Vol. 112 No. 6
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £11,234,925 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, 1949, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including certain Services administered by that Office and payment of certain Subsidies and sundry Grants-in-Aid.
Votes 55-14, as set out on the Order Paper, will be covered.
The Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce which I am presenting to the Dáil was prepared by the previous Government, and provided for a net expenditure in the current financial year of almost £17,000,000. Nearly £14,000,000 of this amount was provided in respect of subsidies on food and fuel. I do not propose, in my opening remarks, to make more than a passing reference to these subsidies, as they have already been discussed in the Dáil recently, and the measures which the Government have decided to take to secure savings on the subsidy payments and to obtain receipts as off-sets against those payments have already been announced. It would perhaps be relevant to mention here that I have decided to appoint a committee consisting of the Attorney-General as chairman, Mr. Eamonn McCarron, chartered accountant, and Mr. Valentine Murray, of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, to inquire into and to report to me on the necessity for the continuance of the subsidy on flour either at its present level or otherwise.
Deputies will expect to obtain some statement from me as to the policy of the present Government in regard to industrial development. That policy is to foster and encourage the extension of sound and efficient industrial activity in this country, and to this end to remove, so far as lies in our power, every impediment to the rapid extension of existing industrial undertakings, or to the establishment and development of new projects which are based on a solid foundation of efficiency. My Department continues to receive and examine many new industrial proposals extending over a wide and varied range. Every facility is given to the promoters of such proposals, and despite the many difficulties which promoters are experiencing in getting machinery and equipment, many of these people have actually gone into production.
Suggestions have been made in certain quarters that the present Government is opposed to giving new industries that measure of protection without which they could not possibly hope to carry on against foreign competition, but I would like to emphasise here, that there are no grounds whatever for any such charge; as a matter of fact, within the past few months, certain protective duties and restrictions on imports under the Control of Imports Acts, which had been suspended for some years, have been reimposed. It is the definite and declared policy of the Government to give to industry, such protection as may be necessary to enable it to carry on successfully, but always on the clear understanding that such protection will only be given where the enterprises show themselves capable of producing goods of good quality and at prices which appear reasonable, having regard to the many difficulties which new industries must encounter in present circumstances. No industrialist has any reason to be apprehensive that the present Government is going to hamper his activities in any way, provided he is doing a really good job of work and not merely using or intending to use tariff barriers to bolster up inefficiency or to impose burdens on the consumer in the form of unduly high prices.
Whilst we would all like that the development of our industries should take place under native control and direction, we have to recognise that there are some industries which cannot be promoted, or cannot be established with reasonable speed by purely Irish enterprise without the help of persons whose expert knowledge and experience have been gained elsewhere. In the case of such industries, where our own people have not the necessary knowledge or, for various reasons, are not prepared to launch out into these particular fields, the Government is prepared to consider proposals for such industries from persons outside the country, and if such persons are unable, for one reason or another, to comply with our Control of Manufactures Acts, I am prepared to give them new manufacture licences. I may say here also that as regards the employment of foreign technicians, I am prepared to facilitate their entry where it can be shown that their expert knowledge is going to improve the quality and standard of our products. I think we must recognise that in some parts of the field of manufacturing industry in this country there is plenty of room for technical improvement; and I will give all the encouragement and assistance I can to industrialists who are trying to keep abreast of progress in their particular line of activity. It is now more important than ever it was for our manufacturers to turn their eyes to foreign markets. I am well aware of the many restrictions imposed by Governments of some other countries on imports which they can do without; but there are markets available abroad for many of our industrial products and I would urge manufacturers to take the fullest advantage of such opportunities.
In this Budget statement, the Minister for Finance announced that the scheme for exploration of mineral deposits, for which £85,000 is provided in this year's Estimate, would not be proceeded with. Since then additional information has been obtained as to an intensified exploration and the subsequent exploitation of certain areas, and this matter is at present being reviewed by the Government. It is hoped that a decision will be taken very shortly.
Deputies are aware that the Department of Industry and Commerce now takes responsibility for action connected with the procurement of supplies of various commodities which was exercised during the war emergency by the Department of Supplies. In some cases there has, since the end of the war, been a marked improvement in the supply position. In other cases improvement has been slight but is steady, and in a few cases the difficulties and shortages still persist. I do not propose to review the supply position of commodities in detail in my opening remarks, but I will be prepared to reply to any questions which may be raised in the course of debate.
In view of the importance of wheat, I feel, however, that there should be some reference to it. The wheat position is reasonably satisfactory. The present stocks of wheat and flour in the country, together with the further quantities which are being shipped or are awaiting shipment, are sufficient to enable us to carry on until native wheat from the new harvest reaches the mills.
As Deputies are already aware, an international wheat agreement intended to operate from the 1st August next was signed in March of this year on behalf of three exporting countries and 33 importing countries, including Ireland, subject to its formal acceptance by the respective Governments not later than the 1st July. Our acceptance of the agreement, under which we would have been sure of receiving a substantial quantity of wheat at a price considerably below that which we have been paying up to now, was duly conveyed to the International Wheat Council. At a meeting of the council held early in July, however, it was revealed that the United States Government and a large number of the Governments of importing countries had not formally accepted the agreement, whereupon Australia gave notice of her withdrawal. Similar action was taken by Ireland and the majority of the other importing countries which had notified acceptance in the first instance on the grounds that without the United States and Australia—two of the three exporting countries — the agreement could not be operated. The negotiations for an agreement have not been abandoned but its early operation cannot now be anticipated.
Bread grains remain subject to allocation by the International Emergency Food Committee but all indications point to a substantial easement in the world supply position. I am confident that in the coming year we will get at least enough wheat to enable the present ration to be maintained. Without the international agreement it is not possible precisely to forecast what prices will be. The substantial increase in the supplies of wheat may enable us to obtain wheat at the same price as if the agreement had been in operation and should ensure at least that there will be some fall below last year's level.
Before I pass from supply questions, I wish to say just a word about fuel. Our fuel problems have already been discussed at length, but I wish to repeat that, so far as can now be foreseen, coal supplies for the balance of this year, as well as for the year 1949, are reasonably secure and there are no grounds for anticipating difficulty in meeting our needs. As regards the supplies of fuel held by Fuel Importers, Limited, in the various dumps, more particularly turf and timber, the problem of their disposal and of the financial losses incurred is a very formidable one and is being examined in detail at the moment.
In the Vote for Aviation and Meteorological Services, the bulk of the expenditure—£1,850,000—relates to the airports at Shannon and Dublin, and about three-quarters of this expenditure is of a capital nature. It is my intention to continue with the development of the airports at Shannon and Dublin so that we will have two firstclass airports in this country providing facilities for civil aviation on a scale which will bear comparison with any other country of comparable size and resources. Following a preliminary examination of the items included in the Estimates, I was able to advise the Minister for Finance that certain economies could be achieved even in the current year.
There were two projects under consideration, one at Shannon and the other at Dublin, which I have decided can be deferred without serious detriment to the future of these airports. Plans have been under consideration for a considerable time to erect a new permanent building at Shannon Airport which would replace the existing structure. The existing terminal building is made of wood and has had to be extended rapidly. Nevertheless, I am advised that with suitable upkeep it should continue to be usable as a terminal building for 15 or 20 years. In the circumstances, and in view of the general shortage of materials for housing and other urgent projects, I feel that I would not be justified in proceeding at present with plans for a new permanent building at Shannon.
Plans had also been made to erect a factory at Dublin Airport to provide for the overhaul of aircraft engines, equipment and air frames. It had been estimated that the capital cost of erecting and equipping this factory would be about £350,000, and that the additional cost of having overhauls carried out at this factory, as compared with the cost of having the work done abroad, would be about £60,000 per annum. I came to the conclusion that, in view of the general difficulties in securing materials for other purposes, I would not be warranted in allowing this factory to proceed at the present time. Certain other economies will also be secured. All the foregoing economies represent a saving of £93,000 in the current year. There will, in addition, be economies in respect of subsidy for six services.
The figure of £600,000 shown under sub-head M. in respect of subsidy for air services is made up of £315,000 estimated loss on the transatlantic air service, £190,000 being the Irish share of prospective Aer Lingus losses, and a figure of £86,000 included as a margin for contingencies. The provision for contingencies will not be required. The provision for loss by Aerlínte Éireann is not now required, but there will be some expenditure in the current year. The discharge of the Aerlínte staff in this country did not commence till May, 1948, and a few people must be kept on to dispose of the assets. I might mention that a profit amounting to about £450,000 over the original cost price was made by Aerlínte on the sale of five Constellation aircraft and spares.
A Supplementary Estimate was taken last February to enable subsidy to be paid in respect of the full losses estimated for the year. The full amount voted was not paid as the limit of £750,000 for all subsidies from the date of the incorporation of Aer Lingus was reached; this limit is contained in the Air Navigation and Transport Acts. The Estimates for the current year had gone for printing before a decision was taken that expenditure incurred by Aerlínte in preparing for the transatlantic service should be treated as an operating loss to be met from subsidy rather than as capital expenditure, which had been the intention.
Aer Lingus has established a fine reputation for technical competence, efficiency and regularity in the air services operated between this country, on the one hand, and Great Britain and the Continent, on the other. The company has, however, incurred a serious loss, amounting to approximately £600,000 in the financial year ended 31st March last: this compares with a loss of £134,000 in the year 1946-47, and a profit of £9,000 in the year 1945-46. Aer Lingus is now a company representing Irish and British interests; 50 per cent. of the losses are borne by British corporations, and 50 per cent. by the Irish interest. I am aware that the directors have been very seriously concerned at the extent of the losses incurred and they took energetic steps towards the end of last year with a view to a reduction and eventually, I hope, the elimination of operating losses. Fares were increased in December last and were again substantially increased this year. A number of services were suspended because the board felt that the traffic did not justify their continuance. The company had, following the agreement in 1946, laid plans for considerable development and expansion; but, because of general economic conditions in Europe and foreign exchange restrictions which curtailed passenger traffic, the company's anticipations were not realised. This experience appears to have been shared by air companies all over the world. It was, I know, a source of regret to the directors, as it was to the Government, that the steps which were taken led to the termination of the services of considerable numbers of staff.
I think I ought to make it clear, in case there is any doubt about it, that such steps as were taken by Aer Lingus to secure economies were taken on the initiative and on the responsibility of the board and not as a result of any pressure from the Government. It is the earnest desire and the intention of the Government to foster and encourage the development of air transport and it should be clearly recognised by everybody concerned that there is no reason to anticipate any change in this policy. This country cannot, of course, afford to spend unlimited sums on the development of commercial aviation, but I have no reason to think that losses of the order incurred last year are necessary to maintain air services on a reasonable scale.
I move:—
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.
Frankly, I was taken by surprise by the abrupt termination of the Minister's introductory speech. I thought he would have considered it necessary to have made some reference to current problems arising out of the threatening international situation. It is, of course, possible that the dangers which that situation holds for this country may pass, for the present at least, but that they are there now cannot be denied, and public opinion would like some assurance that Government policy is being framed in the light of them and that positive steps are being taken to minimise, in so far as it is possible to minimise it, the risk which they hold for us.
I do not know whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce regards it as any part of his duty to take account of that situation and to make plans against its deterioration. It may be that there will be no danger; it may be that the situation will ease, but so long as it is there, so long as it holds a grave threat for us, it is desirable that consideration should be given to the steps that could be taken to minimise the risk and that positive action to that end should be initiated without delay. It is, of course, admitted that the measures that could be taken to reduce the risk arising from a possible war are not very considerable, but there are some, and it is in relation to matters which seem on the face of them to be practicable that I want to get some information from the Minister.
Clearly, if we have to deal with a situation this year or next in which international trade may be disrupted by the outbreak of hostilities between the great powers, the sooner we start taking steps the better. We will have problems of fuel supply, transport, the maintenance of essential production, the accumulating of certain essential stocks which are grave enough in all conscience but which could be, to some extent, lessened by speedy action. I mentioned these problems because they were those which developed here during the recent war. It has always been the experience of mankind that the lessons of one war were not entirely applicable to another, and it is, of course recognised that if there is any international conflict it may bring to this country problems dissimilar in many respects to those encountered in the recent conflict. Just as the measures we took in 1938, in anticipation of the war which began in 1939, were based upon the experience of the First World War, and were not entirely adapted to the circumstances as they, in fact, developed, so it is fair to assume that the problems that will arise in another war will not be exactly the same as those we encountered in recent years.
However, we have to proceed on the basis of experience. There is no other basis on which to proceed. During the recent war we had acute problems here. They came mainly under these heads, fuel supplies, transport, maintenance of industrial production, and behind it all up to this present day, the problem of maintaining a sufficiency of essential food supplies. In the case of fuel, I should like to have some assurance that the plans which were made for the extension of mechanised turf production are being proceeded with. Perhaps it might be possible for the Minister to tell us whether these plans could be expedited. I recognise that it is not as easy to speed up plans in relation to turf production as might be done in relation to other forms of production, because there are certain factors which determine the periods during which work can be done, particularly with the drainage of bogs, to enable them to take the heavy machines which that work involves.
Knowing, however, that the problems which the shortage of fuel caused, not merely in the maintenance of reasonable domestic conditions, but in carrying on essential transport and essential industrial production during the recent war, I think attention should be given to the possibility of speeding up these plans, and that the organisation responsible for their excution should be given the green light to go ahead as quickly as possible. It might be that their expeditious completion might be a little more costly than their fulfilment on the basis of the original scheme, but that would be a small price to pay for the additional security which the increased production of mechanised turf would give us.
We had, during the recent war, not merely a deficiency of solid fuels but a very considerable deficiency in electricity generating capacity. There is a number of new generating stations under construction. Again, I should like to have an investigation made as to the possibility of bringing forward the dates for the completion of these stations. In so far as their completion depends on the delivery of equipment from abroad, that might not be so easy but, in so far as it involves construction work in this country, it might be possible to do so, if necessary, by introducing shift work. We would feel much easier in mind if we had available the adequate generating capacity which these stations represent, particularly the new water-power station on the Erne and the turf burning station at Clonsast. Perhaps the Minister would tell us whether these stations will be completed by the dates envisaged.
It was expected that the Clonsast station would come into production next year, but in the case of the Erne it was not anticipated that it would supply electricity earlier than 1951. Of course the Erne is by far the biggest of the stations being built, and its completion would be a very considerable safeguard. If the Minister could give the House information as to when these stations will be completed. I should like him to examine also the possibility of speeding up their completion, in view of the international situation, which may not be a matter of open hostilities this year, but may well be before the present electricity generating programme has been completed.
It may not be altogether practicable to talk about oil storage in a situation where there is a world shortage of petroleum products and when we are not getting enough for current needs. The House is aware of the circumstances which made it difficult to have substantial oil storage capacity constructed here before the recent war. We had a private war of our own with the oil combines arising out of the efforts to establish an oil refinery here. Every effort made to get these companies to erect additional storage before the war was unsuccessful, in so far as they made the condition for its completion that the refinery project should be dropped. Possibly that position has changed.
I note the report dealing with European recovery, prepared in relation to the Marshall Plan, refers to the desirability of increasing the oil refinery capacity of Europe so that a project which at one time appeared to be an idea of our own has now, to some extent, received international blessing. It may be that the companies are not now hostile to it as they were previously. During the period of the recent war, and even since the end of the war, there were difficulties for this country, by reason of the completely inadequate storage capacity for petroleum products. When, after the end of the war, additional fuel oil became available, we had a problem in importing it by reason of the insufficiency of storage capacity.
In fact, I think it is true to say that for all essential commodities the storage accommodation in this country is inadequate. I have spoken about that in public. It is, I think, to be attributed to the manner in which our trade was carried on when we were in political union with Great Britain. Those who were described as merchants and importers in this country were really little more than the agents of British firms. They were really commercial travellers, as they were engaged in selling products here for delivery from British warehouses. That situation having developed over a number of years, we had in this country insufficient warehousing and storage accommodation. The warehousing and storage accommodation appropriate to our trade was located at Liverpool and other British ports. I think it would be a good policy for the Government to consider the measures that they might adopt to assist port authorities and industrial firms to establish properly-equipped and suitably-located warehouses for the storage of all commodities which pass in international trade.
I think that particularly applies to coal. There are coal dumps in the Phænix Park, but, when in the early stages of the war, an accidental development at that time made it possible for a large quantity of coal to be brought in here in a short period, there was real difficulty in doing so because of the inadequate storage accommodation for coal. Before the war our coal merchants literally bought coal from hand to mouth. There was a fleet of small ships bringing coal to this country every day, and, as quickly as it went into the merchants' yards, it went out again to their customers. I think, again, having regard to the general circumstances of the times, and until a prospect of a period of permanent world peace emerges again, we should pay special attention to that problem of storage and particularly to the storage of essential commodities such as coal.
In the case of turf, if turf is to be sold in competition with coal, clearly it must be handled by firms that are equipped for that purpose, not firms who have their stores located at the ports where they are conveniently placed for dealing with coal, but on the roads into the city along which turf supplies flow stores which are equipped with the mechanical devices which will cheapen and facilitate the handling of turf.
I do not want to diverge too much from the main subject with which I am now dealing, namely, the precautions we should take and that we could take against a possible war situation. I have dealt with the question of fuel. I should like to say just a word in that connection in regard to our general industrial position. We knew at the beginning of the recent war that there were gaps in our industrial organisation. The nature of these gaps and their full effect on the maintenance of industrial production here in a time of crisis was made very clear by our experience during the war years. We should be striving now to close them as quickly as possible. If the job has to be undertaken by private firms, they must be given special inducements to act quickly, even if acting quickly means that they will be involved in heavier capital expenditure or some economic handicap which could be avoided by delay. I am thinking particularly of the gaps in the organisation for the production of some metals and textiles. There are some industries which can never be established here on a completely independent basis, but there are certain deficiencies which can be made good and certain industries which can be established with every hope of economic operation in future, and which, if established, would make more certain the continued operation of a number of other industries in circumstances in which international trade was disrupted by war conditions.
Most urgent of all is that we should extend as rapidly as possible our merchant marine service. There are, I think, five ships under construction and delivery of them will take place this year or next year, but even the addition of these five new ships to the present fleet will not bring it up to anything like the strength which we always regarded as the minimum towards which we should aim. It was the policy of the previous Government, laid down in a formal minute to the Board of Irish Shipping Limited, that the shipping tonnage available for deep-sea operation should always, at a minimum, be sufficient to carry on our essential trade in times and in circumstances in which the ships of other nations would not be available. We have a long way to go before we have reached that stage.
I think it is desirable that whatever plans have been made for the acquisition of new ships to bring up the tonnage to the minimum considered necessary, should be speeded up, having regard to the situation to which I have referred. I am aware that there was considerable speculation as to whether the cost of shipbuilding was likely to fall or increase. In placing orders for new ships, the Board of Irish Shipping Limited had naturally to have regard to the indications of future trends in that direction. It was reasonable to assume that at some stage the cost of new ships would fall and consequently there was a disposition to postpone ordering new ships until the prices position had become stabilised. I think now, in the circumstances of the time, it is desirable that our fleet should be brought up to the minimum strength considered necessary and that the consideration of price should not prevent that decision.
I do not want to refer at this stage to the problem of internal transport. It is clearly very urgent and it is obvious that whatever is to be done in relation to our internal transport situation must be done quickly whether there is likely to be a war or not. The same applies in regard to aviation.
I do not know whether the Minister regards it as desirable that manufacturers and commercial firms should be encouraged to stock up goods which are either essential or goods on which we would be agreed it is desirable we should have a sufficient quantity for as long as possible. At the present time, so far as I can ascertain from consultation with private business interests, there appears to be a policy on the part of the commercial banks to restrict credit for commercial operations. Whether that is a policy decided upon by the boards of the banks in their own interest, or whether it has been inspired by the Central Bank or the Department of Finance, I do not know, but if there is a situation in which it is desirable that industrial firms should be encouraged to maintain maximum stocks of raw materials and commercial firms to carry stocks of manufactured goods, then clearly they must be given some financial help to that end by the banks or by some other agency. I also think these firms will require to get from the Minister some general assurance that, if the circumstances against which stocks are being accumulated, do not develop and that, on the contrary, prices begin to fall and goods become available in greater quantity, they will be given help and opportunity of disposing of these stocks again without loss to themselves.
Perhaps I should say that whatever restrictions have been placed on credit by banks or other financial interests, have not been imposed on the instructions of the Government.
I understood that from a reply given to a Parliamentary Question by the Minister for Finance. It may be that the banks, to whatever extent they are doing it, are acting in what they conceive to be their own interests. If they are, and if there are considerations of policy which make it desirable that, at any rate, in relation to manufacturers and traders anxious to import stocks as a security measure, that that policy should be reversed, some indication of that view should be given by the Government. One can never be quite sure to what extent there is a policy on the part of the banks in that regard. Individuals may have been refused additional credit for some reason which did not represent a policy. But from quite a number of sources it has been stated that there is this general restriction of credit in operation, and it could not have been due to individual causes in all cases.
I was very glad the Minister made the statement he did concerning the policy of the Government in relation to industrial development, and particularly with regard to the provision of protection where required. I expressed the view last year on the Estimate in the House, and on many occasions outside the House, that assuming a normal transition from a war economy to a peace economy, and of no further international upheaval, that this year and next year will be the most critical period in our industrial development. I think that we can hope to get the industrial drive going again in that period, and that if we do not do it we will have very considerable difficulty in resuming it later. I think that we have opportunities in this period that may not occur again later. It is desirable that there should be every encouragement given to persons who want to engage in industry to get ahead, and particularly, the encouragement of Government support with a clear indication that Government policy favours that development.
Some doubts have been created in that regard, perhaps not intentionally, but the doubts exist as the Minister, I think, must be aware. I do not know whether the present Government have any different views upon the desirability of encouraging industrial development by private enterprise from those held by their predecessors. It was our view that industrial development by private enterprise was likely to be more rapid and more extensive than by any system of State organisation, and, consequently, we made it known that we wanted to get an extension of industrial activity through private enterprise, and that we recognised that private enterprise was inspired by the profit motive, and that unless there was a prospect of profit it would not proceed at all. The many statements which have been made concerning industry, and concerning the profits made by industry, the apparent irrational denunciation of industrialists who made profits, would appear to indicate either a general discouragement of industrial development or some prejudice against industrial development through private enterprise.
The Deputy is aware that the denunciations were in regard to excessive and unreasonable profits.
That was not always expressed in the moderate and reasonable terms which would make its application fully understood. In fact, as the Minister well knows, there is amongst people who were listening to speeches made by members of his Party and of the Parties associated with him, the general belief that industrialists generally were nothing less than highway robbers, getting away with unreasonable profits. That is not true. I am not going to deny that there were some cases of people making higher profits than would have been regarded as reasonable, and some cases of people successfully evading profit control; but generally speaking, the profits made by industrialists were not immoderate, and in any event it is the prospect of making a profit that got private enterprise working. Ours is a private enterprise economy, based upon the profit motive, and unless we let the profit motive operate then the whole system will come to an end.
It is true that a particular industry which has the benefit of a protective duty or which, because of the limited size of our market has something akin to a monopoly position, must be satisfied with a lower general return upon its capital investment than another concern which gets its profit in the face of competition, and the size of whose profits is the measure of its efficiency. Normally, in competitive conditions the most efficient firm will make the largest profits though it does not necessarily charge the highest prices.
I have frequently in this Dáil in the past referred to well known firms in the City of Dublin in order to contest the belief that high prices necessarily meant high profits or that high profits were necessarily the result of high prices. It has been my experience that high profits in many cases were made by efficient firms charging reasonable prices, while the firm that charged high prices in a competitive market usually ended up with a bankruptcy sale notice in their windows. It is a complete mistake to associate high prices with high profits. They are not always associated. There must be some permanent machinery for the supervision of profits and general efficiency in the case of protected industries. When the State gives to a private firm the benefit of a restricted market secured through tariffs, quotas or otherwise, it has the right to supervise the service given to the public and to impose such checks on its operation as the public interest seems to require.
The claim, sometimes foolishly advanced by industrial firms enjoying protection to be exempt from Government interference or Government supervision, is completely unjustified. If there is to be exemption from Government supervision then there should be exemption from Government assistance as well.
If, however, we are to get the fullest development of our industrial potentialities we must not rely entirely on private enterprise because there are many industries which, in the circumstances of this country, will not be established by private firms either because of the exceptional difficulties which are involved or the high capital investment required. I have in mind, particularly, the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia, to which I referred in the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture. I know that the Board of Ceimici Teoranta were investigating the establishment of that industry here and were preparing plans for it. I would like to know how far they have gone. It is one industry which, I think, should be established, and established by a company set up under statutory authority. It will never be done by private enterprise. It is an industry which is not merely suitable to this country but one which is essential to our general interests because the deficiency of nitrogenous manures during the recent war made the maintenance of agricultural output so much more difficult.
I understood from the Minister that a proposal for the manufacture of copper sulphate by that company has been received by him. There was public notice of the fact that the Minister proposes to make an Order under the Act which would confine the right to manufacture copper sulphate to that company. I hope that consideration of these proposals will not be unduly delayed, and that the company will be authorised to go ahead as quickly as possible.
One other industry which I would like to refer to is the manufacture of steel. The plant at Haulbowline has a varied history. It was established by a private company just shortly before the outbreak of war and it came into production with only half its equipment installed and a large part of its capital unremunerative. It ran into financial difficulties which caused it to close during the war. Because of its importance to the country, the Government made an Order which gave it the right to appoint the directors of the company and which prevented other creditors from proceeding against it for the recovery of their claims. It advanced to the company under the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act £200,000. The company maintained production by makeshift methods during the war, but after the war it ran into financial difficulties again. I want to make it quite clear that this is due to directions which I gave. At one stage early in 1945 an opportunity of buying steel billets in Canada offered itself. The question for decision was whether the war with Japan was likely to end soon or not. If not, it was clearly desirable that we should purchase the billets, dear and all as they were, to maintain the production of steel here; if it were likely that it would end soon, however, there was a reasonable expectation that prices would fall and that the billets would be an exceptionally dear buying. I directed the company to buy them because I considered it to be my duty to assume the worst in making plans of that sort, to assume that the war with Japan would continue for a longer period, and that we would have to have the billets in any event.
Before the billets arrived in this country, the war with Japan was over and the ending of the war was accompanied by a temporary slump in steel prices so the billets which were available to the company were at a higher price than the price of manufactured steel at that time. That was only temporary, however; the price has gone up again and that position has been completely reversed. That involved the company in substantial loss and after some negotiations the company was bought out by the State. It is now a State company; it is operated by a board appointed by the Minister and no private interests are left in it. It is equipped with furnaces and a rolling mill for the production of steel bars. I understand that part of the equipment required for a blooming mill, which is a necessary part of the process of production, and for a sheet-rolling mill is available on the site. Some new capital expenditure would make the mill complete by the installation of the necessary blooming process and would extend the total tonnage output by extending the production to steel sheets. I think it would be very desirable if the Minister would promote the necessary legislation—I think that legislation would be required—to establish Irish Steel (1947) Limited—that is, I think, the name of the present company—on a proper statutory basis and provide the necessary capital to establish the industry as completely as possible.
It may be that its location at Haulbowline was a mistake—some of the Cork Deputies may not, perhaps, agree but there was reason to think during the history of the concern that it would have operated more efficiently, more economically on some other location. That is, however, only partially true as long as the total tonnage of the steel being produced there is insufficient to maintain the operation of a shipping service to the island on a completely satisfactory basis. I think that the disadvantages of the Haulbowline site will decrease in proportion with an increase of output of the concern. On the production of steel bars and steel sheets other industries depend, including the production of agricultural machinery and, therefore, it is a key industry which should be preserved and developed as completely as possible.
Another industry which I would like to see established, if it is possible by a private concern, if it is necessary by Government interests, is wool combing. There is one wool-combing plant in Cork, a very efficient plant which exports wool tops to the United States, but the total wool-combing equipment in the country is completely inadequate to produce sufficient wool tops for the country. Steps were taken, as the Minister knows, with a view to establishing a large scale wool-combing plant here, but progress has not yet been made. The Minister will not get that progress until he makes up his mind that there is going to be wool-combing here somehow, if not by private enterprise, then as a State concern. Until he makes that quite clear, private interests will go slow. It is definitely an essential industry for us to have, but it is one that can be established here as efficiently as anywhere else, one that can engage in export from this country in competition with plants of the same kind anywhere.
Towards the end of 1946 I laid the foundation stone of a cotton-spinning factory in Athlone which was the first cotton-spinning factory in the country. It was established with equipment merely sufficient to supply the requirements of the Athlone Cotton Weaving Mill. I think that we should definitely take measures to encourage by State assistance, by inducements or otherwise the expansion of cotton spinning here. It has always been the bottleneck in the development of the cotton industry. During the war we got from Great Britain, which is our normal source of supply for cotton yarn, a ration which was at times so low as 2 per cent. of our pre-war requirements. Again I think that this is an industry which, as far as the types of yarn that are mainly used in commerce are concerned, can be established here, although some exceptionally light or exceptionally heavy yarns may always have to be imported.
In connection with the development of shipping services, I would like the Minister to take special interest in the development of our ship repairing yards. It is possible, assuming normal conditions, to get the yards to proceed from ship repairing to ship building, but I think they will have to be given some form of assistance by the State, financial assistance, either in the form of a guarantee against loss or a subsidy, in order to get started. There is no reason why we should hesitate; other countries have done it. We have frequently had held up to us the achievements of Australia and New Zealand where there was a definite Government policy towards shipbuilding. A very substantial Government subsidy was given at the rate of so much per ton on all new ships launched. I think that shipbuilding should be established and I think it can be done.
In Dublin and Cork there are yards capable of being developed and equipped for shipbuilding as well as ship repairing. It is important, of course, whatever we may do, that we should have adequate ship repairing facilities, assuming the possibility of another war. I have in mind in that regard the early commencement of work on the new graving dock in Dublin. The Minister is aware that the previous Government promised the Dublin Port and Docks Board a grant of £500,000 towards the cost of constructing a new graving dock in Dublin. That promise, I presume, holds good, and the Dublin Port and Docks Board have got their plans for the construction of that graving dock ready. I think they should be encouraged to go ahead quickly. They have, I think, been inclined to postpone the commencement of the work in the expectation that costs may fall at some future stage, but, having regard to the length of time it will take to complete it and the fact that the Government gave them the grant in order to get them to go ahead quickly with the work, they should not be allowed to delay it. Its commencement now would do something towards minimising the problem caused by the termination of work at the timber fuel dumps at the North Wall, to which reference was made here last week.
I have always been interested in the establishment here of what I might call a general engineering industry. It is a key industry in every sense of the word. I have always recognised that its establishment here would be difficult, unless we could give it certain bread and butter lines which would involve production all the year round. It is an industry which is, of course, very liable to trade fluctuations and I feel that we are not likely to get it established here, unless we can associate with it the workshops of Córas Iompair Éireann or some other enterprise of that kind, which necessarily involves the installation of equipment and the employment of skilled workers and which will have a regular flow of work. Certainly, the problem of maintaining industrial equipment in working order during the emergency was gravely hampered by the fact that we had not got developed here anything in the nature of a general engineering industry.
One other industry concerning which I am anxious for information is the project for the establishment, in the vicinity of Dublin, of a factory for the manufacture of electric motors and electric equipment. That project was approved last year. There were references to it in the Press and a company was formed, which, I think, acquired a site for the construction of the factory in the locality of Finglas. I am anxious to know from the Minister whether that project is proceeding, or if anything has happened to delay it.
Since I shed my Ministerial responsibilities, I acquired some new sources of information and I should be anxious to interest the Minister in the manufacture of newsprint. We are at present rationed in our supply of newsprint, mainly by currency difficulties, but it seems to me that, having regard to the enormous increase in the cost of newsprint during the war, its manufacture here should now be quite a practicable proposition. It was always technically possible, but the difficulty was that the lowest level of cost at which we could see newsprint being produced here was substantially higher than that at which we could buy it in the slump years before the war. I doubt very much if these slump years are likely to reappear for a long time and if we had then proceeded to establish a newsprint factory here and were engaged in the production of newsprint, we would I think be producing it at a very much lower price than that at which we can now buy it. It is, however, an industry to the possibilities of which I should like to direct the Minister's attention.
Would the Deputy give some indication of how and where that newsprint factory could be established?
I do not know what the Deputy has in mind, but there are newsprint factories in England, and there is one factory there at present exporting newsprint to the United States, believe it or not. There is no reason why it should not be established in this country and operated here as efficiently as a similar factory in Great Britain.
We have the materials?
No, we would have to import the wood pulp, or a substantial part of it, but that is the practice of the British factories and they are able to continue in operation on that basis. In an emergency, we could no doubt produce wood pulp of our own, but it would be dearer than that which we could now buy abroad.
With regard to this whole question of industrial development, I should like the Minister to tell me whether he has interested himself at all in the plans announced by the administrator of the European Recovery Programme to encourage American businessmen to invest private capital in new productive enterprises in Europe. The announcement, which came through the Associated Press, was that approximately £75,000,000 was to be invested in Europe in new industrial enterprises by American businessmen, with this inducement from the administrator of the European Recovery Programme to them to do so, that they would be facilitated by the American authorities in converting into dollars any dividends or profits earned on their investments. I was very much interested in that announcement and I think that the Minister should also be interested.
It is true that we passed the Control of Manufactures Act, which Act had behind it the primary purpose of ensuring that industrial development here would mainly take place under Irish ownership, but our particular concern at that time was the prospect that the imposition of protective duties here would lead to industrial development solely in the form of branch factories of British firms. We feared that the British firms which had been previously supplying this market would get over the tariff barrier through the simple device of establishing branch factories here and we did not want industrial development of that kind, because such branch factories would not be extended beyond the minimum degree which would meet the requirements of their English owners and of course would disappear if, at any time, the tariff which caused them to come into being was removed.
The idea behind the Control of Manufactures Act was to ensure that our industrial development would not take that form, and it is quite clear that the particular circumstances which make us hesitant about encouraging the investment of British capital in this country, because of the political influences or other influences which that capital might bring with it, do not necessarily apply to capital from other countries. It is, I think, desirable that we should have, so far as we can ensure it, the direction of Irish industrial development in the hands of boards which meet in this country and which have a majority of Irish persons on them; but I see no reason why we should not make it known through the European Recovery Programme administration that we are interested in this plan they have for the encouragement of American businessmen to invest in industrial development in Europe in order to expand output and avail of that device, if it can be done, to secure the creation here of many of those industries of which we are in need and which, obviously, require a very heavy capital investment.
That has been done.
I am glad to hear it.
I have extended a very warm invitation in practically every speech I have made, including the speech I made to-day.
In general terms. I should like the Minister to be more specific.
And specifically also.
The Minister spoke about the development of exports. I do not want to initiate a discussion here upon the trade agreement, but I want to say to the Minister that any case which the British Government are making that Article 1 of the Trade Agreement of 1938 does not oblige them to give free entry into Great Britain of our products is completely baseless, and, furthermore, that there are in the records of his Department documents in the form of correspondence between the Department and the British Trade Commissioner here which make it quite clear that, until last year, they accepted fully and without question the fact that that article placed that obligation on them. Difficulties began to emerge when they made their Washington Loan Agreement. Under that agreement, they were obliged to undertake not to discriminate against American goods, and, in so far as they wanted to limit the importation of goods from America to save dollars, they had to impose, at the same time, restrictions on the same goods coming from other sources, including this country. We protested at the time and urged that the right we had under the 1938 Agreement could not be taken from us by any subsequent arrangement entered into by them with the United States. Then they began to shift their ground and to argue that the requirements of their rationing and price control schemes necessitated the imposition of these restrictions, or that general balance of trade considerations justified them in cutting down their imports. It was only when all these arguments did not diminish the force of our protest that they discovered this quibble that the article related to customs duty only and not to quantitative restrictions.
Whatever the article says, the whole agreement has to be considered in relation to the general atmosphere of the negotiations which produced it. In these negotiations the British Government were pressing strongly for the abolition of quantitative restrictions altogether. They were opposed in principle to the protection of industry by quotas and their aim in the negotiations was to get the Government here to agree to substitute quotas by tariffs. They had given assurances that their policy was going to be framed upon that principle and that, in so far as restrictions might operate upon the importation of goods into Great Britain, they would be restrictions by way of tariff and not by way of quantitative regulation.
It is in the knowledge of the general atmosphere of these negotiations that I say that they have no ground whatever for their interpretation of the Article or for the restrictions which they are now maintaining upon the import of industrial products from this country. I do not think that their attitude is based upon hostility to our industrial development but, if that idea were to enter my head, if I thought that the case they were putting forward or the arguments upon which they were relying indicated that they were placing these restrictions upon imports from this country for the purpose of giving some form of protection to British industry or to prevent the development of industry here in the interests of British manufacturers, then I would not have the slightest hesitation in giving notice to denounce that agreement and bring it to an end.
The agreement is, in fact, out of date. I said that here when introducing the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce in 1946. There were circumstances which perhaps made it unnecessary or undesirable to give formal notice to denounce the agreement in that year. The Minister will know what the circumstances were because I discussed the matter personally with the President of the Board of Trade, then Sir Stafford Cripps, and he met the particular case which I put forward by sending his officers over here last year to discuss the matters in relation to which the agreement was proving a source of difficulty to us, and they undertook to amend the agreement or to alter the operation of the agreement in respect of these matters. But it was made clear to them on more occasions than one that we did not regard the treaty as being applicable to modern trade conditions at all or as serving our needs in these conditions and that, so far as we were concerned, we would much prefer to have it out of the way altogether. But I say this, that if their attitude in relation to the restriction of the export of Irish manufactured goods to the British market is based on anything except purely temporary difficulties of their own, is based on any desire to restrict our industrial development for the benefit of their own industrialists, then the sooner the treaty is terminated the better.
I do not think there is any economic future for this country, any possibility of our ever developing the economic strength required to protect our political freedom, unless we can develop our industries. No advantage of any kind, however attractive it may appear for the time being to any other section of the community, should induce us to surrender in the least our power to develop our industrial arm.
However, a particular point I want to refer to in regard to industrial exports is this: I announced in the Dáil in 1946 that I was preparing proposals for legislation to assist the development of an export trade in industrial goods. Certain proposals had at that stage been approved by the Government. I reconsidered them myself later and did not proceed with the measure. I had some doubts as to whether it was desirable to do so and, in any event, the general circumstances changed last year in a manner which made its introduction here less urgent than appeared in 1946. I think, however, if we are going to get development of export trade in industrial goods, we must at least give those who engage in it the same facilities as the British give and as other countries give. The British, for example, have their export guarantee scheme under which traders selling goods abroad are insured against losses arising from bad debts or the imposition of currency restrictions or the development of wars or other circumstances that may prevent them collecting upon consignments. That scheme, which was introduced by the British Government before the war, has never involved the British Exchequer in the loss of a penny. I am not at all sure that they did not make a profit on it but, in any event, it was of real assistance to their traders, particularly those seeking markets in South America or the Far East, where difficult financial and political conditions often emerge, and such a scheme would be of equal assistance to our firms.
I think we must also establish some kind of marketing organisation. Our problem in the development of export trade is the smallness of the individual production units. I have frequently referred to the woollen trade as one with great export possibilities. When our woollen manufacturers had an export business in the past, however, they got it by an arrangement under which their patterns were included in the pattern books sent out by British merchant houses. These pattern books went all around the world and, when orders for the particular cloth manufactured by Irish manufacturers were received, they were transmitted to the Irish factories and filled from there. It was a system that brought no goodwill to our industry. The purchaser of the cloth did not even know it was made in Ireland. He associated it with the merchant house that supplied it. In present circumstances it could bring no foreign exchange to our aid either. If our woollen mills are to develop independently in the export market then their lack of individual size must be compensated for by some combination amongst them to establish a marketing organisation which will enable them, first of all, to specialise in the production of the most profitable lines and, secondly, to offer a wide range of patterns and designs which foreign buyers will seek. The same thing applies in other industries. I would urge the Minister to direct his attention to the desirability of setting up some such marketing organisation or encouraging and assisting its establishment by private enterprise.
I think it is also true to say that there is a general idea that the Government is hostile to the development of the tourist business. I know that idea has been offset to some extent by recent statements by some Ministers, but criticism of luxury hotels, of the activities of the Tourist Board, and so forth, has created that general idea in some quarters and it is very desirable that it should be removed. This tourist trade is one of our largest export businesses. I am not at all sure that it is not our largest export business and that of all the items which are included in the annual balance sheet representing our payments to and from other countries, receipts from tourist business are the biggest of all, far exceeding receipts from the sale of cattle or even of all agricultural produce. It is undoubtedly enjoying a temporary boom and it may not always be in the favourable position it is in now but, if it is ever to attract that small proportion of the world's tourist business which would be of great significance to us, it is now that active measures must be taken to that end both in correcting any tendency on behalf of people engaged in holiday business to make hay while the sun shines and to reap a temporary profit regardless of future consequences, and in the general provision of facilities. It has to be recognised that the American Government is taking measures to encourage American citizens to travel abroad and to spread a trail of dollars behind them as they do so.
History records the fact that the great trade slump of 1929 was precipitated by the sudden return to America of American tourists following the stock market crash. The flow of dollars to the rest of the world by American tourists in that year was enormous: its complete and sudden withdrawal deprived all countries of dollar supplies and, consequently, making it impossible for them to buy in America, largely contributed to the depth of the trade crisis which followed the stock market slump. We do not want to rely entirely upon tourist trade from any one country and should try to attract them from all sources, because there is a certain insurance in doing that and because it would be less objectionable to our people if it developed on that basis.
I do not know if the Tourist Board is being facilitated in carrying out its functions. I would like to say that I think I made a mistake of tactics in permitting the Tourist Board at any time to organise the formation of a subsidiary company to acquire and operate hotels. The mistake arose from the fact that not merely was public opinion concentrated on that particular activity of the board but, perhaps even to an undue extent, the development of these hotels absorbed the time and attention of the directors of the board.
The main purpose for which that organisation was set up, however, was to develop our holiday resorts, to provide at them the amenities, facilities and attractions which they lack and which we thought should be provided in the interests of our own people, apart altogether from whatever added inducements they might offer to the development of the tourist trade. For a long number of years, the development of our Irish holiday resorts was neglected and that board was set up to develop them and also to protect our beauty spots against spoliation by the erection of ugly advertisements, petrol stations or other structures of that kind which might destroy their attractiveness and their value.
The board ran into difficulties in its plans for the development of tourist resorts, difficulties mainly associated with the inability of local authorities to give them full co-operation. The board was under legal obligation to make every undertaking a profit-making undertaking and advances were made to it from the Exchequer on the certificate from the board that the investment would yield a profit. That being so, it was clear that they had to develop sites with the co-operation of local authorities in the provision of water supplies, sewerage works and so forth; and local authorities were not always able to keep in step with them. Nevertheless, I would like to see them encouraged to get ahead with that work, by giving whatever additional powers are required to enable them to do it speedily. The powers they got under the Act were very cumbersome. There had to be a very long legal process followed before they could get working in any of these resorts, unless there was complete voluntary co-operation by the citizens and the local authority concerned.
I do not know if it is necessary to extend their powers, but I think it is necessary to give them instructions to go ahead with that particular part of their work and if, in order to ensure that they can concentrate upon that work, they are encouraged to instruct their subsidiary, Fáilte Teoranta, to dispose of their hotels, I think that would be not undesirable. It was always the intention, anyhow, that these hotels, when developed as going concerns, would be disposed of by open sale.
I do not want to refer at length to the problem of turf production and I am not going to refer to it in any controversial manner. I hope that we can get this question of developing what is a most valuable natural resource out of the contentious field. I do not know whether the Minister has considered the proposals set out in the White Paper published in 1946. If he has and has accepted them, there is no longer any difference of opinion amongst us as to the future development of our turf resources. If he has considered them and considers them inadequate or insufficient, I would like him to tell us what his alternative plan is. I am sure he recognises as well as anyone else that, if he can make our turf bogs a source of national wealth by exploiting them, it would be folly to neglect them.
I do not know if the Minister's announcement concerning mineral exploration is to be interpreted as meaning there is now a prospect that the exploration programme contemplated last year will be proceeded with, or that some exploration programme will be carried out. If so, that is a welcome announcement.
I feel I must make some reference to aviation. I was very much disappointed by the apparent decision to change policy in relation to civil aviation and to limit the scope of its development, following the change of Government. I had thought that the appointment of the Minister to his present office and of his Parliamentary Secretary to help him, was an indication that no change was involved, as I think they will be the first to admit that, at all times since the matter came under discussion by the Dáil, they gave no indication but one of whole-hearted approval of the policy which was being followed and of the plans which were being adopted. I hope that these previous expressions of opinion from the Minister represent his real view and that they will ultimately prevail in that Department.
It is, of course, a matter of disappointment that the operations of Aer Lingus last year resulted in a loss. I do not know whether the loss quoted by the Minister is an operational loss only or includes anything in respect of the purchase of Viking aircraft. Again, I want to make it quite clear that, in the matter of the purchase of Viking aircraft, I alone had responsibility; the board of Aer Lingus and their technical advisers were not anxious to acquire those aircraft. The British partners in the company were, of course, particularly concerned at the prospect that a company in which they had associations would not purchase this much-advertised British aircraft at a time when they were hoping to secure a world sale for it.
At one stage, the discussions reached a point when it seemed possible that the Air Agreement we had made with Britain in 1946 would be terminated and at that stage I had discussions with the directors of the company, in which I intimated that I was not prepared to allow that agreement to fall upon the issue of the purchase of Viking aircraft—on which, of course, we had got from the manufacturers and from the British Government technical reports which appeared to be extremely favourable to them and which I thought were entitled to as much weight as the opinions of the technical officers of the company. The aircraft were purchased. They were not a success. The technical officers of Aer Lingus were right. It is not that they were unsafe in operation or incapable of being used, but that their high maintenance cost made them completely uneconomic and, ultimately, the decision was taken by the company to ground them completely; and, in fact, I think they are not now being used by any of the companies around the world which originally contemplated acquiring them. In so far as the air company incurred a loss through the purchase of Viking aircraft, it was a loss which was in a sense imposed on them against their own technical advice and in consideration of the political matters to which I have made reference.
I have always thought that if the operation of air transport services between this country and Great Britain could not be made completely profitable then air transport could not be profitable anywhere. Assuming efficient management and economic aircraft, all the conditions for success are there. Not merely is there a heavy volume of traffic—Aer Lingus carried more passengers last year than the whole British European service—but there is a prospect of continuous all-the-year-round operation, which means that the number of aircraft in use can be related to the traffic and that they can fly always fully loaded. In consequence of the agreement with Great Britain, the company has a monopoly on those services, so its fares do not have to be determined by the competition of other transport companies. It is quite clear, therefore, so far as these British services are concerned that, as soon as the company is established on a proper basis of organisation and has solved the problem of getting economic aircraft suitable for the route, it should be a profitable undertaking. The same, I think, applies to most of the Continental services planned, when the present restrictions in travel can be removed. These services were begun before the present restrictions came into force. They were, of course, badly hit by these restrictions, and their subsequent modification early this year does not overcome the difficulty. I think it is desirable that we should establish ourselves upon certain Continental routes, but we must recognise the fact that profitable operation of these routes, whether on an all-the-year-round or seasonal basis, is not likely to be practicable until travel restrictions can be modified.
The abandonment of the United States service was a very great shock to me. Certainly when I brought to the Dáil in 1946 the legislation which preceded the inauguration of this service, the legislation which provided for the increase in the amount of the subsidy payable in respect of the air services and which implemented the agreement we had made with the United States Government, not a single Deputy spoke in any manner which suggested to my mind anything but the most complete approval of the decision to inaugurate that service. The House was informed by me that the operation of the service would involve a loss for some years. The dimensions of the loss could not be estimated. The operation of a transatlantic service is on a different basis from the operation of services to Great Britain. First of all, the very high standard of performance required by the aircraft engaged in the service involves charges for maintenance and overhaul very much higher than in the case of a shorter service. Secondly, it is a highly competitive route and the rates of charge could not be adjusted to operating costs. Nevertheless, it was thought that we could establish ourselves on that route at least as successfully as other companies on it.
It is true that we had no experience. It is true that we had to train in the operation of the aircraft employed on the route everybody who would be engaged by the company in connection with the service—pilots, engineers and ground crews. They were all sent to America to undergo a course of training. Some of them had to be kept there for a considerable period before they got their certificates of competency. However, on the basis of the high maintenance costs contemplated, it was assumed that in the first year the loss would not exceed approximately £150,000. Subsequently that estimate was revised.
The loss contemplated on the operations of Aerlinte was largely determined by the rental which Aer Lingus was to pay for Constellation aircraft when used on the British routes. There does appear to have been considerable difficulty experienced by the company in preparing a reliable estimate. Certainly in my period of office the estimate of the possible loss on the transatlantic service varied more than once. I understand that the latest estimate prepared by the company would, however, involve a reduction upon the amount stated in the Book of Estimates. Whether that is so or not does not matter.
I think still that we should have proceeded with the service. All the estimates were based on the assumption that the craft on the routes would be utilised only to the extent of 50 per cent., that there would be 50 per cent. of the possible load carried on each journey. That is the normal, conservative basis of calculating the cost of operating a service. Having regard to the experience of other companies on the transatlantic route this year and the substantial increase in the number of planes on the route which it was found necessary to make, I think that the actual experience would have proved that estimate of utilisation to be an unduly low one.
Why should we develop our air services? It is not merely to provide travel facilities for our people but because it is desirable that these travel facilities should be provided by independent Irish organisations. I feel that we suffered considerably by reason of the fact that we have not got available to us organisations for the provision of travel facilities outside Ireland under Irish control. The operation of air services to Europe can be made not merely a source of national pride and prestige but financially profitable. The establishment of these services under Irish auspices ensures employment for Irishmen, not merely in the ordinary day-to-day tasks of an air company or airport but in highly skilled occupations which would otherwise be closed to our people.
Why should we develop the transatlantic air service? Because we have got here conditions which, if we utilise them, could make this country a key point in the conquest of the North Atlantic by civil aviation. We have also got advantages which other countries would spend a great deal to secure. We have a fund of good-will in the United States which no advertising campaign could create, a traffic potential arising out of the association of millions of American citizens with this country and the desire which many of them will have to visit this country, a desire which could be fostered and turned into pay load for an Irish transatlantic company. I hope that the revision of hastily-made decisions which the Government has already undertaken in regard to mineral development, in regard to the short-wave broadcasting station and other things will be extended in consequence of the influence of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to civil aviation and that we will get a re-examination of the whole matter made on the basis of their own faith in the potentialities of the development as expressed here on many occasions before they became members of the Government.
I should like if the Minister would tell us what is the future of the Prices and Efficiency Bill. I know that that Bill is a possible cause of contention within the coalition, because during the election the Labour Party accused me of dropping the Bill and urged that I should be put out of office because I intended to drop it and that the Fine Gael Party stated that I should be put out of office for not dropping it. Some Bill of that kind is required. The pre-war machinery for price control was ineffective. It was not only ineffective, but it was on a wrong basis, because it was concerned only with profits and not with efficiency.
If we are going to have proper supervision of protected industries it must be supervision which is related to efficiency and we should see to it that they will do their job well and not merely for the sake of profit alone. I am also particularly interested in the enactment of the provisions of that Bill which relate to the establishment of industrial councils which will bring the representatives of the workers in each industry into conference with the employers to discuss and plan the development of the industry so far as the workers are interested and other matters. It may be that we are proposing to go not quite so far as the British in that direction but I do not know that the British experience has been such as to discourage our following along their footsteps, at least to the extent proposed in that Bill. I consider that the questions of policy that arise there are very much wider than they appear. If we are going to have the development of the ordinary democratic way of conducting economic activities in this country then, to an increasing extent, trade union organisations must be made responsible for the solution of the problems of factory discipline in relation to which, in the past, they did not regard themselves as having any function except to protect the interest of their members. That devolution of responsibility on trade unions is not justifiable, much less practicable unless they are to an increasing degree brought into a position of responsibility and authority in the general delineation of industrial policy.
I was going to speak about the price of meat but in view of the length of time I have already taken up I will pass over that point.
Go ahead.
The Minister told me, in reply to a Parliamentary Question, that I fixed the price of meat on the basis of an average cost for prime beef in the Dublin market of 83/-; that the price went up to 90/3 in the first quarter of this year and that, in fulfilment of a promise made by me, he then increased the maximum price of meat by approximately slightly over 1d. per 1b. If the present maximum price of beef is based upon the average price of 90/3 in the Dublin market, and if to-day's price, as reported in the evening papers, is 95/- to 96/——
Average.
I agree with the Minister that the average for the quarter may be below that, but that is to-day's price. Is it reasonable to expect the butchers to continue to sell at the prices fixed for meat if they continue to pay that price for beef? How can the Minister justify an average retail selling price of 1/10½ per lb. imposed on the Dublin butchers when the Minister for Defence tells me that the cost to him of meat supplied from the abattoir to the Army is 1/10¾ per lb? Over and above the cost to the Army, the butcher has to maintain his shop, cut up the meat to suit the requirements of his customers and frequently to deliver it to them. What I want to know is what the Minister's policy is in that regard. Is it to keep the present average price of 1/10½ in operation and to tell the butchers that they should pay no more for cattle than the price which would enable them to sell at that fixed retail price with a profit and, if so, how can he reconcile it with the denunciation of the butchers by the Minister for Agriculture when they attempted to carry it out?
May I remind the Minister that in relation to this question of the stock of timber in the Park and its disposal, he at least has a joint responsibility with me. By chance I opened a volume of last year's Dáil Debates and in it I read a speech by Deputy Morrissey, who is now the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The reference is Dáil Volume 105, column 850, April 17th, 1947. The extract reads as follows:
"The Minister in so far as he can, side by side with the maximum effort to produce the greatest amount of turf, is just taking the ordinary precautions to build up over this summer. I know it is not the most suitable time for cutting timber. I know that timber cut from now on to October will not be the best for burning but it is vital, in my opinion, that a big reserve of timber should be built up in the large centres of population. Otherwise I am afraid that the situation next winter will be infinitely worse—and that is, God knows, bad enough—infinitely worse than it was in the winter just passed."
Having found that quotation by Deputy Morrissey I went through the Dáil Debates and I found a whole volume of similar quotations from people who were then Deputies and who are now Ministers. Deputy Blowick spoke in this fashion on the 2nd July, 1947— Vol. 107, columns 696-7:
"I therefore take this opportunity to point out to the Taoiseach that we are faced with at least as bad a fuel famine in the city as last year, because turf production does not seem to be going on with the same swing as in other years. We will scarcely have as severe a winter this year so far as cold and snow are concerned, but there definitely will not be sufficient fuel for this city during the coming winter unless active steps are taken now."
We took those active steps. We built up reserve stocks of firewood and turf and, having done so, coal became unexpectedly available. I want to repeat that word "unexpectedly" because in October of last year I personally discussed with the British Minister of Fuel and Power the prospects of increasing coal delivery during that winter to this country. There was, in fact, a time during the negotiations then proceeding when I was disposed to take the line that if they could not increase the supply of coal we were not going to continue to supply them with certain foodstuffs. But tough as we tried to be, the reply of the British Minister of Fuel and Power was: "We will not have enough coal for ourselves during this winter and we cannot increase deliveries of coal to Ireland before the 1st October, 1948." One morning in December of last year in my office I got a telephone message to the effect that coal was coming in in unexpected quantities. A few days later we got confirmation of the fact that it was coming in on the orders of the British Minister of Fuel and Power and that supplies were, in fact, sufficient to enable us to abolish rationing. The stock of timber which we accumulated in the Park is still there. It cannot be left there indeflnitely because it will deteriorate and it is undesirable that it should be allowed to deteriorate.
If necessary the Government should be prepared to face a substantial loss on it by disposing of it at a much lower price. Nobody will buy it at £4 a ton, but if the price is cut some people will be glad to purchase it. They cannot get back the money it cost by maintaining the price but the poor of Dublin and others will have a temporary windfall in the form of cheap fuel by reason of these reserve stocks if it is now disposed of to them. If I thought that these stocks would preserve their burning quality for a protracted period I would be much more hesitant about advising the Minister to get rid of them. The situation is such at the moment that we should not dispose of reserve stocks of anything. However, it is the fact that these stocks will deteriorate that prompts me to urge the Minister to dispose of them—if necessary by cutting the price.
I would be glad, with regard to the International Labour Conference, to know whether we can expect to get published to us here a report of the proceedings similar to that which it has been the practice to publish in other years, even though a full delegation was not present. I understand that our Minister in Washington or that the Consul-General in San Francisco was instructed to attend as a delegate and, if so, presumably he made a report. Even if we cannot get a report of the full kind, containing a synopsis of the speeches made, as on the previous occasion, we should nevertheless get a formal report of the conventions adopted or the recommendations approved by the conference.
I do not know whether the Minister has in contemplation a review of the Industrial Relations Act. I think the time has come when it would be useful for him to enter into discussions with the organisations representing trade unions and employers as to the operations of that Act. I do not think that the time has arrived when any substantial amendment of it should be undertaken but there have been complaints that the procedure established under it leads to undue delay; that that delay could be avoided and that, in some respects, the Act could be improved even without altering its essential character. In particular, I have a feeling that the whole scheme for conciliation in industrial disputes is defective in one regard. We planned that Act in consultation with these organisations on the assumption that all the process of conciliation would be exhausted before there would be recourse to the court and that the award of the court would be final; that after the court had made an award there would be no obligation upon the Minister for Industry and Commerce or upon the court to intervene in any dispute that was consequential upon a refusal to accept an award of the court. Experience has shown that it has not worked out that way. The machinery of conciliation is not utilised fully or, if utilised, it is merely as a preliminary to having recourse to the court and that in a great many cases recourse to the court is automatic and, in some cases, trade disputes have followed the publication of the court's award. I do not think it is desirable that the Minister should intervene in such disputes.
One of the advantages I saw in that Act is that it put the Minister for Industry and Commerce out of the picture so far as trade disputes are concerned and I am glad the present Minister has not been disposed to depart from that policy. At the same time, it seems to me that it might be useful to give the court itself some power to direct one of its conciliation officers to intervene to some extent in a dispute, even if that dispute has followed upon the rejection by either the employer or the workers of a recommendation of the court. There is, at present, the difficulty that if there is to be a meeting of the parties in such a dispute they have to agree together to meet and no third party has got formal authority to summon them to meet, which is often necessary because of the feeling which either party in the dispute may have that the suggestion of a conference is a sign of weakness. That is why we had in recent disputes the Lord Mayor of Dublin and other citizens intervening. That may be all right but it has been my experience that these unofficial interventions in trade disputes do not always produce the best results, and very infrequently produce a settlement at all. If there is to be some intervention in such disputes, even at that stage, it had better be official intervention by a conciliation officer appointed by the court rather than by some unofficial person who can have no previous knowledge of the history of the dispute and who would be merely concerned to effect a settlement by compromise.
I do not know if the Minister has given consideration to the problems arising out of the Apprenticeship Act or to the problem which is inherent in the reluctance of certain trade unions to admit an adequate number of apprentices to their trades. On the assumption that the average tradesman is available for work for 25 years after he has finished his apprenticeship, it is quite clear that the ratio of apprentices to craftsmen should be one in five in order to maintain the number of workers necessary in the craft. There is not, so far as I know, in any of the building crafts a normal ratio of apprentices. The most recent figures available show that against a normal ratio of one in five the number of apprentices in carpentry is now one to nine journeymen; amongst bricklayers it is one to 12; amongst plasterers, it is one to 13; amongst painters, it is one to 15; and amongst masons, it is one to 25. From that, it is quite obvious that the present number of apprentices in these trades is not sufficient even to maintain the present number of craftsmen and all the indications are that we require an increase in the number of craftsmen. That matter will have to be settled by negotiation and discussion primarily. It seems to me that responsibility for initiating such a negotiation and discussion falls most naturally upon the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is possible that the Minister for Local Government will now take over functions which the Minister for Industry and Commerce previously had in the regulation of matters concerning the building industry. In that case, the responsibility might be his but the administration of the Apprenticeship Act is still, I take it, the function of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
I do not want to speak about our internal transport problem at any length. The Minister has brought over an expert to report to him in three or four months. I am sure, however, that he realises how urgent the problem is. Here is our main transport undertaking losing money, as I understand it, at the rate of about £20,000 per week. The Minister has refused to allow that transport undertaking to increase its fares and that situation is going to remain unchanged until the expert has reported. This stabilisation of fares at their present level and these heavy losses accruing to the company week after week show, in all the circumstances, the obvious urgency of getting action as quickly as possible. There is the statement made by the Chairman of the Great Northern Railway Company published in this evening's papers. Evidently there is going to be a problem in relation to that concern also.
I do not think I can be accused of any undue delay in the matter.
I am not sure on what ground the Minister justifies his decision to refuse the company the right to adjust their charges in order to offset their losses having regard to the fact that they have very largely exhausted their resources.
The Deputy is, of course, aware that I was asked for more than that. I was asked to give them the right to increase fares, close down further branch lines, reduce maintenance to the point of dismissing 2,500 men and to restrict the operation of private transport.
I was not aware of that. My information came solely from the statements made at the recent meeting of shareholders and, so far as I know, the only reference there was to the increase in fares. The point I want to make, however, is that we have not got all the time in the world to examine this question leisurely and to prepare an elaborate report on it. Goodness knows, we have had reports enough by experts and commissions upon our transport problem and I am not at all sure that any one of them added a great deal to our knowledge of the essentials of the problem. If we are to have that problem properly tackled, there is available to the Minister in the offices of the transport branch of his Department a number of experts who will be able to advise him just as well as anybody he can bring in. However, he has committed himself to this expert and the only thing I ask him to do is to urge upon that expert the realisation that time is not merely money but time is vital to Córas Iompair Eireann in this case.
Why did your policy fail?
I would love to debate that with Deputy Davin. I could spend the whole night on it. I do not admit that it has failed at all. I would also like to hear Deputy Davin's policy.
You have a memorandum on that.
Nationalisation does not matter a rap in this connection. Here is a company operating rail and road transport services and losing money on them. It would not cease to lose money even if you nationalised it or appointed a different board of directors. The essence of the problem is far deeper than that and the sooner Deputy Davin faces up to the fact that nationalisation is a mere trifle in relation to this problem, the sooner he will be able to understand what we have been trying to do here and what the present Government must, I think, try to continue in the future.
One section competing against another.
I am not altogether opposed to the maintenance of some element of competition. I must confess that when we passed that legislation in 1945, I hoped that public transport as organised through Córas Iompair Eireann would be able to carry out its plans for procuring new and more efficient equipment far more rapidly than the private traders and that the company would be able to provide, through the fulfilment of its plans, such a widespread transport service at such reasonable prices that the average trader would not be induced to purchase a lorry. Events worked out quite the reverse. The coal crisis, on the one hand, and difficulties encountered by the company in procuring steel and other necessary materials on the other hand, delayed their plans while, unexpectedly, numbers of new lorries became available for purchase by private traders, who purchased them and will continue to operate them. That is the essence of the problem the company has to face. There are twice as many lorries in the country now as before the war and, in so far as private traders will continue to use them, the volume of traffic available to the company has diminished.
I based my expectation in 1945 that the railways would be able to extend their services more rapidly than road transport would recover from the effects of the war upon various factors. One was the announcement, which then appeared to be authoritative, that supplies of rubber would not recover for five years. We were told the Japanese had destroyed the rubber plantations, but it was found when the areas were cleared of Japanese that the rubber plantations were flourishing and expanding and the first commodity which came into full supply was rubber. It helped to expedite the expansion of road transport services far more rapidly than seemed likely in 1945.
I still think that even though events turned out much different from what we foresaw, the essence of the problem depends upon the discovery of methods of operating rail transport with such equipment that the cost of carrying each ton of merchandise will be substantially reduced. On the basis of increased freights there can be no future for it. Increased freights may be a temporary palliative until a long-term plan is practicable, but it is the reduction of cost of transporting goods by rail that will make it possible to get traffic in competition with the privately owned lorry.
Why did you authorise one section to compete against the other?
We have heard that for about 20 years and, while there may be some truth in it, the problem cannot be very great.
Is there not a prolem as regards efficiency in management?
That is a problem in every business, and even in every Party. The Minister spoke about the rationing of bread and he assured us that he hoped he would get available next year enough wheat to maintain the existing bread ration. I see an announcement in this evening's papers, made by the Press Association, that the British are going to end bread rationing. That announcement may not be authoritative; it may not be true, but I should think that we would look with very considerable disfavour upon the development of conditions in which the British were spending dollars to buy enough wheat to end bread rationing in Britain if we were restricted in our purchases, either through currency limitations or decisions of the International Emergency Food Council, and on that account compelled to continue with bread rationing.
There is also a little matter of a £10,000,000 subsidy.
There is that also. In that connection I was quite interested from one point of view in the Minister's announcement that he is establishing a committee to enquire into the necessity to continue the subsidy on flour. I can tell him in five minutes everything that the committee can tell him. There is no industry in this country about which the Department has got so much information as it has about the baking industry or the flour-milling industry. They can tell you exactly how much a sack of flour should cost in relation to the price of wheat and how much a loaf of bread should cost in relation to the price of flour. All that information has been accumulated through numerous investigations. The only question to be inquired into with regard to continuing the subsidy on flour is by how much do you want to allow the price of bread to go up.
There is a little more in it than that.
I do not think there is. That committee will not have to spend a lot of time before it completes its inquiries. The officials in the Department can write out a report and have it ready for signing before the committee meets.
I note a statement by the Tánaiste, the Minister for Social Welfare, that he hopes that it will not be many months until the Government give evidence of the fact that they will accept the principle of workers being represented on some of the boards of semi-State undertakings. I would like to say this in that regard, that while I am aware that there are in the trade union movement many individuals who are highly competent and worthy in every way for appointment to the boards of these State or semi-State companies, I do not think that was quite what the Minister for Social Welfare had in mind. He had in mind the appointment on these boards of persons who would be representative of the workers employed by the boards. That, I think, would be an undesirable practice. I think members of these boards should have one loyalty only, and that is to the undertaking. Their concern should be the welfare of the undertaking; they should not go there as representatives of any body seeking to promote the interests of those they represent, even against the interests of the undertaking.
While I would strongly approve any tendency to select, from the trade union movement, people who are suitable for appointment on these boards and to appoint them thereto, I think that they should not be regarded or asked to regard themselves as the representatives of the workers in the industry. That is the problem, the problem that, even though you may take a man who has no relations with the trade union catering for the workers concerned, he nevertheless will regard himself as the representative of the workers and will regard his function on the board as being to get better conditions or increased pay for the workers and will not concern himself so much with the general welfare of the undertaking. That is why trade union representatives can rarely be considered from that aspect until they have retired. I know there are a number of them who would make excellent directors. It is the experience of other countries that it is unwise to appoint people on the boards of these undertakings representing anybody except the Minister or having any responsibility except to make the concern a success. I could talk on matters affecting industry and commerce all night, but I had better not fall into that temptation, so I will leave it at that point.
This Estimate, to my mind, is equally important with the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture. With all due deference to the farmer Deputies who, on so many occasions, tell us the agricultural community is the only wealth producing factor in our nation, it is just as well to remember that of equal importance is every worker who applies himself to any other product which adds to the general wealth of the community. That happens not only in agriculture, but also in industry. One of the fears that I have is that in this period we may possibly fail to realise that alongside a correct agricultural policy we also require a correct industrial policy and that it is very necessary we should pay attention to that.
I was somewhat disappointed with the Minister's introductory speech. Possibly there are very good reasons. Since he has taken up office he has had a number of problems falling on his shoulders, not all of his own personal making and not all of the making of the Government with which he is connected. At the same time I think we ought to realise that the time has now certainly come to make it possible, and not merely possible but essential, that we should apply ourselves to this problem of a general national industrial policy. That is why I feel that the question I asked the Taoiseach some time ago, as to the possibility of establishing something in the nature of a national economic council, should be given more attention and examination, to see if more fruitful avenues of development might be opened up. I quite realise that, not only in this House but outside it, there are entirely different views as to the value of planning and forecasting our future line of development but the view that no planning is necessary to my mind is childish, because quite clearly no community, no concern, no deliberative Assembly can carry on its business for a day without trying to see to some extent into the future.
If that is good business or policy for an industrial concern, a firm, or any other body engaged in any human activity, it must be equally so for a nation or community, especially a community placed in our position, where not only have we gone through a period of a certain type of industrial development largely conditioned by the industrial policy of one political Party, but have gone through a period of emergency and now find ourselves not merely in a period of post-war conditions but as many speakers have said in a period prior to the outbreak of war. In conditions of that nature, it is surely desirable not only to evaluate the resources we have both in the way of natural resources and our industrial resources, but to see what the gaps in our defence are and to ascertain what we should do to fill these gaps in the best possible way. That is planning in the ordinary, sensible manner. Surely if we are dealing with a community embracing the whole of our national territory, that type of planning cannot be done by one industrial group. It cannot be done by one Department. It must embrace all the deliberative resources of Government, all the sources of information apart from all the sources of experience and of trained knowledge available to the community. That in effect must be summarised in the form of some natural centre which will collect all the information, analyse it and make it available to the community in general. That is very important at the moment, because of certain views expressed in the Minister's statement and in Deputy Lemass's speech.
May I say, in passing, that while his speech was quite long there was not a word in it to which I could object. We may differ in the point of view which we take in regard to certain matters, but nevertheless I regarded his speech as a notable contribution to the solution of the many difficult problems with which the nation is at present faced. Unlike some of the speeches to which we have been treated recently, notably in the discussion on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture, which were obviously intended as an effort to make propaganda and Party capital out of the discussion, his speech appeared to be a sincere attempt to deal with the various problems connected with this Estimate as they appeared to him. As I say, while I do not agree with a great many of his views, his example might be profitably followed by many members of his Party just as, possibly, much of the advice which he gave could be considered by many Deputies on this side of the House.
One thing with which I am concerned, apart from the need of trying to understand our general industrial and economic position, is the general insistence on the fact that we must study our immediate situation and try to fill certain gaps in our industrial organisation because of the immediate danger of war. I am no more insensible than any other Party in this country to what is going on outside the country. At the same time I think it well that we should not allow ourselves to be forced into the position that may cost us more than we are in a position to afford. Before there is an outbreak of war one thing sure is that the social and economic conditions conducive to war have got to be there first.
My own opinion at the moment is that although there is a very dangerous situation in the events which we see developing around us, matters have not reached that critical point yet at which war is inevitable. The last war developed out of a very small incident but everyone who studied conditions before that particular incident occurred, knew that the development of economic and social affairs had reached such a point that all that was required was a match to set things alight and the match was provided. In the present situation we have scarcely seen the passage of a period of more than two years since the end of active hostilities and to my mind—I may quite probably be wrong—we have not yet seen the development of a situation in regard to social and economic conditions and the building up of a machine which make possible the outbreak of another war. There is always the possibility that a maniac may break loose but apart from that possibility there has not been that type of development which would render war inevitable.
I think it is quite definite that despite all these recent developments in Europe we can still, with a certain amount of confidence, count on some years yet in which we can live as normal human beings and pursue our normal way of life. That, however, does not mean that the advice given to us to take active measures to prepare for an emergency should not be considered and acted upon but it does mean that if we take measures for building up stocks of raw materials, and if we take them in the atmosphere of being immediately threatened by an outbreak of war, we may commit ourselves to acquiring these stocks at a cost far and above what we would be justified in paying in normal circumstances, whereas if we display a little less anxiety we may be able to achieve the same end at a smaller price to ourselves.
In a discussion on our industrial policy in relation to our needs, we should sit down calmly and try to evaluate as clearly as we can the needs of the present situation. Above all, we should realise as far as practicable that, so far as the man in the street in this country is concerned, our only knowledge and the only basis on which we can evaluate the situation outside this country, is that supplied by what is often the completely distorted picture presented to us by the daily Press. I have never known a period when the reports in the daily Press were less to be relied upon than during the last few years. From that point of view we should, as I say, very carefully study and analyse the present situation.
So far as our internal policy is concerned I do not want to traverse all the ground covered by Deputy Lemass but I do think it necessary to make one comment. Both the Minister in his statements outside the House, and Deputy Lemass here, have stressed the importance of the part played in the development of our national economy by private enterprise. Nobody with any sense of proportion would deny that viewpoint. I do not for a moment forget that we are still living in an economy based on private enterprise and on the profit motive. The only point upon which I wish to join issue is that we should place so much emphasis on that aspect of our economy and concentrate upon it. For a long period Deputy Lemass had a rather socialistic outlook but at a certain point about 1945 he began to deviate to some extent from that and he seemed to pay more regard to the interests of private ownership and private control. I am not going to argue the merits of that policy but it does seem to me that too much emphasis has been placed upon it. My point is that in critical periods we have found time after time that private enterprise does not deliver the goods.
In relation to certain spheres of industrial development, we know from experience that private enterprise will not undertake these tasks and carry them out. The reason given for that by Deputy Lemass is that private enterprise is actuated only by the profit motive. In other fields of industrial activity we require gaps to be filled in our structure, some of which have been attempted by Deputy Lemass. But private enterprise will not carry out the job or take the risk because it is a gamble. It may be that the return is uncertain or not sufficiently high, and so they sit back and wait for somebody else to do it. There are many of those gaps to be filled, such as the development of our power resources and probably of our peat resources, and the development of certain industrial supplies of artificial manure, and possibly even experimental forms of new industries. All these developments are required from the point of view of making us as nearly self-sufficient as we reasonably can expect to be. I believe that is a duty devolving on the Government to take the lead in the case of these particular avenues and not to sit back and wait.
The Minister spoke of the general tariff policy of the Government and gave an indication of his anxiety to have not merely Irish capital coming in but capital from outside the country as well. I welcome his statement that his tariff policy is going to be one designed to encourage the development of Irish industry on the basis of producing goods at a reasonable price, under efficient conditions and with reasonable conditions for the workers employed, but I think something more definite than that is required—that is the intention of using the tariff policy of the Government and the resources of the community to see that a certain line of industrial development is achieved, that a certain impetus is given to it, and that we achieve certain known objects within a certain period of time and not sit back and wait for some gentleman either with Irish or with foreign money to come in and undertake the tasks which are immediately required from the point of view of the welfare of the community.
There was one item that I was glad to hear the Minister mention, and that was with reference to the consideration which is now being given to mineral exploration. In the course of the Budget debate I mentioned that I thought it was not only a pity but that no case could be made for the elimination of the sum of £85,000 from the Estimate. I would urge on the Minister to use whatever influence he can bring to bear to have that money restored, if not for the development and working of the mines at Avoca. My understanding of the way in which the money was to be spent was completely different from the way in which, apparently, it was going to be spent. My understanding was that we had made available a certain sum for the continuation of the working of the Slievardagh coalfields until we had put them in a position in which we could hope to dispose of them commercially, and that this sum of £85,000 was for general mineral exploration. Then it seemed that its expenditure was largely to be concentrated on the development of Avoca. There seems to be a wide divergence of opinion as to whether Avoca is a practical proposition or not. If it is not, is there not a case for spending the £85,000 on what I believe was the original intention—that is, for national mineral explorations on an organised scientific basis. It seems to me to be a pity that in that particular line, on which there is such a general measure of agreement, we should pause even for a moment on the expenditure of even a larger sum than £85,000 on mineral exploration when we realise that quite a long time may elapse before we may be able to bring together such an expert team of research engineers as that which is now available. If we do not utilise their services now they will be scattered and may not be available when required.
I think it would be suicidal not to come to a decision immediately to make that £85,000 again available as well as to indicate that that is a type of activity that we propose to encourage and develop as widely as we possibly can. Sooner or later we will have to make up our minds that it is on the basis of such knowledge as we can acquire in regard to the natural resources we have in the country that we can build and get to understand what we may have to seek from outside.
Reference has already been made to the timber fuel which is lying in the Phænix Park. I do not want to follow Deputy Lemass on that. I think he is aware that we could have ceased buying timber much earlier than we did this year. The problem that we are faced with now is that we have the timber there. I do want to suggest to the Minister, and I am speaking now from my own knowledge, that he should take the bull by the horns and go to the Department of Finance and tell them that this timber has to be got rid of, and that the longer it is left there the greater the loss is going to be. We know, of course, that the Department of Finance usually takes a long time to make up its mind on matters of this kind. I think that, if the timber is allowed to remain there for a much longer period, the problem will probably solve itself, and that in the end there will be very little left but heaps of dust. What we have there at the moment is timber fuel, and it could be disposed of at a price which would be within the capacity of the poorest sections of the people in Dublin to-day. It would be not only a good financial policy to do that, but it would also be good social policy to dispose of the timber fuel in that way than wait until, as I have said, it cannot be disposed of. If a decision is not come to quickly the problem will solve itself.
Deputy Lemass spoke of the air services. I would be very slow to suggest for the moment that the air services should not be developed. It is correct to say that, in Aer Lingus, we have on the Dublin-London route what is generally regarded as one of the most profitable lines in civil aviation operating in Europe to-day. Why is it, in view of that, that we have been launched in the present mess? It is not merely a question of the buying of the Vikings or of the preparation or development of flights to the Continent and having them discontinued that is involved. The mess has been there all along, and sooner or later somebody will have to step in and clear it up. Anybody who has had dealings with the company knows that you have there tier upon tier of administrators dealing even with simple trade union questions. You find it hard to discover who is the person that has responsibility. My belief is that one of the difficulties is that the company has been operating on a Civil Service basis. One of the peculiar answers made to one of our people when we talked about this question of overloading on the administrative side was that, in fact, they were short-handed because they had not yet reached full establishment strength. That seems to me to be an indication of the kind of organisation we have to deal with.
While I am fully in favour of maintaining Aer Lingus as far as cross-Channel and Continental flights are concerned, it seems to me that if the services are to be maintained and if we are to retain such advantages as we have there, we must insist that immediate steps be taken in inquire into the whole operation of the company from the ground up. For too long we have allowed it to operate in this way and we have had one of two peculiar instances of what is going on. We should have this inquiry, not from the point of view of economy or of proving that this type of air policy was wrong but from the point of view that the company is started and of expanding the air policy we are committed to. As far as the transatlantic air service is concerned, I want to be quite frank in saying that at the time when Deputy Lemass, as Minister, introduced this Estimate, I did not express any opinion against it. I was not convinced by him that he was correct, yet I did not feel that I knew enough about the question to stand up and argue on points of which I was not convinced. We are going to see, I think, as far as profitable first-class passenger traffic is concerned, a by-passing of this country in the transatlantic route. I have yet to see in any of the arguments which have been so far adduced that there is more than the remotest possibility that the amount of money that we must commit ourselves to, both for the actual operation of the planes and their maintenance and the money invested in the development of aerodromes with all modern conveniences is warranted under present conditions.
While I agree with having cross-Channel and Continental services, there is a gamble involved in the transatlantic services and we have not got any guarantee that this country will not be by-passed as least as far as first-class passenger traffic is concerned. It happened with regard to steamships, and the technical development of aeroplanes will leave us in the same condition. We will find ourselves committed to large capital expenditure as well as current expenditure from year to year and the opportunity will be denied to us of reaping the benefit of the money we have invested.
Reference has already been made to our shipping needs and to shipbuilding. I do not want to dwell upon this point but I would urge the Minister not to allow us to make the same mistake as we made before the last war of neglecting to provide ourselves with merchant shipping until we were bled white later in the emergency in order to obtain ships to keep our lifelines open. If countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark which are not countries with any colonial possessions, merely ordinary homelands confined to their own shores, can maintain, not merely merchant fleets from the point of view of their national needs, but from the point of view of commercial profits, surely we can do the same. Our needs of shipping services, both deep sea and coastal, are as great as the needs of any nation in Europe. We have already got the nucleus of a fleet and this should be maintained and built up.
In addition to our deep-sea and coastal needs, there is the point which has been made by Deputy Lemass that the two shipbuilding yards here must not be allowed again to go down, and they are near it at the present time. We should maintain them, not merely by seeing that they have a measure of repair work, but by seeing that they are given actual Government encouragement as far as shipbuilding is concerned. It is a mistake not to have looked into the possibility of having them build some ships, even ships of smaller tonnage for Irish Shipping, and the fact that some of the ships which were put on our lines lately were not built in the Dublin yard was a very grievous mistake and one which we should bear in mind in future.
Another point I wish to refer to is that I am sorry the Minister did not refer in his speech to the question of price control. It seems to me that this is one of the vital subjects upon which we must have some guidance, guidance of an immediate character, both from the Minister and from the Government as a whole. Tied up with price control, we have the thorny question of industrial efficiency. The fact that there were different views on different sides of the House regarding the Industrial Efficiency Bill is no reason why we should not realise that it is a problem we have to tackle and that we should find the means of tackling it. We need price control because we have not found the means of relating prices to production costs.
It is a very peculiar thing that since the Budget speech of the Minister for Finance, advertisements have been appearing on all the papers from the leading drapers protesting their innocence and explaining how they kept within the strict confines of the law in the matter of excess profits. It is also a peculiar thing that there has been a host, a regular flood, of sales all over the city. I am maybe too innocent, but I believe that prices at sales are marked down, although sometimes I may have my suspicions. It is a very peculiar thing that at the time when we have had so much talk and so much comment and references to the matter by the Minister for Finance, we should suddenly find this slashing of prices all round. It cannot be entirely accidental. We require price control although recent developments may be the aftereffects of the emergency.
From the point of view of internal policy and of industrial policy, if we are to encourage entrepreneurs and manufacturers to produce and to establish industries, if we are to enable them to enter into the earning of profits, profits should be made available to them and a guarantee of the willingness of the community to carry the costs of helping to provide them, but we must have the machinery to keep a check on the business. It does not necessarily mean that it should be a harsh check or a strict check, but it must be an effective check. We must not deal with prices in terms of the money charged by the retailer to the consumer but in relation to efficiency. I do not see how this Government, any more than the previous Government can side-step the responsibility of providing the machinery to deal with price control as such and with efficiency from the point of view of the burden that is being carried by the community in order to build up industry, and at the same time provide the opportunity for profits to be made by those who invested money in industrial development.
We have had repeated appeals to all sections of our workers, agricultural workers and industrial workers, to give of their best efforts to increase production. There is, I think, a gradually broadening realisation among workers that this involves something more than an effort on the part of employers to pull a fast one on them or to put one over on them. They are beginning to realise that they have an interest themselves in increasing production, but the obstacles in the way are tremendous. It is not merely a question of brute strength or of pouring out a little more sweat, but it requires the application of brains, technical skill and experience. The only way in which the application of these particular qualities can be carried out is by having some access on the part of the workers to the managerial sphere of industry. The claim for some voice in the management that we hear from the workers is not a case of, as it were, pushing a door, but the logical outcome of the demand which has been made on them by the Government and industrialists. If industrialists want increased co-operation from their workers and an effort to increase production, if the workers are given the opportunity of utilising their knowledge and their experience at the council table, it might be the best way of achieving that increased production. What do we find? We find that, when this very mild suggestion is made, the Federation of Irish Manufacturers gets up on its hind legs and tells us that under no condition will they agree to labour having any say in management, while, at the same time, they go into conferences with the representatives of the workers and appeal to them to co-operate in increasing production. Surely the whole thing is farcical and sooner or later we will have to have some policy laid down in the matter.
The suggestion that the State and the Government should give a lead by affording representation on semi-State bodies to representatives of the workers is one way in which we can take the first step. I personally agree that to put on to the board of a semi-State company a direct representative of the workers actually engaged in that industry will create very great difficulties, not merely from the point of view of the board of directors, but from the point of view of the union from which that person comes and of the individual himself, but I cannot see why representatives should not be put on these boards from the point of view of workers as a whole as part of the community. We already put certain people on these boards and I take it for granted that some of these are appointed because of their financial knowledge, others because of their administrative knowledge and still others because of their industrial knowledge. At the same time each of them in himself represents to some extent a particular section of the community and makes a certain contribution to it. Why, therefore, should we not have a representative of the workers, of either hand or brain, engaged in industry as a whole on these bodies?
One of the difficulties I see, and one of the defects in these semi-State bodies, is the failure to realise that they are not going to get efficiency and not going to put these companies on a paying basis merely by dealing with figures and technical matters and ignoring completely the human element. My experience is, and I am being quite frank, that in respect of the ordinary workers engaged by these bodies, more consideration and more human feeling is shown by the private employer than by these impersonal boards which we have set up.
That, in my view, is the cause of a great deal of the difficulty. We have already got it in an acute form in some of our semi-State bodies, even to the extent of actual labour disputes. We have it particularly bad at times in our air services and there should be no need of it, because, if these are communally-owned enterprises which are run for the benefit of the community and which are answerable to the House, there is no reason why we should not be able to establish better human relationships between those we appoint to managerial posts and the workers carrying on the enterprise, than the individual employer who is dependent on his ability for maintaining his own personal position and the position of his company and extracting profits out of the labour of his employees.
Reference has been made to our transport position. I do not want to dwell on it, but I suggest that, in the inquiry at present being carried on, we might have regard to one simple fact which, so far as I know, all the inquiries carried on with regard to our rail and road problem have forgotten, that is, that, in our rail system, we have ordinary men, men who work with their hands or men engaged in managerial or technical activities, who could give us a lot of very valuable advice not merely on how to run railways but on how to avoid running them in the way in which they have been run in the past few years. I suggest that the railway expert who has been brought over from England should be advised that he will get a great deal of very valuable information, not by calling in those who are apparently what might be called the front for our railway monopoly or road system, but by going behind the scenes and making direct contact with the men who have to carry on the system 24 hours a day and who know that, in recent years, the rail system here has been run into the ground not by a competing privately-owned system on the roads but by those running the rail system who have had a road mentality.
I feel that so far as transport is concerned, we have to make up our minds with regard to it, just as we do with regard to posts and telegraphs. It is a public service and if we are to have it, we must do without many other things. One of these things is the facility of the private individual to take the cream of the public transport system when it suits him at a very cheap rate, and, at the same time, run his own private system on the paying loads, the big loads, and always be able to call, in an emergency, on the reserves which have to be made available by a public company. I agree with Deputy Lemass that changing the name does not mean anything and the question of whether we nationalise transport or not will not solve the problem, but one thing will, that is, unlike both the British Labour Government and Deputy Lemass when putting the Transport Bill through the House, making up our minds to take our courage in our hands and deciding that if are to have an efficient transport system it must be all-embracing and that we cannot allow exceptions. Otherwise, we will have no transport system and will continue to have that very grave industrial problem in front of us.
So far as the Labour Court is concerned, I think the time has come to discuss not major amendments of the Act but the actual experience we have gained in operating this machinery. The Minister should inquire into it because it is he who will have to take the initiative in calling the bodies together and letting them exchange opinions, with a view to finding out what are the difficulties in the administration and utilisation of the machinery and how we can improve it in the light of the experience gained in the two years we have been using it.
I should like to raise the question of transport in relation to the use of lorries not in the service of the transport company. I am sure that every Deputy has had the experience recently, and particularly since motor vehicles became available to the public at the end of the war, of requests to place before the Department demands for plates in respect of lorries for hire purposes. The answer has always been in the same terms. I understand that one of the reasons for that answer is that it is undesirable that there should be any new people entering into competition with the transport company, Córas Iompair Éireann. I think there is a very big principle involved here. By reason of the peculiar circumstances existing in this country, an agricultural country to a large extent and a country in which there is not a very great network of railways, transport to and from distant parts of the country, those parts which are not easily accessible, should be left as much as possible in private hands and subject to as much competition as possible.
Córas Iompair Éireann, plus some other persons who are in possession of plates, have a complete monopoly of the transport of goods at the moment, and it is very difficult to deal with people who know that they have such a monopoly. I think that if we had competition in the country districts, it would be for the benefit of trade in general.
I know that the argument is that if you allow more lorries on the road as public hauliers, the time will come when you will have to buy them out, in the interests of keeping Córas Iompair Éireann on its feet, but, so far as I can see at present, it is going to be impossible to put Córas Iompair Éireann on its feet at all, with the consequence that the country will suffer. There is a big matter of principle involved. You have to go one of two ways. You have either from now on to say that the transport policy will be based on the fact that you must not do anything that will injure the earning capacity of Córas Iompair Éireann or you must ignore that question and say that the primary consideration is service to the public and the production of wealth.
A man who has a lorry which he drives for hire is a one-man business. He is not affected by hours of work or by very many considerations that arise when the service is provided for the public by a big undertaking. The persons who have been applying from time to time for plates for their lorries are keen young men who would be prepared, if needed, to have a lorry at the farmer's yard at 4 o'clock in the morning and, if they were allowed to operate, a state of affairs would be reached when you would have transport at keen competitive rates and providing efficient service.
In addition, you would be giving valuable employment to these little one-man businesses that are ready to spring into existence. There is a vast number of such men in the country. There is a number in my constituency. I must have written at least 40 letters to the Department within recent months from respectable responsible persons who are prepared to invest in this business several hundreds of pounds in the shape of the price of a lorry. They are not doing that for the purpose of throwing money down the drain. They are doing it for the purpose of providing a valuable service to the community and getting a livelihood for themselves. It will be a most unfortunate state of affairs if private enterprise of that kind is not encouraged because of the fact that the State has burdened itself with the responsibility of paying the debenture interest on Córas Iompair Éireann or for the purpose of keeping Córas Iompair Éireann from toppling over altogether which, as far as I can see, it is going to do. I make no apology for saying that it is one of the most disgracefully run concerns that any country could ever be ashamed of.
Run by accountants.
I do not know by whom it is run and I am not concerned. All I am concerned with is the way it is run. They have not the vision or the imagination to place a decent train load of trucks at Dún Laoghaire Pier for the reception of foreigners. They appear to have gone all around the country to collect the most rattle trap lot of prehistoric conveyances that are not even the same shape or the same size, and that make a burlesque of our transport system, to meet people coming from abroad, possibly visiting this country for the first time.
Some years ago, I wrote a letter by way of complaint on behalf of my constituents in regard to the service on the up and down line between Wexford and Dublin.
Slow and easy.
One of the statements I made was that I presumed that the director regarded the statement that every single coach on the particular train leaked as a mere pleasantry. However, we did not get any patching of the roof but I did get a visit from a very civil genetleman accompanied by a bowler hat and an umbrella. I said: "What have you come to see me about?""Well," he said "when a gentleman like you writes a letter like that, the company always sends somebody like me around to see him." But the service remained just as it was. The lavatories were not cleaned, the straps were off the windows and the carriages still leaked. That is the sort of thing one has to contend with.
It is due to the absence of competition. Where you take away competition you must have decent management. I think it is very hard luck that decent young men whose fathers are putting up money for the purchase of lorries are kept out of that business for ever in order to keep this rattletrap concern on its feet—for that is all it is.
We are discussing one of the most important Departments of State. I take the cue from Deputy Larkin in regard to civil aviation. He went as far as to make a slight excuse for the Party with which he is associated in the matter of the abandonment of the Constellations. None of the industries that were established in this country over a number of years has paid its way inside the first few years. There has been a great deal of misrepresentation with reference to civil aviation and the money spent on it. I seriously ask the Minister are we not to carry on the services that other civilised Governments have carried on? Are we not to have an aerodrome or an air service? I have been given to understand that we succeeded in our air service to the extent that two years ago we were regarded as having one of the most efficient air services in Europe. Aer Lingus was developing and there was a possibility of developing an air service with the United States. The possibilities were good there because of the number of our friends in the United States. There are 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 Irish people living there. Many of them were anxious to see that arm of our air service developed and, with all the good-will that exists in the United States towards this country, it was worth a trial and would be a success. This is a country young in experience and it is necessary for us to do as other countries have done in the development of air services.
I have been told that there were a number of refugees who were anxious to be taken from a certain part of Europe to South America. Aer Lingus and another company in this country had been asked to carry those passengers. There were about 3,000,000 of them to be carried. It is a pity that the short-sighted policy of cutting down expense has resulted in the abandonment of the service. Emphasis has been laid on the huge cost of these services, but we all realise that these services cannot be expected to pay within the first year or two. I would suggest to the Minister that he should reconsider his decision in regard to air services. He should look upon it as an important national development from a passenger and freight viewpoint. In years to come, it may be very useful to this country. In the last month, or two, we see how conditions have changed on the Continent, and statesmen tell us the international position is not too rosy at all. We might be glad to have this service to fall back upon, in conjunction with another service I am about to mention. The Minister pointed out yesterday that he would try to re-employ some of the people who were in that service.
A large number have been dismissed from Aer Lingus and Aer Rianta. It is a big problem to see so many technically-trained young men having to leave the country and anxious to get away. Some of those employed there at the moment feel that their jobs are in jeopardy and they are not satisfied. We have some of the best air pilots in the world in Aer Lingus. Some of them have left and it is sad that they should go, after all their training. Other people, in useful employment there, have been dismissed from the clerical, technical and labouring grades. Hundreds of these have been out of work and I would like the Minister to tell us what the Government is going to do to try to stop some of those technically-trained people and others from leaving the country, through unemployment, as a result of Government policy in abandoning the Constellation service.
We have had here, during the war, experience of our mercantile marine service and how essential it was to have at least a few boats. Now we find again that it is essential to develop such a service. We are a small country and other small countries throughout Europe and the world have developed their maritime service. If any country has got an example of what should be done, we got a very severe warning during the last war, when we were very anxious to get a few old boats from the United States, to try to carry in the foodstuffs which we needed. The Minister should favourably consider, no matter what it would cost our national resources, developing our marine service to meet the requirements of our country in case of emergency.
With reference to industrial development under the much despised régime of 16 years of Fianna Fáil our progress was rapid under very adverse circumstances. I take cognisance of the speech made here by the Minister for Finance on our industries. While some industrialists may have made money, I believe there are others which were carried on with small capital by private enterprise. They should get an opportunity of putting their money back into the industry, to develop it, to get better machinery and create better employment. They should also get adequate protection under our tariff policy.
Some of the modern factories I have visited have carried out some good work in providing canteens, and so on, for their workers. They have sick benefits, too. One industry developed from the agricultural point of view in County Dublin, has introduced a pension scheme. That is a laudable thing. Any industrialist who is so able to develop an industry that he can introduce a pension scheme for the workers and see that he has a doctor to look after them, is doing a most commendable work. It creates good-will and will ensure that our workers will be in good health. A report I got from one manufacturer who introduced this scheme was that they were getting a greater output from the workers, as a result of looking after them properly. We should try to encourage other industrialists to come up to the same level.
At the moment, some of our factories are competing with a lot of goods coming in and some of them are threatening to let their employees go, while others have some employees on short time. I know it is a problem for the Minister, but I would like him and his officers to give it serious consideration. The Balbriggan hosiery, a little factory at Santry, a factory and paper mills in Clondalkin and the Killeen Paper Mills, are some of those I can mention. I would like the Minister to consider what can be done to protect the interests of the manufacturers and workers in those factories.
I believe that tariffs should be maintained until we have our factories working efficiently and able to compete with foreign factories. Deputy Lemass pointed out a few years ago that he was anxious to see industrial efficiency. It is the national aim of all of us, that we should not see a factory progressing for a year or two and then becoming derelict. That is very important and we must look at it from the national, and not from the Party, point of view. Everyone looks forward to our industrial, development as something essential and as it played its part well during the recent war.
I am delighted that the most despised tourist industry, that was torn asunder by some of the political Parties on the hustings during the election, is now found by them to be worth about £35,000,000 to this country. Any industry responsible for creating at least an even trade balance in the country will be welcome. We know well that an adverse trade balance would be responsible for reducing our standard of living. The tourist industry should be developed as, if it is responsible for bringing in £35,000,000 more, it is an advantage to us. We have so few exportable goods to go to the dollar areas that anything coming in, in the tourist line especially, is very welcome. I hope that, in the light of experience, the misrepresentations about it will not occur again.
I was very disappointed at the Labour Party and Clann na Poblachta voting for the elimination from the Estimates of £85,000 for mineral exploration. We have heard from time to time that the mineral resources of our country were fairly good. We had an opportunity of seeing whether there were any mineral deposits worth while in the country and of providing machinery for that purpose. But the people who held themselves up as the saviours of the working class and the other miracle workers during the recent election all voted for the elimination of this £85,000. I was pleased to hear Deputy Larkin, however, ask the Minister to reconsider that matter. I would suggest to the Minister that, from a national point of view, he should reconsider the position and make that money available for mineral exploration.
Shipbuilding is another industry in which I am interested and, if possible, I should like to see the shipbuilding yards further developed. We are possibly on the eve of another war and it might be possible to do a little more for our shipbuilding yards. I know it is a big problem, but I am sure the Minister will try to do his best in the matter. As to the stocks of timber, turf and coal in the Phoenix Park, Deputy Lemass has dealt fairly well with that matter. Deputy Lemass was only telling the truth when he said that the Minister for Industry and Commerce and other Ministers, when they were in opposition, pointed out now essential it was that we should have stocks of fuel built up. We all know what the people had to suffer during the fuel shortage. Afterwards, of course, we had fine weather and we got supplies of coal. The result is that we have a big reserve of fuel and that is possibly all to the good. With other Deputies who have spoken, however, I suggest to the Minister that he might consider disposing of the stocks of timber, because if they are left there very long they will be sure to deteriorate very much. A number of people would be anxious to get supplies of that timber, but not at £4 per ton.
I should also like to know what the Minister intends to do with regard to providing employment for the people who were dispensed with by Bord na Móna and Fuel Importers Limited. The suspension of turf cutting is responsible for a lot of unemployment all over the country. We have been told that that is not responsible for causing unemployment. I can say it has caused a lot of unemployment in my constituency amongst people who were working for Bord na Móna and on the turf dumps in the Phoenix Park. I should like the Minister to tell us what he proposes to do in connection with that matter.
There has been much adverse criticism of Córas Iompair Éireann. The transport problem is a big one and that company has passed through a very critical period. At one time they had to carry on with a one-day per week long distance train service because they were short of coal. They had to buy steel and coal and other things which have gone up 400 or 500 per cent. in price. All these things should be taken into consideration. When everything is going well, it is easy to praise those responsible. People should not be distributing blame, however, except they are fully cognisant of all the facts. Engines had to be converted in order to run them by fuel oil. All these matters were very expensive and should be given full consideration.
It has been stated that one service of the company is competing with another. I thought that the Transport Bill introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government would have settled the transport problem for all time. The Minister is now bringing in an expert to go into the whole transport problem. As Deputy Lemass stated, the company is now losing up to £20,000 a week. If that is the case, it is a very serious matter. The railway industry should be protected if at all possible. It has been stated that private owners should be allowed to carry on in connection with the transport problem. Deputy Esmonde knows very well that when we had buses run by private owners the employment provided for our workers was very haphazard. One man had one bus and another had two buses. That was a very haphazard way of carrying on and we did not get a service such as would be provided by a transport company.
That was the position when the first Transport Bill was brought in. If we go back to that position, our workers will not have continuous employment. The conditions for them will be very bad and the public will have a very bad transport system. Whether the present company is nationalised or not is immaterial. I believe, however, that serious consideration should be given to the transport problem. The closing down of branch lines is a very sore question and even in my constituency it has been brought to my notice. No district likes to see its branch line closed down. Until the expert makes his report on the whole transport problem, I feel that Deputies should not be too critical of the people who are responsible for the running of Córas Iompair Éireann.
There has been a certain amount of talk on the subject of closed trades. We are told that there is at the moment a shortage of skilled operatives. If that is the position, and I believe that it is, I feel that certain closed trades are not democratic enough. In a democratic country all things within reason should be taken into consideration. The cases of individuals who are anxious to serve their time to a particular trade should receive consideration. I know that it is to the interest of certain trades to have them closed—and more power to their members who are strong enough to see that they are closed and, in that way, worth while for themselves. Nobody can say anything to them for looking after their own interests. On broad national principles, however, I feel that if we have that problem developing in this country it is bad for all concerned. The least that can be said about it is that it is undemocratic when it is pushed too far.
Some reference has been made to the immediate problem which the transport question raises in this country. When a new Minister is introducing an Estimate as important as the present Estimate is, I think it is right that the views of Deputies should be expressed on the problem presented by Córas Iompair Éireann and the transport problem generally. The mentality shown by Deputy P.J. Burke on the transport problem is one which is far too common in this country. A great many people say that we must do everything possible to keep the railways running without, apparently, considering what benefit they are to the country. Surely there must be a limit to the extent to which the country can be expected to go in order to keep the railways running.
If ever there was a service in any country that got every possible assistance from the State it is our transport service. Nevertheless it still presents the problem it presented in 1934 and in 1943 when two distinct measures were taken by the Government to assist it. I join with Deputy Larkin in urging on the Minister the necessity for an inquiry into the entire question of transport and the manner in which Córas Iompair Éireann should be controlled and run in the future. I am sure that the Minister is alive to this problem and that the expert inquiry now taking place will render considerably beneficial results. We must not forget, as was mentioned by Deputy Sir John Esmonde, that we have in this country at the present time a large number of people who were put out of business and kept out of business in the interests of Córas Iompair Éireann. I refer to men with lorries who are well able to engage in the carriage and in the haulage business but who are unable to do so because Córas Iompair Éireann have the monopoly and they have not the necessary plates and licences. In any inquiry that does take place I would urge on the Minister to remember that there is an alternative to Córas Iompair Éireann in this country so far as freight is concerned. That alternative may mean a very efficient service for farmers and those people in the rural areas who have to depend on it for the carriage of their produce and merchandise. It is, in addition, a service which may mean cheaper freight charges in many instances. The Minister and the Government should not view the transport problem merely in the light that Córas Iompair Éireann, as it exists at present, is essential to this country.
It may well be that some limited form of railway passenger service may be necessary but road transport is a feasible alternative and road transport privately run may also be a very feasible alternative. There are in this country to-day something between 18,000 and 20,000 lorries. I suppose that figure represents 10,000 or 15,000 lorries more than are required for the entire freight business of the country, but the fact remains that there are a large number of idle lorries in the country to-day. The owners of those lorries, by reason of the encouragement given to them in recent years, have claims upon the Government. I should like to add my voice to the appeal made by Deputy Sir John Esmonde that, in any review of our transport position, the claims of these men shall not be overlooked.
I gathered from the Minister's speech to-night that he regards tourism as something to be encouraged in this country because it is a valuable source of income generally. Much may be said for that point of view and it is, apparently, a point of view which has the support of the Deputies opposite. It would be unwise, however, to overlook the dangers which are inherent in the tourist industry in this country at a time like this. We are, as a country still suffering—and I assume that we will suffer for many years to come— from shortages of essential commodities for our people. We are told time and time again that there is a danger of inflation and that there is a situation in which too much money is in circulation. There is no doubt that tourism has contributed largely to that situation. The more money that is encouraged here through tourism, particularly through tourists from England, the longer you are continuing a situation which is fraught with considerable economic peril to this country.
Every extra pound that comes across from England helps in its own way to shove up prices and to increase the shortage of goods that already exists. That is one very obvious result of tourism. The Minister and other people may say that there is a return to the country in £ s. d.; that there is a return to those who run hotels and businesses that cater specially for tourists. In my view that is a wrong attitude to adopt. A matter like this must be regarded from a national point of view and it must be regarded from the point of view as to whether in the long run a really material benefit is being conferred upon the country. To some people tourism is an advantage. To some people it is a benefit. To others it brings a loss and to the people as a whole it is a national calamity. Apart from the dangers of inflation—I think it was Deputy Burke who suggested that tourism does help our adverse trade balance—there are other obvious dangers inherent in it. A statement such as that made by Deputy Burke does not bear analysis. Every holiday resort we develop, every hotel we build and every amenity or facility we supply for tourists must be imported in large measure from elsewhere. The development of tourism entails a further growth of imports. The very machinery required for the tourist industry here adds in its own way to our adverse trade balance. We are, of course, discussing tourism now under abnormal circumstances and in abnormal times but I would impress upon the Minister that he should not accept the policy of his predecessor in connection with tourism without full examination and careful consideration. The views expressed by the leading economists in this country within the last 12 months were all aimed at pointing out the national dangers which may ensue through tourism.
Deputy Lemass conceded in his speech that the Tourist Board, in so far as its activities extended to hotels, had been subjected to a considerable amount of adverse criticism. That, of course, is quite true. The so-called luxury hotels have provided common matter for criticism for the last two or three years. I am not so sure that that criticism is not fully justified. I went to one particular luxury hotel built by the taxpayers' money. It was established down in the West of Ireland in direct competition with old and well-established Irish hotels. If one went in for a cup of tea at that hotel, on the cup one would see "Fáilte Hotel", and if one examined the bottom of the cup one saw stamped upon it "Made in England". So far as the luxury hotels are concerned, they have conferred no benefit of any kind upon the country in the last two or three years. Admittedly, they have attracted a certain type of visitor and they have attracted a certain type of money but they have not encouraged the Irish holiday-maker to spend his holidays in an Irish resort. I would urge upon the Minister that he should reconsider present policy so far as these hotels are concerned. Under no circumstances should any future hotels be allowed to compete with those already long-established. It is regrettable that these hotels should have been built in the West of Ireland—an area which never required an Irish Tourist Board to help in its development. I hope that this problem of tourism will receive the Minister's consideration in the coming year.
Deputy Burke made some reference to mineral exploration. I am glad that the Minister has made it plain that the possibility of mineral exploration is still being examined by the Government. If the Government has in its possession information indicating that a locality has a potential mineral value, then money should be spent on its exploration and development. I deprecate very much that type of mentality demonstrated by opposition Deputies who hold the fallacious theory that money should be spent anyway in order to prove that we are right and that somebody else is wrong. I deprecate that mentality very much but I suggest to the Minister that if a case is made by any locality, which would suggest that there may be mineral resources in the area, that should be exploited and developed and money should be spent freely for that purpose. It should be the aim of the present Minister to develop the resources of the country to the fullest extent. The international situation is such that we shall be thrown back more and more upon our own resources in the coming years. The development of minerals where possible would be a useful side-line in our industrial efforts. I welcome the Minister's statement in that respect.
There is one other matter to which I would like to refer and I hope that the Minister when he is replying will deal with it. I have already raised it on the Vote for Local Government. I am speaking now of building licences and permits. I suggest to the Minister that, in the interest of more speedy work by those who desire to build their own houses, only one Department should be concerned with the necessary permission and the issuing of permits. whether it be the Department of Local Government or the Department of Industry and Commerce; but between them the existing regulations should be changed in order to ensure that the person desiring to build his house will have to deal with one authority only and so will have his particular permit granted as quickly as possible.
I am certainly surprised at some of the suggestions put forward by Deputy Sir John Esmonde in connection with the solution of our transport problems. I would like to ask Deputy Sir John Esmonde, and also my colleague, Deputy O'Higgins, to read the speeches made here in 1944 by the present Minister for Finance in connection with the Transport Act of 1944. If they read them carefully and study the amendments moved on that occasion by Deputy McGilligan, as he then was, they will see that the line he is now taking is very far removed from the line he then took. Deputy McGilligan, I believe, understands this problem in all its aspects because, when a Minister in the Cumann na nGaedheal Government, he was responsible for guiding some Transport Acts through this House.
To suggest at this stage of our transport history that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should issue further licences so as to have more lorries operating on the roads is not making any sensible contribution to the solution of the transport problem. To suggest, as Deputy Sir John Esmonde suggested, that Córas Iompair Éireann has a monopoly of the road transport, shows that, although Deputy Sir John Esmonde is an extremely able man, he has not studied this position at all. Does he know that Córas Iompair Éireann controls only 700 out of the 18,000 odd lorries that are operating legally and illegally on our roads to-day? When he realises that, he will not repeat that statement or suggest to the Minister that he should make a bad position much worse.
I do not intend to say much on this matter, because the Minister has rightly selected a transport expert to advise him in regard to the future of this undertaking and provide, within wide terms of reference, recommendations for the Minister and his colleagues in the Government. The man who has undertaken that job has a very difficult task and he is undoubtedly entitled to suggestions from every section of the community willing to put forward suggestions.
I asked Deputy Lemass this evening if he could explain why his transport policy had failed, as failed it has without the slightest shadow of doubt. Everybody in this House in 1944 who studied the situation knows that Deputy Lemass and his Government colleagues at the time forced the people to undergo the cost and inconvenience of a general election on this issue because they refused to accept a majority decision of the House. The majority of the members rejected the Second Reading of the 1944 Bill as originally introduced for one reason in particular, and that is, because it proposed to hand over to one man the sole control of our transport services. Outside Spain and some other countries, responsible for the maintenance of the Fascist system, there is nothing that I know of that compares with it. I suggest the failure of the policy enshrined in the 1944 Act is really due to the fact that one man was given control. I am surprised one man undertook that responsibility.
The Deputy realises that he cannot discuss that Act now?
I realise, apart from what is contained in the Act, that Deputy Lemass, who was Minister from 1944 until this year, had the power to prevent Córas Iompair Éireann from running so rapidly into bankruptcy. We know perfectly well that the people who were put in control by him had a one-sided outlook. They could not see the railway; they could see only the roads, and they did not care who was going to bear the cost of the construction and maintenance of roads suitable to the transport system. I assert—and it can be proved to the transport expert—that the railways did not get any chance under the 1944 Act; that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of those responsible to turn the traffic from the railways on to the roads; that there was no real desire to maintain the revenue from the railway side of that great undertaking.
I have listened during the past two months to a number of deputations representing railway and transport workers in my constituency. I met deputations in this city from all sections of workers employed in Córas Iompair Éireann. Their opinions were expressed to myself and my colleagues for the purpose of endeavouring to get the powers that be to reverse the policy that tended to destroy the railway section of our transport industry. The workers in that industry are demoralised. I would not like to be working in that concern myself, particularly with the rumours floating about as to what will happen and as to what is really happening to the detriment of those who might have a desire to look forward to a future in that concern.
As late as Sunday week, when travelling to a hurling match in Tullamore, I was called on one side by an old railway servant and asked: "Do you know when the posters for the excursion running to Tullamore from Mountrath, Portlaoighise, and Portarlington were issued?" I was told they were sent out on the 5.30 train on Friday evening. That was the first intimation that the people in my constituency had of the running of the excursion trains. Trains were running the same week-end from the Kingscourt Branch, which has been a closed section for some time. Do you know when the posters were sent out to inform the people in that area? They were sent to Westland Row on the Saturday morning before the excursion and presumably they were not posted at some of the stations concerned before the excursion trains started to run.
I wonder they did not send them on the excursion train.
They could have done worse—posted them on the day after the match was played. That is one recent indication of the attitude of those people when looking for more revenue for the railways. I should like the Minister to state the procedure that will be adopted by the expert when hearing evidence or representations. One of the deputations that met myself and some of my colleagues recently consisted of men who had a long experience in the service of Córas Iompair Éireann in the city— some of them at headquarters.
I was amazed that one very able man, who certainly would be regarded as a railway expert from his knowledge and experience, made an inquiry as to whether any risk would be involved in a man like himself going before Sir James Milne and giving evidence based on his knowledge and experience. Apparently these men feared the consequences of going behind the backs of the hierarchy of this particular company and giving evidence, fearing that whenever action has got to be taken, they might be accused of disloyalty to their superior officers. I hope it will be possible to dissipate any fears of victimisation on the part of experienced railway men who go either on their own, as trade union officers or in groups before this well-known railway expert and put their views on the merits. Whether or not they are accepted in the long run by Sir James Milne does not matter to the people concerned. At any rate, men who have been in the service for a long period of years and who have yet a few years to go, should not be going about in fear and trembling if they choose to go and put their views before Sir James Milne.
There is a general belief in the minds of railway men—and, mark you, they know because they are working in the office and have access to the figures— that in the allocation of revenue, where there is a combined rail and road service, an unfair proportion of that revenue is allocated to the road side of the service in order to bolster up the road service as against the railway and to prove that the railway side of the service is not paying.
That is a very important matter when we realise that the railway is really run, or ruined if you like, at the moment by three or four accountants, and when you realise that the accountants can manipulate figures to produce a situation of that kind. I mention that because that point of view has been asserted to me on a number of occasions, both in recent times and over a number of years, by people who have access to the figures and who know what figures mean in regard to the economy of transport.
When the Transport Bill was under discussion in the Dáil in 1944, members of this group not alone put forward their own alternative proposals but put forward a large number of amendments to the Bill. The country was put to the cost and inconvenience of saying "Yes" or "No" to the proposals contained in the Bill but, as everybody knows, the people of the country did not give their decision on the merits of the contents of the Bill. When we got into the country to fight the issues on the policy that led up to the general election, of course what the people were really asked was whether Deputy de Valera was the only man outside the Lord Almighty who could stop the bombs from coming down on top of us. It was put to them that he was the only man responsible for the policy of neutrality and, of course, the people were not allowed to give a decision on this matter. If the people did give a decision, they know now that the policy enshrined in the Act of 1944 was a failure. However, another policy must now be found when the recommendations of the expert come before the Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet.
I support very strongly the suggestion made by Deputy Larkin in his speech that early steps should be taken in the interests of the taxpayers to get rid of the dumps of timber, turf and American slack now lying in the Phoenix Park and at other dumps throughout the country. I made an excursion round the dumps in the Park a few Sundays ago. I had not been up there for a couple of years before and I was simply flabbergasted at the condition of the turf. It is rapidly going into mould. If it is partly in mould this year, what is its condition likely to be next year? The same remarks apply to a certain extent to the timber fuel. If the clerk of the weather had not been more sympathetic this year, and if we had more sunshine, the timber by now would have been in a much worse condition than it is. At present there is a big dump of timber there which has not been cut and one wonders if the necessity for cutting it will ever arise. Although the housewives in the city do not like turf—they do not like it because of the unfortunate experience they had during the period of emergency when half of the turf delivered to them had a 60 per cent. water content—there is not much water in it now, unless it was affected by last night's heavy rainfall—I am of opinion that the Minister would be well advised to get rid of it while the going is fairly good.
There has been a great deal of criticism in connection with the organisation and administration of the company called Aer Lingus and a good deal of justification for that criticism because the organisation of that company was top heavy. I am not saying that for the purpose of suggesting that there is a redundancy there which should be got rid of.
I listened on one occasion recently to a deputation of fairly senior officers of the company and I was simply astounded to find the kind of organisation that existed there and astonished also to find the extraordinary power held in that Irish company, established by a so-called Republican Government, by people who were not nationals of this State. I had to get the names before I could believe that there were 13 out of 22 senior officers who were not born or reared in this country. Admitting that we may not have had enough Irishmen to fill the majority of the chief executive positions in the company, I believe we had Irishmen as good, some of them trained in our own Irish corps, as any of the men brought from the ends of the world to fill some of these positions. Whenever we want to modernise our transport service or our civil aviation service it appears that we have had to get foreigners and put them at the head of these companies.
Just as we had to get a foreigner to find a solution for our transport service.
I think the Deputy is wrong. If the Deputy will look up the birthplace of the expert, who has been assigned this particularly difficult task, he will find that he was born in the City of Dublin and that he is entitled to be called an Irishman. If the Deputy does not believe that, he can get the birth certificate at the Registrar's Office in Parnell Square. I take it that Deputy Corry did not know that. I think the Minister should be congratulated on having got a Dublin-born man to deal with such a delicate, difficult and almost impossible problem.
I do not want to go into details about the statements and complaints that were made to me by these people who came to us from Aer Lingus. I do seriously suggest to the Minister that there is very definitely a case for some kind of an upstairs inquiry before he gives his approval to any other further dismissals from that concern. I understand that people were taken in practically without knowing what they were going to be employed at. They were employed in a hurried manner and, apparently, there has been some kind of a hurried decision to get rid of them more quickly even than they were recruited originally. That is why I suggest there should be some kind of an upstairs inquiry.
I am not saying that a committee of inquiry should be appointed by this House, but rather a committee of people who understand thoroughly the policy of the Minister and the Government in this matter as well as something about the establishment of an efficient and economical organisation suitable to the requirements of a service of this kind, bearing in mind the limited resources available from the taxpayers of this country for the carrying on of that service. I fully agree —and I do not care who says anything to the contrary—with the policy of the Minister and his Government in suspending the proposed trans-Atlantic air service. If we cannot provide any more money from the pockets of the taxpayers to subsidise internal transport and to subsidise other essential national services, why should we subsidise to the tune proposed by the late Government an international air service for the purpose of carrying the wealthiest people in the country? If they want to go from this country or to enter it by air, and if they want to do that by some means other than by availing of the services of an American liner, let them pay the economic fare for being carried by air from this country to some other country, and not rely on the poor taxpayers of this country to propup, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds, a service of this kind for their accommodation. I heartily congratulate the Minister and his colleagues in the Government on the decision to abandon this unnecessary service.
The Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce is concerned with very many interests in the State. Naturally, the opening statement of the Minister brought forth many points of views from Deputies in all parts of the House. I am sure that if it were within the power of the Minister the problem of unemployment would cease to be of any importance and would soon become non-existent. Unfortunately for the Minister and his Department and the country generally, it is not within the range of practical politics to adopt such general schemes as may have suggested themselves to the minds of Deputies who, of course, would not have the responsibility of carrying through their plans. In order to relieve unemployment, provided he had sufficient money at his command, the Minister could create every form of industry and develop every form of mineral research, but the reckoning would come and would be this: are these schemes practical, and has the expenditure of money on them been justified by the results? The Minister has to confine himself within these limitations. He has to apply his own good judgment, because otherwise the State would go bankrupt in a very short time.
This Estimate deals with industry and commerce but the Minister must always bear in mind this one fundamental question, that the entire fabric and economics of this State are controlled, primarily, not by him but by the Minister for Agriculture. All other branches of industry must depend for their development on the capacity of agriculture to sustain them. The latest statistics indicate that our population is divided fairly evenly between agriculture and industry and all other occupations. One half is engaged in agriculture and the other half in all other occupations. In the case of the national income, we find that two-thirds of it go to that half which is engaged in industry or commerce, and one-third to the primary producers in agriculture. That being so we must admit that our economics are all wrong. The Minister may say that he is not responsible for that, but he must admit that there can be no progress or development under his Department unless there is a better balance of the national budget and unless the main industry, on which the fabric of this State is built, is compensated in a more equitable way.
The Minister has spoken about tariffs. These are essential if our industries are to be developed. It would be a retrograde step to make any departure from affording the necessary protection to new industries. I trust the Minister will never land himself to such a course of action. Industrial production is essential not only for agriculture but from the point of view of employment, the internal trade of the country and the internal earning capacity of our people so as to enable them to live under better conditions and in that way strengthen possibilities of a good home market.
I hope that in the negotiations that were carried on recently with the British Government for a trade agreement, the Minister had in mind the necessity of ensuring the right to protect within reason our industrial enterprises here and that he saw to it that in the future the raw materials, which we buy mainly from England and which are essential for our industrial production, will be forthcoming on better terms than they have been available hitherto. Not merely have our industrialists had to suffer by paying often an enhanced price for these raw products in the English market, but they were limited as to the time and delivery of these goods, the quantity supplied, and the variety of goods offered. Our industrialists here had often to suffer the disadvantage of paying more than an equitable price for raw products, of awaiting their delivery for a very long time, of accepting a limited range of these products and then of suffering competition from English manufacturers who had all the advantages over the Irish manufacturers and who are flooding the market with articles which are sold at prices often below the cost of production.
I am sure that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is interested in all these conditions of industry in the country and I am quite sure that he has borne in mind these essential things before entering into negotiations. If he has succeeded in remedying these problems he has done a successful piece of work for the future prosperity of Irish industry. Above all that, he must ensure that no restriction on industrial imports into this country is allowed that would permanently injure the progress of our industrialists.
In the years gone by very vigorous efforts were made by the Government to encourage industry, and many new industries were created, thanks to the protection and encouragement given to them by the present Government's predecessors in office. There is, however, one thing that I have always objected to, and I have given expression to that objection many times in the House. It is the question of the concentration of all our industries in the cities and large towns to the detriment of our rural areas. This is very unwise and is really a very unnational policy. If progress is to be made on the lines of industry in the future, then I suggest again to the present Minister that he should ensure as far as possible that industries are sent down to rural areas to keep the people in healthy conditions, living at home and working in local factories and thus retain that rural life for our people from which for years and years they have been flying as fast as they can, That is due to the absence of employment or of any encouragement on the part of the Government to provide employment for these families at home.
I come now to one of the problems which, I have found, reacted very considerably against rural industrialisation—transport. I cannot for the life of me think why a transport service which is a monoply—a semi-State-controlled industry—should be allowed to continue with rates which are prohibitive to industrial development in rural areas in favour of cities. When there is a national transport service, why should it be allowed to charge rates prohibitive to the starting of industries in rural districts where the population and surroundings justify their establishment? I will give one instance of it. In my own part of the country we have an industry which produces coal. The railway people, whose wheels our mines kept turning for the five years of the emergency, since supplies of coal became available a year ago or less on the English market, stopped their orders and refused to take any more supplies from us. On investigation of the market in Dublin last year, we found that the rates on coal between Carrick-on-Shannon and Dublin, a distance of 100 miles, was 22/- to 24/6 per ton, plus transport charges from the depot here of the railway to the point of delivery; the transport cost of coal, alternatively, from the Port of Bristol to Dublin Port was 12/- or 12/6 a ton. What possibility have we, particularly in the case of a commodity such as coal where 1/- on the ton makes all the difference of selling it against imported coal where there is a difference of 15/-a ton?
Let me repeat that the railway people were kept-going on supplies of coal from Arigna for four years, but they ceased as soon as they could get English coal. Not only that, but they destroyed the possibility of having a market in Dublin, although when our coal was analysed, on the report of the city analyst, it was equal to the best English coal coming into the country, and the cost would be less if it were not for the cost of transport. It is the same with many other industries—the transport system is strangling and unless the Government makes up their mind that the future policy of industrialisation is linked with the possibility of agriculture being able to bear any burden placed upon the community through the development of industry and that transport be made amenable so as to enable industries to be placed in rural areas in future, then to talk of industrialisation is only a palliative and is only nonsense. You must have a strong foundation from the beginning and build from there. Our agriculture, transport and rural industrialisation are the lines on which you must move, as anything else is merely from day to day, playing to the gallery and building a false economy that will have its effects in days to come, and in years to come, on the life of this country.
With regard to any possible development of our transport in the future, it has been mentioned here a few times already that consideration should be given to the private users of lorries. I would say that all monopolies are dangerous; I would say, however careful the Government may be or however capable this expert on transport may be, the rights of private enterprise within limitations should be embodied in the scheme, however necessary it may be to create a monopoly afterwards.
We have seen what monopolies have done. I have listened here and read outside strong condemnation of the old directors of the railways, the amalgamated railways that became the great southern. I thought myself that these men were monsters and that the sooner we could get rid of them the sooner our transport service would rectify itself. I saw that these men promised to reform the whole position and give us efficient, cheap services. I witnessed the almost complete elimination of the life savings of people who had invested in the various railways before their amalgamation. We all sat here and discussed what we were told was necessary legislation in order to save for the nation its essential transport system and we saw the capital of people whose very existence depended on the capital they had invested—money invested by prudent parents for their children— wiped out by legislation. It had to be done in the interests of the nation because our transport system was ruined by the incapable directors who had charge of it. A new organisation was to be established, we were told, and men with great power and initiative were to take control, and, although it was sad that people had to lose their money, it was still good business in the light of the nation's needs.
We saw at a later stage a wild ramp in the shares of the new transport system, Córas Iompair Éireann, and it became necessary to set up a tribunal to inquire into it. So menacing and so full of implication was the situation that nothing short of that inquiry would have satisfied the public. We saw these shares go up to £1 and 22/— the ordinary shares of Córas Iompair Éireann. What is their value to-day? The State undertook to guarantee the debenture stock. How many millions is the State responsible for and will the Minister say if the State still stands over that guarantee to the debenture stockholders in Córas Iompair Éireann? It is necessary that we should have information on this point because otherwise the public will have no inducement to invest under any guarantee in a public undertaking in future. The whole fabric of the State's credit is close to rack and ruin as a result of the policy pursued by Córas Iompair Éireann, due either to abnormal conditions or to inefficiency—I will not say which.
Mention has been made of tourists, and I believe that the more people that we can encourage into this country, the better. I am afraid, however, that we have been fooled and mislead by the easy flow of so many tourists into this country in the past four or five years. Our real attraction was the fact that we had more food to offer them than they could get elsewhere. The availability of luxury hotels in itself may be an attraction for those who wish to come here for that type of entertainment, but, if our food conditions had not been much superior to those of any other country in Europe in recent years, would these luxury hotels, in competition with the luxury hotels in continental countries which are accustomed to provide for tourists, have attracted them?
If we propose to continue to spend money for the development of tourism, we must make proper provision immediately, before it is too late. We must offer in the future special attractions to these people to come in here, after we have passed the stage at which we can offer food in more plentiful quantities than they can get elsewhere, and I suggest that we should build along our coast and through the country luxury roads so that we can offer these people of wealth a wider range of facilities for travel by motor car than is provided in any other country. In that way, when conditions become more competitive so far as food supplies are concerned, we will have something more attractive to offer than other countries have. Some form of development on those lines is what those who seek to develop tourism should bend their minds to, because I am afraid that we have become palsied in our ideas as a result of the abnormal conditions which forced tourists on us in the past five years in numbers far greater than we were entitled to get and for whom we made very little provision indeed.
I am sure that the Minister will give full consideration to the many points I have raised and to the various points raised generally in the debate. I suggest to him that he has a duty to preserve the industries established in this country and should not stand idly by and watch these being destroyed. Since he came into office, he has remained very silent and quiet. He has accepted that the development of turf production by private producers is not possible and has accordingly destroyed a very big industry of great importance in the poorest parts of the country.
He sat silently by and watched the exodus from this country of upwards of 200 miners who had to leave homes and families and seek employment in England and Scotland. He should have ensured that our railways and our industries, which are protected by the users of the products of these industries who often had to pay more for these products because they were protected, would use their native coal and peat, rather than purchase an inferior quality of English, Scottish or South African coal. He has not lived up to the reputation I had hoped he would live up to, but perhaps he will awaken to his responsibility now and will give some indication that our industries, whether peat, coal or manufacture, will, so far as he is concerned, be assured of a fair market and fair prospects.
Some time ago, we heard a great deal about the cost of living and it was alleged that the high cost of living was mainly due to the inefficient price control of the Minister for Industry and Commerce then in office. Since the change of Government, I have not seen any great change in that system of control. I am sure the Miniter was very anxious to try to justify the propaganda that was carried out in that respect but apparently he has found the system something on which he could not improve. The prices of a number of controlled articles have gone up and that was justified probably by the circumstances. I shall not say to the Minister that it is all due to his inefficient control, as was said before, but the system has not been altered in any respect, which is the greatest justification of the past Minister.
I wanted to ask the Minister to explain his attitude about the bread strike in Dublin. As far as I am aware of the facts, the Minister had all the facts relating to costs and all the necessary data before him before the strike took place. He took a decision that he would not allow an increased price or give a further subsidy. The strike took place and, after three weeks of suffering on the part of the people of Dublin, on the same facts and figures, the Minister decided that he could allow an increase in price and, on that basis, the strike was settled. I want to know how the Minister justifies putting the people of Dublin in the position that they were without bread for three weeks. Surely he should have been able to make up his mind and to stand over his decision. It looks as if he and nobody else was responsible for the bread strike.
Speaking from these Benches this time last year, the Minister referred to the unemployment figures and commented on how stationary they had been every year, around 70,000. Unfortunately that is not so just now. There are 7,000 added. The Minister also said—column 847, Vol. 105, Dail Debates 17th April, 1947:—
"I said here twelve months ago, and I want to repeat it now, that without the slightest trouble every able-bodied man and woman in this country could be put into useful work to-morrow morning."
That is what the Minister said 12 months ago. He has been in office, not one day, but five months and the total effect on the unemployment figure is that there are 7,000 extra. People are being disemployed every day due to the fact that there is no certainty as to the Government's policy in industrial matters. In view of what was said in the past, very few business people are prepared to risk money on what is being said nowadays. They are not prepared to put their money into industry which the Government of the day, in order to justify previous statements, may turn around and destroy. There is certainly no incentive to progress and the result is that men are being gradually disemployed. Industry has to go back or to go forward. It cannot stand still.
The Minister also said last year:—
"Does not the Minister know that whether our industries are to survive and flourish or to decay and perish depends very largely, if not entirely, on circumstances outside our control?"
That seems to me a most pessimistic outlook for a Minister for Industry and Commerce. I wonder if that is still the Minister's outlook. If so, it may explain in great measure why no progress is being made. That phrase would convey that it is useless for us to try to do anything, that somebody outside will settle whether we go ahead or go back or completely fail. Surely that is not a type of man for the position of Minister for Industry and Commerce in a young State like this that is trying to build up its way of life. I do not think that is the type of man that would be picked for such a position by any of the selection boards we hear about.
I want to say a word about the butchers. The butchers' attitude all during the emergency in relation to the Department of Industry and Commerce was so correct that no control order was necessary up to last year. There was simply a gentleman's agreement between the Department and the butchers' association, which was honourably kept. Circumstances altered and, due to some of the members of the organisation breaking the arrangement, the butchers agreed that a control order should be made. An arrangement was arrived at with the last Minister about varying the price according to the price of cattle in the market. One increase on the basis of that arrangement was given by the present Minister but, when further increases took place, the butchers were treated as if they were a most dishonourable body.
The Minister refused to receive them, although he received much lesser bodies, and they were driven in selfdefence to resort to certain action. It is not at all the fault of the Minister that we did not have a meat strike in Dublin as well as a bread strike. These men could see no other way of bringing their case forward, owing to the attitude of the Minister. There was no way of bringing their case forward, owing to the attitude of the Minister, except the strike; and, were it not for the intervention of His Grace the Archbishop, we probably would have had it in addition to the bread strike.
In conference with the Department, those men stated, they were told that their remedy was not to pay more than the price on which the controlled price was based. When they set out to do that, the Minister for Agriculture accuses them—just to list a few of them—as bluffers, slanderers, racketeers and profiteers. I consider that that was most insulting and irresponsible language to use to any decent body of traders.
I do not think it was the Minister for Industry and Commerce who used that language.
No, the Minister for Agriculture.
We are dealing with Industry and Commerce.
But it was on the same question, and surely there is collective responsibility.
There is collective responsibility in the Cabinet.
If there is a conflict of policy between two Ministers, surely it is relevant?
Each Minister is responsible to this House for his own Estimate.
At any rate, they were accused in this House of being profiteers. They have published a statement of their profits, which were calculated by the Department on the books of a large number of traders in Dublin, which were got in and of which a number were taken as a cross-section and profits taken out. For the year ending March, 1940, the nett profit was 1.9 per cent.; for 1941, it was 4.1 per cent.; for 1942, it was 4.8 per cent.; for 1943, it was 3.7; for 1944, it was 6.5; for 1945, it was 1.7; for 1946, it was 1.8; for 1947, there was a loss of 1.5 per cent.; and for 1948 there was a loss of 2.8 per cent.
These are the men who have been charged with being profiteers. The other day the present price worked out at 1/10½d. a pound to the butchers. To the army, as given in a figure quoted here the other day, it is costing 1/10¾d.
This whole attitude to the butchers from both the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Industry and Commerce was unjustified.
Is the Deputy recommending that I should give them an increase of 4d. in the lb.?
Let me develop my own case.
I am wondering what the Deputy is trying to suggest. I was thinking I would not get an answer to that.
I do not want any higher prices. The price is already too high and many people in Dublin have extra meatless days on that account. I do not see why, in a land such as this, where cattle are so plentiful, people in Dublin should be forced to pay the price that foreigners who are suffering from a famine in meat should be forced to pay. That is what is happening. I do not see why very nearly one-fifth of the population of the country in Dublin should be forced into that position. It should not be beyond the wit of the Minister to devise a scheme by which we in Dublin should be able to pay a reasonable price without the farmer suffering in the price he gets from the foreigner.
Or the butcher suffering?
The butcher can get a reasonable price. I have no connection whatever with the butchers. I am not authorised in any way to speak for them. I am giving my view as an ordinary Deputy and as an ordinary citizen of Dublin on the facts as we got them. I have tried to follow all that has been issued both by the butchers and by the Minister in this matter—and I must say the Minister issued very little. He took the attitude of ignoring them, which was not the correct attitude for him to take. It should not be beyond the Minister's wit to find a way out of the difficulty. I do not see why the home market should not be provided for first at a reasonable price. At the moment, the people in Dublin are paying these high prices for inferior meat, while the foreigner is getting the best of it. That is what is happening, under the way the Minister is dealing with it. Apparently we will soon be back to the days when—as in my young days—we used to export all our best bacon and buy in the fat Canadian bacon. We will be doing something like that, under the way the Minister is going on. I do not want the Minister to interfere with the price the farmer is getting or the price the butcher is getting. I do not want to increase the price and do not see why the butchers should want an increase. An increase would not help them in the slightest, because of the lesser trade. It should be possible to devise a scheme.
Perhaps the Deputy could help me. He does not want to reduce the price to the farmer and does not want to increase the price to the consumer but he wants to give the butcher more profit. I would be delighted if the Deputy would tell me how to do it.
Did the Minister not promise to do it?
If you keep the price to the normal price arranged, the butchers will not want any extra profit. They have not looked for any such profit.
That will reduce it to the farmers.
If the meat goes as it has been going for some time and they are still confined to the same price, they naturally have to look for more profit. You cannot expect them to look on nor can you expect that particular class to bear the whole burden of the position. That is what the policy of the Minister means, and I do not think it is fair.
I was sorry to hear the Minister say that the repair factory in connection with Aer Lingus had been abandoned. I think that was one of the finest things which had been established in the last few years. It would have created a whole new trade. It would have trained men in something which we never had before in this country and made complete new openings. It was stated, I do not know with what truth, that it would have given employment to about 300 men. It would also have been most important from the defence point of view in time of emergency for our own air service, because I understand the position is that only minor repairs can be carried out here, either by the Army or the air service, and that anything big has to be sent away. It is, I think, a necessary adjunct if we are to run an air service at all and, as I have said, it would have provided new openings for employment. After saying so much let me congratulate the Minister on his statement that he is reconsidering the question of the expenditure on mineral exploration. I am sure that the results will justify any expenditure undertaken.
With Deputies both on the opposition side and on this side of the House who have made suggestions to the Minister with regard to the fuel dumps, I should like to ask him to consider the position immediately. I do not want to say anything of a controversial nature as to what brought about this surplus of fuel. But as it is there and there is no way out except to cut our losses, I think the Minister should consider the proposal put to him by Deputy Lemass and Deputy Larkin. The longer that timber and turf are left in these dumps all over the country the more they will deteriorate, as any Deputy who knows anything about turf or timber will tell you. I am sure the Minister himself knows a good deal about both types of fuel. If the timber is left in the dumps for any lengthy period it will have reduced both in value and in bulk and, in the long run, the expense and the loss will be much greater than if it was sold now at a reduced price.
Apart from the financial aspect, I should also like to make an appeal to the Minister from the social side of the question. Many people in Dublin and other cities have gone through difficult times. This is now something like a windfall, as Deputy Lemass described it, and there is no reason in the world why these people should not be allowed to take advantage of an opportunity like this which has been brought about as the result of a mistake on the part of certain individuals.
I am in agreement with the policy of the Government, inasmuch as I think a position should not be allowed to occur under which imported fuel would pour into our dumps. It was never the intention or the belief of our Party that our own fuel resources in the line of coal or turf should be neglected. I hope the Minister will consider investigating our fuel resources with regard to turf and coal. The production of turf for domestic and industrial purposes does not seem to be sound economically at the moment. Hand-won turf cannot be produced at an economic price to compete with other types of fuel. But, with the introduction of machinery that is now available for Bord na Móna, plus the expansion by way of electrification of our peat industry, all these matters should be investigated by the Minister so as to make the fullest possible use of our peat resources.
As to the development of industry in this country, as Deputy Maguire said, agriculture is our main industry. The other industries should be based as far as possible on the natural resources of the country and on the materials available here. I do not see any great advantage in starting tin-pot factories which are dependent for their existence on machinery and raw materials which have to be imported. That type of industry is not a sound one. What we want, as I said, is industry based on our natural resources. Afforestation, fisheries and such things as these should be developed.
I should like to join with Deputy Maguire in calling attention to the position of our coal industry. When we talk about developing our natural resources and our industries we should be really genuine about the matter. When we have an industry such as the coal industry we should take every step possible to develop it. I am not an expert on the coal industry, but I have yet to be convinced that our coal areas are as bad as we are led to believe. During the war they supplied our railways with coal. We were glad to have the coal from Arigna and other areas to keep us going during that period. The minute the foreign coal was available, however, it was a question of good-bye to the coal which came from Arigna and other sources. In my opinion that is wrong. There seems to be a general distaste amongst our industrialists for Irish coal. As I mentioned before, in the Tuam beet factory Arigna coal is not being used although the boilers there are suitable for its use. One of the excuses given by the railway company for not using it is that they had not the wagons available to take away the coal. Another was that coal was not being produced in sufficient quantities to make it a paying proposition to take it away from the mines. I do not know whether these excuses are genuine, but I heard both put up by people who should know better. If up-to-date machinery were provided and our coal mines were developed on the most modern lines possible, then we could see whether the coal industry can be made an economic proposition. Money spent in that way would be well spent. It is much better to spend money on the development of our coal industry and other mineral resources than to spend it, as Deputy Lemass wants it spent, on a transatlantic air service.
I will make just one observation in that regard and that is that it is my belief that Deputy Lemass tried to convey in respect of the air services that we would have run to America at a future date that we could hope to make them a paying service. I may be wrong but I am informed that the transatlantic air services that are run by other countries can be run at a cheaper rate than ever Ireland can hope to run such services. The reason for that is that the inland cross-country air services in America will more than balance the losses incurred by the transatlantic air services. No matter how we may develop our inland air services here the country is too small ever to hope to balance or nearly balance our transatlantic air services. I am speaking on behalf of the Clann na Poblachta Party when I say that we are in full agreement with the discontinuance of this scheme of transatlantic air services. We are fully aware that air services are necessary and that we must keep up with modern advancement. The air services to Britain should certainly be kept up and they will, of course, be a source of income to this country. They are a source of income to us at the moment and, apart altogether from being a source of income, we can never be accused, as Deputy Lemass tries to make out, of being retrogressive or of falling down on national advancement. I do not think anyone in his senses could ever hope to put up a strong case for the running of air services to America by this country at the present time considering the bad financial state of the country and the fact that our main industry, agriculture, needs to be developed. Until we make conditions more suitable for our own people we cannot hope to cater for those foreigners who wish to travel on our airways.
I believe that the Minister stands for private enterprise. That being so, he admits, I take it, the right of the butchers to a reasonable profit. He has not, however, dealt with this question fairly. The price for meat was fixed when 88/10 or 88/11 was the price for prime beef on the Dublin market. The Butchers' Association have placed before the Minister's Department their costings—the cost of their labour, their killings and so forth —and they have proved to him that they cannot at the present price make a profit and that they are working at a loss. The Minister should face up to this issue and solve it in the same way as other problems in connection with other industries in the State have had to be faced up to and settled. I contend, with a knowledge of the subject, that no butcher can pay to-day's maximum price of 97/- a cwt. for heifers and bullocks in the Dublin market and kill them and have a profit. They must resort to cow beef or to cow heifer beef. As Deputy Colley has said, the result will be second-class beef for the citizens of Dublin and our prime quality heifers and bullocks will be for export. The Dublin consumer will not know after a short while, if the present prices continue, what good beef is. I understand that there was a gentleman's agreement between the association and the Department to the effect that when there would be considerable rises in the price of prime beef and bullock and heifer beef the Department would re-examine the matter.
The Minister, if he goes into the subject, will note that since his settlement in March last the prices in the Dublin market soared to a height they never reached before. They soared to 120/- a cwt. These losses have had to be borne by the butchers in Dublin over a very considerable period. It was admitted here in answer to a question that the price to the Army, which buys direct and does its own killing, was 1/10¾d. I submit that even at the present price there is not a drop of more than ¾d. a lb. and that butchers cannot continue. It is up to the Minister to meet the Dublin Victuallers' Association and settle this problem either by giving them their profits by way of increased prices or by way of subsidies.
I resent all this talk about "tin-pot industries" in this country. If the number of people employed in a district or in a parish is only five or ten it is five or ten people off the emigration roll; it is five or ten individual incomes going into a district or parish, and five or ten people off the unemployment roll. This habit of belittling them and imagining something great in the line of reafforestation and so forth is ridiculous. I have seen a forestry belt of up to 1,000 acres operated in my district, and I have seen the employment drop to five or six at this time of the year. We appreciated the employment of these five or six individuals at this time of the year. This habit of deprecating what are called "tin-pot industries" is ridiculous. If we had such an industry in every parish in the country it would be all to the good. It would improve agriculture and the farmers would benefit by it. Instead of having five or six families depending on the dole they would have some kind of a decent wage. They would then be potential consumers of the farmers' goods. I hope Deputies will realise that and face the problem.
We cannot talk about decentralisation of industry and at the same time deprecate what is called the "tin-pot industry." Deputy Lemass has ably dealt with the two industries in my constituency. However, I want to add my voice to his in asking the Minister to give every consideration to these industries. One is the cotton industry and the other is the woollen industry. The cotton industry in Athlone is a thriving industry which employs 400 or 500 people. They have good rates of wages, good conditions of labour, and they are very happy. That industry is expanding and we would be very pleased if the Minister would do everything in his power to help it. The woollen industry was one of the best industries in the Midlands but, unfortunately, it has been burned down. It is, however, being slowly reconstructed.
Deputy Lemass has pleaded for the establishment of what I might call a national wool combing industry.
Surely the Deputy would not describe the woollen mills as a "tin-pot industry"?
I would not describe the woollen mills as a "tin-pot industry" and I do not assume that the Deputy would either. I would like to see a proper wool industry established here so that the necessity for sending our raw material to Bradford and Leeds to have it turned into yarn would be obviated.
In connection with water power I would like if the Minister would examine into the possibility of having a hydro-electric scheme on either the Inny or the Brosna. Both those rivers are in my constituency. There is ample water. Whether the necessary fall could be created in order to carry out a scheme similar to that on the Liffey I do not know. Such a scheme would be an advantage in rural electrification.
A good deal of discussion has taken place with regard to the air services. I was rather amused to hear Deputy Davin state that it was the wealthy people who travelled by air. I am sure in the days of the stage coach there was large scale opposition to the development of the railways and I am equally sure that the argument was then advanced that it was only the rich people who could afford to travel on the railways. Air services will definitely be a development of the future in every country and we should not lag behind. Deputy Davin also dealt with the expert who has come over to advise the Government with regard to the rehabilitation of our railways. I am wholeheartedly in favour of our rail services and I would prefer to have rail services even to the extent of sacrificing private lorry owners. If all the goods and services carried by the railways now were diverted on to the roads we would require roads three times the width of the ones we have at present. I think it would be a bad thing to do away with our railways. On advice, before, the line from Broadstone to Galway was removed. That subsequently proved to be a detrimental step. The railway to the West is not anything like as effective as it was. I trust that this present expert, who was born in Dublin and educated in England, will have a broader approach to the subject when he comes to advise the present Government.
Deputy Lemass dealt at some length with supplies and the position in which we found ourselves during the last war. If there is danger of another conflict I think it would be advisable to lay in stocks now. I am thinking of things like bicycles, accessories, tyres and so forth. The Minister should bear these things in mind. I think it would be no harm to encourage the building up of stocks. I would remind the House of the scarcity of iron for horseshoes during the emergency.
I would like the Minister at some time to examine into the prices paid for pelts. The price is as low as it was during 1914 to 1918. This week the fellmongers were paying ? for sheep skins. I do not know what justification there can be for that. Whether it is related to the type of article manufactured from it I do not know, but I do not think that it can be. The price is ridiculous.
I should like to say at the opening of a short statement, that I was very much impressed by the very comprehensive survey that was made here this evening by Deputy Lemass. Without endeavouring in any way to make what might be called Party capital out of his contribution, he did, I think, make a statesmanlike contribution to this discussion. It is, unfortunately, one of the defects of our Party system of government that this particular Government at the moment is deprived of the very valuable assistance that might be given to it by Deputy Lemass if he were a member.
I agree with Deputy Larkin that industry and commerce, so far as our national economy are concerned, are as important as food and that they must be approached in the same way. I think we must take a broad view of the problem—not a near view of it. We must look at it in a comprehensive way and we must endeavour to plan industry so that it will contribute its share to our national well-being. One of the problems which confronts us so far as the Department of Industry and Commerce is concerned is that of employment—not temporary employment but permanent and well-paid employment. I think we should be quite clear in our minds that whatever can be produced in this country it is essential for the welfare of the country that all our efforts ought to be directed towards such production under decent conditions as to pay-and service for the people engaged in it.
