, in his concluding observations, will make graceful acknowledgment. But, one way or another, I am bound to say— although I have had no dealings with the Minister—with regard to the officers of his Department that they have done a phenomenally difficult job in the circumstances in which they found themselves extremely well. It is true that, had they acted earlier in many cases; the work might have been better done. But, recognising their reluctance to set up here the elaborate standards and regulations which obtained in Great Britain and other countries where resources were greater and circumstances different, recognising the deliberately loose type of organisation that, in many cases, circumstances constrained them to adopt, the men upon whose shoulders fell the heaviest portion of the administration served this country with great distinction.

I think it is right, now that their work in that sphere is coming to an end, that those of us who knew then, who know the overwork which was put upon them by circumstances, the sickness that overtook them as the result of their exertions in the public services, and the immensity of the burden that some of them carried—persons who are completely anonymous and whose names can never be known— should place on record our admiration of their efforts. I think I will be forgiven if, as one Deputy who has never spared his censure of the Department of Supplies when he considered it his duty to do so, I say, through the Minister, to those anonymous figures on whose shoulders the main responsibility fell, that, even in our most acidulous criticisms, the magnitude of the difficulty that confronted them was never forgotten. If, as our words trickled to them through the channel of the Minister's person, they sometimes felt that our strictures were unduly harsh, I beg them to rest assured that we spoke harshly because we felt it was our duty to speak harshly, and because we believed and even knew that some of the errors which we demurred to were due to failure to appreciate the true nature of the circumstances. When the circumstances were fully apprehended and appreciated by the Department, almost invariably there was a rational and reasonable approach. With that valedictory observation to public servants to whom this country owes a very substantial debt, I bid a tempered farewell to the Minister's Department.

Deputies Corry and O'Donnell rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Corry.

Mr. O'Donnell

Will Deputy Corry give way to me?

I understand that there is likely to be a slight improvement in the railway services in the near future, and I hear a rumour about fast trains to Dublin. I suggest that a little of the generosity should be thrown in the way of the ordinary country people. There is a pretty long road from Cork down to Youghal, and neither a train nor a bus plies there during the whole of Sunday, which means that people who have families living in Cork, and who would like to come to see them on the only day they have free cannot travel up to the city. I suggest that a little improvement in the railway services there would be important and might be done with far less wastage of coal than an extra trip to Dublin. I also suggest that something be done regarding travelling facilities to Cóbh, where the self-same thing prevails. A man can arrive at Cóbh at 8 o'clock in the morning, but he cannot leave until 5 in the evening. If he comes in on Saturday there is no means of getting out of Cóbh until Monday morning. It would be only fair that the Minister make a little change there also. It must be remembered that Cork people, like Dublin people, desire to get out of the city on a Sunday, and a train both to Cóbh and Youghal, especially now during the summer, would be a big improvement. It would be better than the supplementary service to Dublin in three hours that we hear all the talk about, and it would take less coal.

I would like to refer to the work of the Minister's Department generally. I can be as critical as the next man, if I am put to it. It was an amazing Department, built up in a very short time and, on behalf of the farming community, I want to pay this tribute to it—that it was the best-run Department in the State. I say that here honestly, as one who knows the difficulties that prevailed and the manner in which they had to be met. I found that, every time I went over to the Department with a case which I was looking up, the officials had it at their finger-ends and knew all about it, including the amount of stuff the man was entitled to get—and he got that. I had to go over there pretty frequently at times, particularly in connection with kerosene for tractors and during the harvesting period. I always found that, where a man had dealt honestly with the Department, the Department dealt honestly with him. I would like to pay the Department that tribute.

I have a certain amount of difficulty in connection with canvas for binders and would like the Minister to be a little bit more generous. A great proportion of farmers' work in that line previously was done by the local shoemaker and harnessmaker. Usually, in the month of July, the canvases were sent on to him and he patched them up, and I suggest that canvas should be supplied definitely to those local harnessmakers for that purpose. That is one of the snags I find in the job.

Regarding machinery, I do not know what quantities it may be possible to bring in, but I know that we have need of all we can get. Our trouble is with regard to threshers, to which Deputy Morrissey alluded to-day. A very considerable quantity of grain undoubtedly is being lost every harvest because the grain is not being properly threshed. It is going into straw and chaff, as some of the new machines that are coming in are absolutely unable to deal with it. I move to report progress.

Progress reported, the Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 21st June, 1945.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 20 Jun 1945

Committee on Finance. - Vote 68—Supplies.

Mr. Morrissey

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Jun 1945