It is strange that Deputy Morrissey should raise that matter just at a time when we read in the newspapers that 60 turf workers employed by the Tipperary County Council in the Killenaule area are on strike against the action of the council in reducing the rates for piece-work from 8d. per cubic yard to 6d. per cubic yard. Before I should repudiate these people, I should like to know the background of that strike. If the county council were justified in paying 8d. per cubic yard to their turf workers last year, I should like to hear some very good reasons as to why that figure should be reduced this year to 6d. because the cost of living has increased appreciably since last year. Deputy Morrissey when he speaks again can give us something of the background of that particular strike. So far as I can judge, these lightning strikes were directed more against leaders or particular individuals than against anybody else. They are certainly to be regretted and, as far as I am concerned, I shall exercise any little influence I possess in my own constituency to prevent them.
The Minister gave us a very elaborate and lengthy exposition of the activities of the huge Department over which he presides in connection with most of the matters with which Deputies are concerned. One thing I like about the Department of Industry and Commerce is the energy of the Minister. I certainly do not agree with many aspects of Ministerial policy but I have to admit that the Minister is an extremely hard worker and that he is extremely well informed in regard to the detailed activities of the biggest and most difficult Department under the control of the Government of this country. I must also say that he freely gives to members of the House in answers to Parliamentary questions any information which they desire and, generally speaking, satisfactory answers.
Apart from the particular matter with which I am concerned in the amendment which stands in my name, I should like to deal with a couple of other matters referred to by the Minister or matters affecting the administration of the Department. The Minister in his explanatory statement referred to his recent decision, at the request of Córas Iompair Éireann, to increase rates and fares. He has admitted, by the public advertisement signed by the secretary of his Department, and here to-day, that he has sanctioned a proposal of Córas Iompair Éireann for that purpose. It is to be deeply regretted that the Minister has decided to take such action, especially in view of his own action last year at the request of the same company, in sanctioning a reduction in fares and rates. The Minister is aware that since the establishment of Córas Iompair Éireann a huge number of what are known as exceptional rates have been wiped out, exceptional rates that gave a fillip to the development of industry and agriculture and which provided a cheap means of transit for raw material or for bulk traffic of a kind that could not bear heavy rates. I cannot understand for the life of me why the Minister sanctioned these recent increases. I do not understand either the language of the advertisement which appeared in the daily papers last week without any signature and which should have been signed by some executive officer. They indicated the very peculiar nature of these increases by mentioning an increase of 20 per cent. "or thereabouts". I never heard the word "thereabouts" associated with such a proposal before and I should like to know the meaning of the insertion of the word "thereabouts".
I dare say it can be covered up by the advertisement which appeared in a more recent issue of the papers signed by Mr. John Leydon, Secretary of the Department. Mr. Leydon says in that advertisement that they had received a request from Córas Iompair Éireann for an Order to alter the maximum railway charges and that public notice of the application was given by the company on the 6th and 13th March. He then goes on to say:
"Having considered all representations made to him in the matter by interested parties, the Minister on the 11th April, 1947, made an Order entitled the Transport Act, 1944, (Alteration of Maximum Railway Charges) Order, 1947. This Order authorises an increase in the maximum railway charges of the company. The Order will be published in due course and copies may be obtained from the Government Publications Sales Office, 3 College Street, Dublin."
I wonder when. I know it is very difficult to get a copy of these Orders long after they are supposed to be available. However, I think these proposed increases in railway charges and passenger rates are going to have a considerable effect on the community as a whole. They are going to increase the cost of living and to help to reduce the price paid to the farmer, for instance, for live stock. This 20 per cent. increase in charges for the transport of the raw material for agriculture is not justified. Is there any country in the world where the Government has any control over the transport system, where that transport system does not give preferential rates for the carriage of raw materials for agriculture or for industry and, by so doing, keeps down the cost of living? The charges are to be raised in this country and they will continue at this high level until such a time as the railway services are restored to normal conditions.
I wonder how many Deputies realise the cost of carrying live stock by road as compared with carriage by rail. I have a case here under my notice in the last few days, which will disclose to the average Deputy the ridiculously high charges made by Córas Iompair Eireann for carrying live stock by road as against rail, and there is to be an increase of 20 per cent. in these charges, both by rail and road. In this case, 26 cattle were put into two road service lorries in Ennis a few days ago—13 in each lorry. What was the cost of carrying these cattle by road? It was £33 for 26 small beasts which could have been carried in less than two railway wagons at a charge of £6 17s. 4d. per wagon from Ennis to North Wall as against £16 7s. 6d. per lorry by road. In addition, the invoice has the ridiculous remark: "Plus additional charge of 7/6 per half-hour for delays involved in loading and unloading." I wonder will the farmer Deputies or any farmers' organisation they know of say they made any protest against the proposed increase, apart altogether from the fact that the rates at present are excessive and an imposition on the farmers.
The Minister now proposes to increase by 20 per cent. the existing rates for carriage by road and rail when he knows perfectly well—if he does not the Minister for Agriculture will tell him, and, if neither of them knows it, the farmers will tell them—that this additional impost will mean a lower price for the farmer's cattle. At the same time, the same Minister recently authorised an increase in the price of fresh meat, so that we have these two things practically at the same time—a reduction in the price to the farmer for his cattle and an increase in the price to be paid in future by the average consumer of fresh meat. It is an upside-down policy, and one which clearly reveals itself as a policy leading to increase in the cost of living and further impositions on the producer in favour of the middle-man, even if the middle-man in this case includes Córas Iompair Éireann.
I could quote many other glaring cases of excessive rates, and I want to know from Deputies if they propose to sit down and allow Córas Iompair Éireann, with the consent of the Minister, to close down branch railway lines, and perhaps destroy the main railway lines because the branch lines are the feeders of the main lines, and, in the end, finish off the railways for the propping up of which the famous Transport Act of 1944 was introduced and passed. I should like to know whether any organisation claiming to represent the producers—live-stock traders' organisations, beet growers' organisations or any other farmers' organisations of a non-political character—made any representations to the Minister in respect of this proposed 20 per cent. increase.
I want to know also, arising out of this whole exposure of transport policy, who will pay for the new concrete roads which will have to be laid down, if the branch railway lines are to be closed. Is it the local ratepayer who will be called on to pay increased rates at a time when the rates are already excessive? Many of these branch lines—a number of them in my constituency are involved—go through bog areas where it would be very difficult to lay a good foundation for a road and if new first-class roads have to be made the House should be informed as to who will find the money for them.
The Minister in his statement dealing with the transport position—a position which I readily recognise is made doubly difficulty by reasons which neither the Minister nor the directors of the railway company are responsible, namely, the shortage of coal—said that he had relaxed a good many of the pre-emergency conditions. I do not know how far he has gone in that respect, but it is apparently possible now for Córas Iompair Eireann, according to what we read in the reports of court cases in the last few days, without being involved in a prosecution, to compel a motor-lorry driver to start work at 1 o'clock in the morning and to continue working without rest until 4 o'clock the following afternoon. I dare say Deputies have read the case decided in the last few days in the High Court, arising out of a charge of manslaughter against a lorry driver employed by Córas Iompair Eireann, in which the lorry driver swore that that was his normal turn of duty. A company is allowed by the Minister to carry that on while under legal obligation to give all its workers an eight-hour day and a rest of eight hours between their working periods. If Córas Iompair Eireann is to be allowed to get away with that kind of activity, what will be the position of ordinary employers in the country who employ motor-lorry drivers and who work perhaps in competition with Córas Iompair Eireann? Has the Minister relaxed his regulations and absolved the company from responsibility in cases of that kind? I hope that such a case will never again be cited to the courts in the course of a defence in a charge of manslaughter involving the death of a citizen. The company apparently can get away with it.
The Minister said that the tourist business, from the point of view of value, is second only to the agricultural industry. I have always supported the development of the tourist industry, and under normal circumstances I would continue to do so, but there are a large number of people in the country—and I as an individual am one of them—who share the view that we should go very carefully in existing circumstances, and especially in view of the shortage of supplies. The Minister went so far as to say—and while I should like to accept his word, I am afraid he is not fully informed—that the invasion of tourists from either Great Britain or Northern Ireland does not affect the amount of butter and other commodities available for consumption by the ordinary citizen here. I am sorry to say that, from what I know personally, that is not correct.
The Minister has probably read the report of Córas Iompair Éireann for last year and the speech made by the chairman of that company at its recent meeting in the Gresham Hotel, and I expect he will have noticed that one of the most profitable sections of that company, the only really profitable section, the hotel section, practically doubled its revenue last year by reason of the fact that their hotels for a considerable period of the year were filled to capacity by tourists or people who came to live permanently in them. I am not one of those who will believe that the increased numbers of people who stayed in the hotels, the splendid hotels run by Córas Iompair Éireann, were eating dry bread during their stay there. That is the meaning of what the Minister said—there was no increased allocation of butter or other consumable commodity for the increased number of people who stayed in these and other hotels in seaside places. I know for a fact, and I have had complaints, that the residents of certain seaside resorts around our south coast cannot get the quantity of consumable goods they previously got because of the increased allowances given to some of the private and public hotels there. The hotels in this city and country are filled, and, if any additional room is available, more people will be staying there. I know that from contacts with people from across-Channel.
I do not want to discourage the development of the tourist industry, but I believe that we should go carefully and not impose suffering on our own people by reason of further reductions in their rations as a result of allowing too many people to come in here. I have no strong objection to the British people coming in here at present, or during normal times, so long as there is some restriction for the reason I have given, because the British people, generally speaking, during the past five or six years, provided employment for over 250,000 of our citizens, and I think we owe them something for that.
I do not think that we owe much— I am sorry to have to say it—to our northern fellow-countrymen who come down here to eat our butter, consume other commodities in short supply and then refuse residence permits to people from the Twenty-Six Counties to premit them to continue in their jobs. I do not desire to develop that but, if I were giving a preference to any tourists and giving them a share of what we have to hand round, I should, for the reasons given, give that preference to the British tourists as against the bigoted North of Ireland people who want to fire our people out of their jobs in the Six Counties and who refuse to give them residence permits. They come down here prepared to consume our eggs, bacon and butter and to buy our clothes with coupons which they purchase from the poor people around Amiens Street station. If I thought that, by giving them a little bit of what we would normally require for ourselves, it would remove the infamous Border, I should be prepared to do with a bit less myself but I have my doubts about the effect of that.
The Minister referred to the future of Irish Shipping, Limited, and the grants given to harbour boards. There was a question on the Order Paper to-day by Deputy Corish dealing with a matter which I was asked to refer to and about which Deputy Anthony and others were, I think, approached. It is not a matter of major importance but I should like to bring it to the notice of the Minister. Deputy Corish asked the Minister to-day whether officers and men who served with Irish Shipping, Limited, during the emergency, are entitled, when being considered for positions under the Government and under harbour authorities, to have such service taken into account for the purpose of having added years of service credited to them, or to other forms of priority; and, if not, whether he will state on what grounds their service is distinguished, to their detriment, from that of officers and men who served in the marine service during the emergency.
The Minister gave a curious reply. He stated:—
"Certain concessions in the filling of posts in the service of the State and of local authorities and harbour authorities have been granted to men on demobilisation from the Defence Forces as a means of assisting them to civilian employment. More limited concessions have been made to men who are in the auxiliary defence services who gave their time voluntarily during the emergency. Concessions of this type have not been granted to officers and men who served with Irish Shipping, Ltd., or otherwise with the merchant marine during the emergency. These men performed a valuable duty in hazardous conditions but the majority of them were already in seafaring occupations and the opportunity for continuing employment in the calling of their choice has been improved by the wartime development of the Irish merchant marine."
That may be all right so far as it goes but I do not think it is fair that a number of Irish citizens who served under hazardous conditions at sea for a minimum period of four years should be deprived of any preference when seeking positions as harbour masters or in the pilotage service. If it is fair, as I assume it is, that Irishmen who served in the marine service, inside what is known as the three-mile limit, during the emergency should be given a preference by the Local Appointments Commissioners or the Civil Service Commissioners, surely the officers and men of Irish Shipping, who risked their lives every day they went outside the three-mile limit, are entitled to some preference when seeking positions under harbour authorities or in the service of the State. That would be giving them only what was always given in the past. The posts of harbour masters and pilot officers were always given to men who had long service at sea and who had tickets as first or second officers or as captains. Officers and men who served in Irish Shipping during the period of the emergency should, at least, get the consideration given to men who served the State inside the three-mile limit in what is known as the marine service.
I put that proposition to the Minister on behalf of men who took terrible risks during the emergency. I know one case in which a man went down at sea. God saved his life and he applied for a position under a harbour authority not long ago. He stated his age and claimed credit, as he thought he was entitled to do, for service in Irish Shipping, Limited, during the emergency. He was told by the secretary of the Civil Service Commission that it was not the policy of the Government to give preference of any kind for service in Irish Shipping, Limited. I know that a man who served in the marine service, inside the three-mile limit, received credit by way of added years when he made application for a similar position. One is at least as much entitled to preference as the other. That is the case I am making to the Minister and I hope he will give it favourable consideration and, if necessary, put it to the Government so as to have the present unfair position rectified.
I put down this motion mainly for the purpose of inviting the Minister to state whether the Government propose to continue the policy of turf production and turf distribution in the same way as it is being carried on.