Deputy Morrissey stated that he tabled the motion to refer back the Estimate, mainly on the ground that he considered the Department of Industry and Commerce too large to be properly supervised by one Minister. It would, I think, be a serious ground of criticism if it were proposed to concentrate in one Department, as a permanent arrangement, a wider range of functions than one Minister could possibly keep track of. That is not the case so far as the Department of Industry and Commerce is concerned.
In the first place, the House will remember that the Taoiseach announced his intention at some stage to constitute a new Ministry, which would have responsibility for the administration of income-maintenance services. To that new Ministry, when established, will be transferred the administration of employment exchanges, and services that are associated therewith, the employment insurance services, and the employment assistance services, together with the minor services which are also carried on through the exchanges, such as the recruitment of labour for harvest work, and the special register of turf workers. On the establishment of that new Ministry, the Department of Industry and Commerce will also lose responsibility for the children's allowances scheme and food allowances, so that quite a substantial block of work, at present carried on through the Department of Industry and Commerce, will be transferred from it when the changes foreshadowed by the Taoiseach are carried into effect. Secondly, a large part of the work of the Department is concerned with emergency conditions, which will end when emergency conditions end.
The House will remember that there were two Departments, the Department of Industry and Commerce, the permanent organisation, and the Department of Supplies, the temporary organisation set up for the duration of the war to handle the supply problems which arose during the war. Originally, both Departments were under separate Ministers, but, after some experience of that arrangement, the Taoiseach decided that the two Departments should be administered by the same Minister. Instead of giving that Minister more work to do by making him responsible for both Departments, a great deal of unnecessary work was avoided, because, during the period when they were two separate Departments in the charge of two separate Ministers, a large part of the time of each Minister was occupied in keeping his administration in step with the administration of the other, and uniformity of administration was immensely facilitated when one Minister was placed in charge of both Departments.
With the termination of the war and the gradual termination of emergency difficulties, the device of amalgamating the two Departments was adopted, and, although it is true that many of the functions which were formerly discharged by the Department of Supplies have still to be carried on under the Department of Industry and Commerce, these functions will tend to diminish, and it would be clearly undesirable and impracticable at present to make any arrangement of a purely temporary character, because it would have to be such, merely to relieve the pressure upon the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the senior officers of his Department. I think, therefore, that, while Deputy Morrissey might legitimately complain if there was a proposal to have as a permanent arrangement too many functions charged to one Minister, there is not the same room for criticism when it is a purely temporary arrangement and is in fact the most practicable arrangement in all the circumstances.
When introducing the Estimate, I referred to the matters with which I thought the Dáil would be most immediately concerned. I avoided references to matters which were before the House in connection with legislation in the recent past, or which were likely to come before the House in the near future on Bills to be introduced. Some Deputies, however, have complained that I did not make special reference to some matters. One of these was the development of a merchant marine service. Many of the Deputies who spoke of the development of a merchant marine service indicated, however, that they have no conception whatever of the problems that are involved in that connection.
It is easy enough to talk of an Irish merchant marine, but the first fact we must get accepted generally in the Dáil, if we are going to do anything at all along that line, is that we cannot run a merchant marine on sentiment. A merchant marine service is in competition with every country in the world which is operating ships on the high seas. We cannot protect it; we cannot get it trade by means of customs duties or quota arrangements. It has to go out and get its trade in competition with the rest of the world, and no amount of sentiment will get it trade, not even from Irish shippers, if its performance is less efficient or its charges higher than those of any competing service.
After the last war, some years after, there was a shipping slump. Deputy Corry, who spoke recently of Cobh, will remember, as any other Deputy who visited Cobh during that period will remember, the hundreds of ships which were tied up in Cobh Harbour, which were rusting there and which could have been bought for their scrap value. Many a country which had attempted to organise a merchant marine service on a basis of sentiment or on a basis of wishful thinking had its ships and its flag prominent in Cobh Harbour during that period and in other harbours throughout the world, where similar lines of ships were anchored permanently, until the ship-breakers got hold of them and broke them up for scrap. If we are to go into the merchant shipping business now, we must face the prospect that we will meet severe competition at some stage and that we cannot hope to win through against that competition, unless we start on right lines. We hope to start on right lines.
Irish Shipping Limited was organised during the war. It did a good job during the war. It is still carrying the bulk of the commerce of this country. At the present time, it is operating approximately 10 ships and it is operating them at competitive freights on deep-sea voyages and making considerable profit out of its business. During last year it made a profit of £638,000 on its shipping business and £232,000 on its marine under-writing business. It is therefore in a strong position to face the task of getting its service on to a peacetime footing and equipped to meet the competition which will arise in peace time. It can only do that by getting ships as good as those which anybody else is operating, managing these ships as well as anybody else is managing them and at a cost which will enable it to quote the same freight charges as other people can quote.
We cannot buy ships easily now. So far as getting ships built is concerned, Irish Shipping Limited have been endeavouring to get orders accepted in various dockyards throughout the world for the construction of ships of the kind they want. Quite rightly, they decided that they will not be rushed into buying ships of a kind they do not want. There is some possibility of acquiring ships already built in the United States and inquiries are being pursued in that quarter. I think, however, that the management of Irish Shipping Limited are quite right in their view that it is unwise to be stampeded now into expending money upon ships which are not suitable for the type of trade in which they propose to engage and which will not be as economical of operation and as satisfactory in performance as ships they may acquire subsequently. It does not matter if we lose a year or two in adding to our fleet, provided that, when the fleet has been built up, it will be able to maintain itself in normal conditions, and in normal conditions it will have to meet very severe competition.
The ships of the Irish merchant marine will not necessarily be engaged in the Irish trade. One of the reasons why Irish private enterprise was never able successfully to maintain itself in shipping to Irish ports was the abnormal nature of the trade of this country. The bulk of our exports went to Great Britain, whereas a large part of our imports came from overseas countries. The ships, therefore, engaged on regular services to Irish ports from overseas countries could not be certain of getting return cargoes from our harbours and therefore had to seek the return cargoes elsewhere, or travel light, which was an unprofitable business. If, therefore, we are to build up a merchant marine service, it must be prepared to engage in trade wherever it can get trade. At present, Irish Shipping Limited is operating regular services, that is to say, services which are announced in advance and on the reliability of which shippers can depend, between Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, and New York, Norfolk, Montreal, St. John's, Gothenburg and Oslo. It is also engaged in the tramp business and ordinarily it is in the tramp business that Irish merchant ships will be able to find occupation and profit.
I assume that Deputies understand what I mean by that term. It is, perhaps, best illustrated by the present occupation of the Irish Beech, one of the ships of Irish Shipping, Limited, which is now taking a cargo of Irish gypsum to Denmark. When it has unloaded the cargo of gypsum in Denmark it will proceed to Gdynia for a cargo of coal. Having loaded the cargo of coal at Gdynia, it will proceed with that cargo of coal to Finland. At Finland, having discharged its cargo of coal, it will load a cargo of pit props for Great Britain. On arrival in Great Britain it will unload its cargo of pit props and it will there take on a cargo of coal for delivery here.
That is the type of tramp trade which ensures that the ship is occupied at every stage of the journey and is earning money at every stage of the journey; and if, by good management, ships can be kept fully occupied then profits will be earned. It they have to travel light, or in ballast, then losses will be incurred. We cannot at the present time enable our ships to engage freely in any trade that may be available to them. We have abolished many of the controls that were necessary during war-time and, in the case of the Atlantic route, the only controls remaining are very nominal controls indeed; but for the present, at any rate until shipping conditions become easier, we have to make sure that the services of Irish ships, which are essential to the requirements of the Irish people, will be available, but subject to that overriding consideration the company has been allowed to get business in competition, and to carry on as an ordinary commercial enterprise would.
Let me make it clear that, although Irish Shipping, Ltd., is a Government company, in the sense that it was promoted by Government and the capital originally provided by the Government, it is not intended that it should have any monopoly in shipping, and there are other privately owned Irish shipping companies on the development of which we are also relying for the expansion of the Irish merchant marine. It may be that other private interests will come into shipping business here and we shall welcome them into it; and the development of a merchant marine must not be regarded solely as a Government concern. It is not intended that it should be solely a Government concern. If it is to be developed successfully, not merely must the enterprise of the Government be backed by the enterprise of individuals but there must be, of course, the fullest co-operation from Irish traders, Irish merchants, Irish importers, and of Irish seamen and officers upon whose efficiency and capacity to work the success of the whole enterprise will ultimately depend.
Many Deputies referred to the trade agreement which was made in 1938 between this country and Great Britain. Deputy Dockrell assumed that we would be glad to make another agreement with the British Government now. I do not think he is quite right in that assumption. The trade agreement of 1938 is largely inoperative and it is inoperative because its provisions do not apply to present trading conditions. Any Deputy who procures a copy of the agreement and reads it to refresh his memory will understand what I mean. That agreement was made at a time when the British Government and ourselves were each afraid that the other would want to sell them too much goods. We were afraid the British would want to sell us too many of their products and the British were afraid that we would sell them too many of ours. Trading circumstances have now entirely changed. Our difficulty in trade negotiations with Britain now is to secure, in our interest, undertakings to supply specified quantities of the goods we need and the British interest, on the other hand, is to increase the outflow of foodstuffs from this country to supply their needs. I do not think it is desirable to negotiate on a permanent basis a new trade agreement with Great Britain, or any other country, until it is possible to foresee with greater certainty what future trading conditions will be like.
Deputy Mulcahy referred to the fact that Great Britain and some of the Dominion Governments were consulting on trade matters and inquired if we had any information as to what these Governments were discussing. Without getting any official intimation it is easy enough to guess what they are discussing. There is a proposal, which originated from the British and American negotiations over the recent loan agreement, to hold an international trade conference next year— an international trade conference which, according to those who are promoting it, will have for one of its primary purposes the abolition of trade preferences. A large part of the trade between Great Britain and the Dominion countries is based upon Imperial preference; and it requires no great wisdom to deduce that what these Commonwealth Governments are discussing at the present time is the attitude they are going to take when faced with a demand for the abolition of Imperial preference.
The 1938 Agreement between ourselves and Great Britain also provides for preferences. We undertook to give British products admitted here, subject to duty, preferential treatment. When a duty is in operation the rate applicable to British goods is lower than the rate applicable to similar goods of other origin. Similarly, the British undertook to give our products certain preferences in Great Britain. It was not so much that our agricultural goods were entitled to get entry into Britain free of duty—that was a considerable advantage in 1938 —but the British also undertook to give them certain preferences there. All these provisions relating to the circumstances of 1938 do not relate to present circumstances. When the British Government set up central buying organisations and decided that "the sole buyer of eggs, the sole buyer of butter, and the sole buyer of bacon and other agricultural produce would be one or other of organisations which were established and which pay whatever prices are decided upon after negotiating or bargaining" then, of course, all treaty provisions for preferences and entry free of customs duty became meaningless. There is no point in having a right of free entry for our products into Great Britain, or a preference over the products of other countries, when a central buying organisation there decides how much they will buy and what they will pay for it. It is no longer a free market and clearly it would be undesirable to negotiate now a new trade agreement with Great Britain as a permanent arrangement until the nature of the circumstances in which trade can be carried on in Great Britain permanently is known. What we require to get at the present time, and what we have been discussing with the British in relation to that trade agreement, is such modification of its existing terms as will remove any difficulties that will arise in present circumstances and particularly permit us to facilitate the development of production here in order to meet deficiencies in our supply which cannot be met by imports from Great Britain or elsewhere. There are some of the provisions of the agreement which are temporarily inconvenient. I have no doubt whatever that it will be possible under the terms of the agreement itself to get those provisions modified to an extent necessary to meet our position. I doubt if it is wise for us to attempt to negotiate a permanent agreement and I doubt if the British Government would be willing to negotiate such an agreement until the general position in relation to world trade is clarified and until the outcome of this international conference, with particular reference to preferential tariffs, is known.
In connection with trade negotiations, Deputy Cogan suggested that we should have consultation with manufacturing interests, before concluding agreements. I think it is just as well that this matter has been raised because many statements have been made in relation to it which do not appear to me to be commonsense. It is obviously desirable that manufacturing interests, or agricultural interests, or other interests that are concerned with the provisions in trade agreements with other countries, should have opportunity of putting forward their views and getting their views examined. The manufacturing interests of this country have that opportunity now; but there would appear to be amongst the manufacturers' organisation some members who seem to think that, not merely are they entitled to have an opportunity of submitting their views but that no treaty should be made which they do not like or of which they do not approve. That is a different issue altogether. We cannot make trade agreements with Great Britain, or any other country, entirely in the form we want them to be. Every trade agreement is the result of negotiation. Every provision of the agreement is the result of bargaining.
While the object of any delegations sent over from this country to negotiate a new agreement must be to make the best possible bargain, clearly, they cannot just dictate the terms of every section of the agreement and get those sections accepted without question by the other side. In the negotiation of the Agreement of 1938 there were some provisions that the negotiators on behalf of this country accepted reluctantly. Some manufacturers here did not like them.
But, that treaty should not be considered solely in relation to these provisions. The other provisions of the agreement must also be taken into account. The purpose of the negotiators is to make an agreement which on the whole serves the national interest. The agreement we made in 1938 got us back the ports, ended the land annuities dispute, secured the abolition of all the discriminatory duties upon Irish goods exported to Great Britain, gave the prospect of a revival of prosperity to agriculture, ensured the stability of Irish industry.
These advantages secured by us must be put against the provisions of the agreement which the British Government desired and which were inserted therein during the course of the negotiations. I have no doubt that when we come down to negotiate new trade agreements with Great Britain or with other countries with which we have mutual trading interests, we will very frequently find ourselves up against a point at which we will have to decide whether a particular provision which the other party wants is so deterimental to our interests that we should make no agreement at all, or have to accept provisions that we would prefer to have deleted from the draft in consideration of the fact that the treaty, or proposed treaty, as a whole was to our advantage.
Deputy Cogan also referred to the case of Solus Teoranta, a company in County Dublin, which began the manufacture of domestic glassware during the war. I am referring to this case, not because I want to bring in reference to an individual company but because there is an issue which arises out of the case made on behalf of that company on which the Dáil must make up its mind. This company began the manufacture of domestic glassware by what is known as the hand-blowing process. In other words, the manufacture was undertaken by people who blow glasses individually in the same manner as glasses were made hundreds and thousands of years ago. The glasses that were produced were reasonably good, but they were dear. Domestic glasses which sell very cheap can be produced by mechanical methods and these glasses were imported in large numbers before the war and are becoming available again. Their prices are well below the prices of the glasses produced by this Irish concern and they are the type that is normally used in the worker's house or in refreshment places, where breakages are very frequent and the costs of replacement are heavy. As I understand, the suggestion put forward on behalf of this company is that such a tariff should be imposed upon imported glasses, or such other prohibition on their import brought into effect, that the people here would be denied the opportunity of getting cheap glasses and compelled to buy the dearer glasses produced at Bray.
First of all, let me say that no tariff, except some tariff of a fantastic height, would achieve the result. The tariff would have to be 200 or 300 per cent. and, clearly, what the proprietors of this concern have in mind is quantitative restriction of imports. I do not believe in it. I think it would be bad business. I think it would be bad business because it would be unfair to the public to compel them to buy a much dearer commodity, even though it may be of better quality, when they prefer to have the lower grade at a cheaper cost. Furthermore, I think it is a complete fallacy for the proprietors of that concern to assume, having examined our trade statistics and learning that so many thousands of dozens of glasses were imported annually—glasses at this low price—that the same number of glasses will be purchased annually if the price is two or three times as high. I think that is completely fallacious. The third reason why I would not be prepared to go upon the representations I have received in this case is that I am not convinced that the mechanical process cannot be successfully established here and glasses produced, for consumption here or for export, as cheap as they are being imported and as good as they are being imported.
If there is another reason why I view this application rather doubtfully it is that it has been put forward for my consideration, not on its merits as a business proposition, but by means of political pressure of one kind and another. The case is made in the Dáil, the case is made in the local authorities and by various political organisations, that I am in some way prejudiced against this concern. I have always found that when a case for a protective duty was turned down on its merits or when somebody wanted to get some industrial advantage which he did not believe he could support by arguments relating to its business merits, first of all. I got resolutions from the local Fianna Fáil club; if that did not work I got resolutions from the local Fine Gael club and, if that did not work, from the local Labour club. I always had reason to believe that when political pressure was turned on there was something wrong with the proposition as a business proposition and, in cases of this kind, it is only the business merits of the proposition with which we should be concerned.
I do not think it is true to say that the statement I made here in introducing the Estimate represents any change in the policy of the Government in relation to industrial development. I certainly did not intend to convey that there was any change. We recognise that circumstances are now different from what they were before the war. Deputy Mulcahy quoted some writer in a trade journal who stated that my declaration meant that the tariff policy of this State was now back to where it was 20 years ago. He himself did not agree that that was an accurate description of it. I tried to make it quite clear that we do not intend to adopt, and do not agree with any proposal that we should adopt, the device of prior examination of tariff applications by a tariff commission or any similar body whatsoever. I explained in my introductory speech the procedure which the Government consider most suited to our circumstances. We recognise, however, that the circumstances that existed before the war no longer exist. Before the war, other countries were fighting for export markets by every device they could apply. Goods were dumped here. Goods were consistently and regularly sold for export at prices lower than they were sold in the home markets of the countries of their origin. Currencies were juggled around to get advantage in export trade and for many years before the war foreign goods were reaching this country at prices which were well below the cost of their economic production here or even the cost of their economic production in the countries from which they came. Japanese goods in those years were delivered here at prices, at our ports, which were less than the freight charges involved in shipping them here. These circumstances required abnormal protective measures to develop Irish industry and abnormal protective measures were in fact applied. Such circumstances will not exist again for many years. They certainly do not exist now and the degree of protection which was required to stimulate industrial development before the war is no longer necessary.
As I told the Dáil, many of the new industrial propositions which have reached my Department in the past few months have been put forward by firms that do not contemplate that they will require any protection of that kind whatever, except at some future stage, if the international trade conference to be held does not succeed in regularising international trading practices and dumping should again be resorted to. I indicated the circumstances, however, in which the Government would be prepared to afford protection for new industries and in such circumstances the level of protection would be that which in the individual case was regarded as necessary, subject to subsequent review when the industry has become established, when its initial difficulties have been overcome, when its workers have been trained and its machinery run in and when it should be capable of working to a higher degree of efficiency than might be possible in its earlier years.
Some Deputies talked about the growth of State intervention in business. If they are basing their argument on the experience of war years, they are, obviously, upon fallacious ground. During the war and because of the war, the Government had necessarily to take control over the distribution and supply of commodities that normally it would not have interfered with at all. Its controls were occasioned by scarcity, and were designed to protect the public interest in circumstances of scarcity. These controls will disappear as soon as the scarcity ends. I noticed, however, that many Deputies who deplored the growth of what they described as State intervention in business were at the same time the very Deputies who wanted to put upon the Government responsibility for the manner in which industry would develop, and to hold it to account if things were not happening on the lines that they regarded as desirable. Deputy Cosgrave, for example, who referred to this growth of State intervention in business, spoke strongly, logically and sensibly about the desirability of distributing new industrial concerns around the country rather than allowing them to be concentrated at Dublin or in the other larger cities. But, again, Deputies cannot have it both ways. If the Government is to have power to require a manufacturer to put his factory in one place rather than in another, it can only be through some device which, undoubtedly, Deputies would describe as State interference with business.
At the present time the Government can attach a location condition to a new industrial project only if it is financed, in the main, by foreign capital—in other words, is a concern that requires a licence under the Control of Manufactures Act—or if the concern requires some concession from the Government in the form of a protective duty, a trade loan guarantee or some other assistance of that kind. Any Irish citizen, or any Irish company in which the majority of the capital is owned by Irish citizens, undertaking a new enterprise in an industry which is already protected by a tariff, or for which no tariff is required, can put that factory where it likes, and the Government cannot stop it. If, therefore, there is a case to be made for intervention by the Government in regard to industry to ensure its suitable location in different parts of the country, additional powers will have to be obtained. I do not think that we should get these additional powers. I am in favour of keeping additional powers to interfere with industry at the minimum. We have endeavoured to secure the industrial pattern that we have, by advocacy and by persuasion. I raise the matter here at this stage so that Deputies will not themselves follow illogically two parallel lines, for two parallel lines, as we are told by the experts, will never meet. Deputies cannot possibly reconcile their dislike of the Government interfering with business with their desire to put upon the Government responsibility for securing industrial conditions that they think most suitable.
Deputy O'Leary also referred to the wages paid in certain industrial occupations. The Deputy has some association with the trade union movement. Deputies must make up their minds as to whether or not they want the Government to take on the regulation of the level of wages in industry. If Deputies say that industrial wages are to be left to negotiation between employers in industry and the trade union movement, then they should not blame the Government for the level of wages that operates. On the other hand, if they want to put on the Government the responsibility for regulating the level of wages in industrial occupations then, clearly, the Government must have the job alone and cannot have other people coming in at the same time to discharge the same function.
I think there is a lot to be said for both courses, but up to the present the Government has taken the line that except in the case of certain occupations which have been made subject to the supervision of trade boards, it has no concern to fix minimum rates in any occupation, and prefers to leave the determination of rates to be settled by free negotiation between organised workers and organised employers. Questions of policy in that regard will, no doubt, be considered again in connection with new legislation in the near future.
Many Deputies were critical of the system of price control. I think, however, that their criticism was based on a misunderstanding of the functions of price control. Price control during the war was designed to ensure that prices did not rise unnecessarily. It was not the purpose of price control to prevent prices rising at all. It was merely to ensure that in the circumstances in which prices were bound inevitably to rise no unnecessary addition to prices became operative because of the desire of traders to make unduly high profits. Clothing prices went up during the war, and went up considerably. I would not agree that there is, in the manufacture or distribution of clothing, any undue profit-taking. Let me say that here and there retail traders in drapery goods have been showing that they earned substantial profits during the course of a trading year. They are working, however, under restricted margins. The price at which goods are to be sold is marked by the manufacturer whose gross or nett profit is limited by an arrangement with my Department, and that price contains only fixed margins of profit for the wholesaler and retailer. These margins have been progressively reduced as and when it appeared justifiable to reduce them. Whereas, normally, the wholesaler and retailer could work profitably only upon certain margins, in the abnormal circumstances of the present time a smaller margin can be justified because all goods are now saleable, and saleable quickly. The trader is no longer running the risk of carrying unsaleable stock which might lie on his shelves for years before being disposed of at a loss. With the present scarcity, stock can be turned over quickly, as fast indeed as it can be procured from the manufacturers, so that the risk of loss from bad stocks is considerably reduced. Consequently, a lower margin of profit is justified, and a lower margin of profit has been enforced.
Clothing prices are high because the cost of making the goods is high. We produce wool in this country. Deputy Cogan and his colleagues in the Farmers' Party want me to keep up the price of wool. The price of wool tended to fall from the highest level reached during the war, and there is already an agitation on behalf of wool producers that the price of wool should be kept up. It is already double what it was pre-war, and during recent years has been substantially above the world price. We have got to buy cloth, and the materials for making cloth, from other countries at abnormally high prices. I have, in fact, frequently considered whether it was altogether desirable that we should permit the import of clothing and the materials for making clothes at the high prices that we have to pay for them. Let me give the case of boots. Boots had come in from America at appallingly high prices— at practically double the price at which home-produced boots are being sold, quality for quality. There are not enough home-produced boots to-day, and the question is, should we, or should we not, allow these American boots or shoes to come in. Even though they are dear, they will be sold. There is a scarcity of boots. They helped to make good the deficiency in our supply but they also stepped up the cost-of-living index figure. Their importation meant that the all-over average cost of footwear was higher than it would have been if they had not come in. If there were no boots coming in from America, the average price would be lower but the supply would be less. The same applies to other articles.
In the case of cotton, we purchased substantial quantities of cotton piecegoods in South America. The price was fantastic compared with the pre-war price, but no other source of supply of cotton goods was open to us. The supply of cotton goods from Great Britain is negligible. The supply of cotton yarn for the manufacture of goods here is insignificant. It was only by going across the Atlantic and taking up cotton goods wherever we could find them and at any price at which they could be obtained that we kept up the supply, but the result was to raise the index number of clothing prices. We could have kept the index figure down by excluding these imported products, but the total supply available would have been very much less than it has been.
Deliberately, during the war, we decided that we would so manage our supply of raw materials that we would keep every factory open. I came to the Dáil and asked if Deputies agreed with that policy. Nobody disagreed with it. We could have adopted another policy. We could have taken the available supplies of raw materials and concentrated them in the smallest number of factories, working these full time. It would have been cheaper to do that. The ultimate cost would have been much less. But a number of workers would have been disemployed. A number of firms would have been put out of business. But that policy would have resulted in cheaper goods. We decided that it was more important to keep the maximum number of people in employment and the maximum number of concerns in business than to keep down prices. I came to the Dáil on more than one occasion and informed Deputies of the alternative policies. I told them the policy which the Government proposed to adopt and nobody disagreed. We appealed to employers to keep in their service, during the war, workers whose services they did not really require—a number of workers greater than the number required for the economic working of their factories. Many employers did that. Again, the policy behind those appeals was not, so far as I know, criticised or disapproved by any organised party in the country. The net result of that policy was that prices were higher than they otherwise would have been. We can still change our policy. In the case of boots and shoes, for example, we can take the available supply of leather and work some boot factories on the basis of maximum output, closing down others and keeping the prices down. We could do that with cotton piece goods or other cloth-making materials. Does any Deputy think that that would be good policy? It would put a large number of workers out of employment. It would put some firms, who are trying to get into their stride for post-war operation, out of commission for the time being. I do not think that it would be good policy. It is unsatisfactory to have prices higher than they would otherwise be but I think that the balance of advantage is in favour of pursuing the line we have adopted.
Deputies have said that our clothing prices are high compared with those of other countries. Complaints were made about the cost of a suit of clothes. But a suit which may cost 12, 13 or 14 guineas here will cost much more elsewhere. In Great Britain, they had utility clothes—standard garments produced in the cheapest possible way—and, in that way, they kept their index figure down. We could not proceed to the production of utility goods here because we had not the basic materials and we had not that regularity of supply which would enable utility goods to be turned out. We could not have standardised any type of production and been certain of maintaining that standard output for any period. Britain could do that and Britain has kept the average cost of her clothing supplies down by means of these utility products. But, quality for quality, a garment will cost more in Great Britain than it will cost here. That does not apply to all classes of goods. It does not apply to cotton. Great Britain has a great cotton industry, which we have not. Britain's cotton industry is producing goods to the maximum level at the present time. Our cotton industry is practically dependent upon spasmodic supplies of high-priced yarns from any place from which they can be procured —in the future, probably from Belgium. Our import of cotton yarn from Great Britain is two per cent. of our pre-war imports from that country. That position applies to other classes of products and it is attributable to a wide variety of circumstances. I was referring to production costs. The incidence of purchase tax tends still further to adjust the position in our favour. There is no reason why that should be left out of account. The fact that taxation is lower here than it is in Great Britain is also an advantage to us.
Deputies spoke about the price of oranges. We tried to ensure that oranges would be sold at a maximum price. The only people who succeeded in defying that Order for a time were street traders. Deputies spoke as if whatever black market existed in oranges was due to the machinations of relatively well-off people who concered supplies which poorer people would have got. That is nonsense. There were fixed prices in the shops and the only people who defied the Order were street traders, who were not selling to the wealthy people to whom Deputies referred. Many of these traders were prosecuted and others are to be prosecuted.
Out of consideration for them, I deliberately took measures to divert to the street traders a larger proportion of the total supply than they might otherwise have obtained. The result was that they had supplies when the supplies of the ordinary traders were exhausted and they took advantage of that to charge excessive prices. Apart from the prosecution of offenders, the situation can be adjusted in relation to future supplies by restricting the supply to those traders to the same proportion as traders of any other class. There are no other matters to which I desire to make special reference except a few matters of detail. Some Deputies referred to general questions which will be under discussion here when one or other of the new Bills to which I referred comes before the House. Therefore, I shall not refer to them.
As regards the meteorological services, I was asked why it was not possible to give more adequate general weather forecasts to the farmers. We do not give weather forecasts at present. I am in favour of instituting such a service but it will take some time before the highly-skilled staff required for a general weather forecasting service will be available. At present, our general weather forecasts are supplied by the British forecasting service. We have got to build up this highly-skilled service gradually and one of the most difficult parts of it, I understand, is the forecasting of general weather conditions. We shall undertake that service at some stage but we are not yet in a position to do so.
Deputy Brady spoke about the new pier at Killybegs. I am anxious that the pier should be constructed. The works involved there include something more than the dismantling of the present old jetty and its replacement by a reinforced jetty. There is also the provision of a transit shed and the dredging of the berthage at each side of the jetty. The matter has been under consideration by an inter-Departmental Committee, and I can promise the Deputy that a decision on their recommendation will be taken in the very near future. I think, subject to agreement with the harbour commissioners as to the amount the harbour commissioners will contribute to the cost of the works, it should be possible to authorise the Board of Works to proceed with this scheme at a fairly early date.
Wexford Harbour is a different proposition altogether. The issue that arises in connection with Wexford is not so much the question of a contribution. It is to decide what type of harbour works will prevent the silting up of the harbour which has been taking place. That is an engineering task of very considerable difficulty. The only thing I can say to the commissioners is that if they produce a scheme for the development of the harbour which will bring new trade to the harbour, and which is sound from an engineering point of view, and if they can get the local authorities to make some contribution to the cost of the scheme, a Government grant for a substantial portion of the cost will also be forthcoming. In the case of maintenance grants which are available for small harbours at present, there are some conditions attached. Maintenance grants can be given only for essential maintenance where the revenue of the harbour, through emergency circumstances, has fallen so low that essential maintenance cannot be undertaken.
