Committee on Finance. - Vote 55—Industry and Commerce (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (13th Dáil) – Tuesday, 31 May 1949

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

Major de Valera

I indicated last week that I should like to discuss with the Minister two problems specifically related to his Department and I think I was at some pains to point out that I should like to approach these matters objectively, realising that problems exist, and I hope that my remarks will be taken in that spirit. The first matter is the vexed matter of the cost of living. As a Deputy representing a city constituency, I am naturally interested in that problem, and in the particular aspect of it from the point of view of the city dweller. It is a problem which is felt acutely by the city dweller because we have always to remember that the average inhabitant of the city is forced strictly to live on the money available to him at any particular time. If he cannot meet his living costs out of that money, he must go without essentials.

It is, I think, slightly different in the rural areas where there is rather more elasticity. The fact that food is produced in rural areas means that no matter how hard pressed the rural dweller is, he will manage to find food, but, in many strata of the city population, if they have not got the money there and then when required to buy the food, they must go without it. The only way in which they can get essentials is by paying money for them, and if the money they have at any particular time is inadequate for their needs, they must, as I say, go without essentials.

It is from that point of view that one sees how severly a rising cost of living strikes the city dweller, and particularly if the cost of such essentials as clothing, food, accommodation and transport rises, so that the total amount of money to be found for these necessaries exceeds the amount available through wages or other remuneration, then the city dweller must go without some of these essentials. Unfortunately, from the point of view of a unified debate on this matter, some of these matters do not directly concern the Minister who is in charge of this Vote—notably the question of accommodation, but I am afraid that we cannot completely divorce that aspect from any other aspect, and I must refer to it in passing, at any rate, in order to give a balanced picture.

What is the actual situation? The actual situation is that, after the rapid rises of 1947, the rises which mainly affected the city dweller in the increase in the cost of living and notably in the cost of foodstuffs, the wages and remuneration of the city dweller did not go up in proportion. Two Governments have been successful in holding the total cost of living round about the figure it reached in August, 1947, but they have been unable to do better. The cost of accommodation has gone up, and has gone up in an oblique kind of way. It has gone up largely owing to the fact that rates have gone up, apart from certain increases in rents, which have been unavoidable. The real addition to the cost of accommodation has been the rise in rates, which affects everybody in the city, practically without exception, as I have mentioned on previous occasions. It is a matter which does not concern the Minister, but I must bring it in here because the cost of accommodation having risen, it means that there is less money left, after accommodation has been paid for, to meet the cost of essentials in other regards, so that we must take it into account.

Therefore, when the cost of living is represented by the index for all items —about the only consistent set of figures I can find or on which we can argue on common ground—the first fact that strikes me in regard to the city dweller is that the cost of living, all items, stands still, but he has actually less money to meet it in so far as the increased cost of accommodation is taking out of his resources a greater amount than was taken at that date. On the other hand, in many cases there will be wage increases to offset that. It is a matter of calculation in individual classes, may be in individual cases, to see what the relative position is.

A similar case holds in regard to transport. The cost of transport has now risen in Dublin and that is a serious matter, particularly for dwellers on the outskirts. In Crumlin, and in fact all the suburban areas, the cost of transport has gone up and, therefore, again there is something more coming out of the available resources to meet the cost of living as represented by the general index. I am precluded generally from drawing a definite conclusion in the matter by virtue of the fact that, as against that adverse situation from the citizen's point of view, we must in fairness equate increases in wages which have undoubtedly taken place in the same period. Probably what one will find is that, on that approach, some people will be worse off and some, perhaps, a little better off but very few very much better off.

I could develop that line, but the net lesson to be learned or the net problem arising out of it is that the cost of living in this city is still at an emergency value, so to speak. It is at a value which it attained in the post-war inflationary phase and is to that extent abnormal. As against that, there is no great, if any, increase in the resources of the citizen to meet that cost. Such increases as they have received in actual wages and remuneration have been largely offset by increases in the cost of accommodation, transport and similar things. Therefore, logically, we are led to the conclusion that the cost of living in this city is still at an emergency level and that, in spite of favourable trends representing a return to more peaceful economic conditions, the cost of living has remained obstinately at this high level. I think I have stated the matter as fairly and as objectively as I can, and that the Minister must agree with me that that is the position.

If we are agreed on that, the next thing is, how can the problem be tackled? In some regards we know that certain remedies are available. One of these, in the short term view at any rate, is the remedy of subsidy. That remedy was eminently successful in 1947. It held the inflationary rise in prices and, in fact, stabilised the cost of living at a value under very adverse conditions indeed. Now that we are facing conditions that are easier in other regards and that the State is relieved of the necessity for finding excess subsidies in the matter of flour and fuel, it seems to me that the moneys which automatically become available because of those favourable factors could be diverted to control some other costs.

Another remedy is, of course, increased production, but before I deal with that I should like to deal with the question of these costs. Let us take food alone. With regard to the essential staple food, bread and flour, our position is that the price of the ordinary bread, not the white flour, remains the same to the consumer, that is, to the bulk of the population. As far as the consumer is concerned, I understand there is no change. On the other hand. On the Exchequer side, because of a favourable change in the purchasing position, the State is able to save something over, I think, £3,500,000 in regard to food subsidies as a whole and a substantial amount in regard to flour. But, the point is that the citizen is getting no benefit. In fact, it works out the other way. The Government has resorted to a device whereby flour of a certain extraction can be sold unsubsidised and, of course, at a higher price. As pointed out previously, there are certain objections to that course. There are objections about which I think the Labour Party, if it were not tied to the Coalition, would be very vocal indeed. But, quite apart from that, this must represent an increase in the cost of living to the average citizen, in some small degree at any rate.

Take the case of confectionery. Many a poor person, many a person who would not be considered poor, but who, in fact, is taking the brunt of the present economic situation, namely, the so-called black-coated, white-collar worker, needs some confectionery and is entitled to a certain amount of it and, in fact, purchases a certain amount. If the provision necessitating the use of white unsubsidised flour in confectionery is going to have the effect of putting up the price of that commodity, then there is a further increase in his actual living costs, a further real increase, notwithstanding the fact that, apparently, it will not show in these index figures. I mentioned in a previous debate that on one occasion I asked for some buns in a restaurant. I broke them and found they were white. I asked the price and found they were ½d. dearer than I was accustomed to pay for the same article up to the time the white flour was introduced. Just to test things, I asked the waitress to bring me some buns made with the standard flour which is subsidised. The waitress told me that they had not got them. In other words, I was forced either to take that bun and pay the higher price or go without. In other words, it was perfectly obvious that even at that stage the whole theory of the unsubsidised white flour scheme was falling to the ground; that, in fact, it was being forced to some extent on certain citizens who were not in what one might call the luxury class and that— notwithstanding what one might argue the legal position to be—the factual position was that they were forced to take it at somewhat increased prices. Now, it appears to me that a provision making it mandatory to use subsidised flour and confectionery is going to bring the legal position, so to speak, into line with the factual one. The net result is that, even though in a small degree, it must represent a rise in the cost of living. What can the Minister do about it? For my part, I should like to ask him why it is necessary, at this stage, when the market from which we are buying the flour is becoming more favourable to us— when, apparently, through a favourable trend in the price at which wheat can be bought which enables us to make a saving and to have money available in other directions, money which otherwise would, of necessity, go on the subsidy as heretofore—to aggravate the existing position by such a device which, apparently so far, is not being of very great benefit to the Exchequer, and which, in fact, as I have indicated, represents an increase actually in the cost of wheaten products to the consumer by and large?

An Ceann Comhairle

Are you not? All right. It was just a little remark the Minister made in the course of the debate the last evening, more or less insinuating a certain blame on Deputy Lemass. I think that there is the answer from Deputy Lemass. However, that is beside the point at the moment. In November, 1947, the price of meat was controlled. If one looks —I have them all here—through the succeeding issues of the bulletin, to date, one finds a creeping rise, let me put it that way, as from that time, but I think I am warranted in saying that at the present moment, for that beef and mutton again, the prices are comparable with the pre-controlled prices.

But, in any event, the fact is that, whether large or small, in practically every item there has been an increase in the cost of meat to the city dweller since that date. That, in itself, is to some extent serious because the city dweller should get a certain ration of meat. If the price of meat rises, where there are no corresponding decreases in the cost of living otherwise, the only way that the particular city dweller whom I have in mind can make do is by cutting down his consumption. That, in fact, is, I think, what is happening. I think it is a sad reflection on our economy that here we are in this country—in a country as a whole producing the finest meat and exporting the finest cattle and meat that one could wish for—and, notwithstanding the fact that here at home we are producing such a prime commodity, the figure in regard to costs is such as to tend to a reduction in the consumption of that commodity by our people in the cities. I know that we criticised a foreign Government at the time of the famine for sending wheat out of the country when our people were starving. We were very indignant. There is no comparison in degree, I admit, but essentially there is a certain comparison between that and the situation where we produce the best meat in this country and our city population are constrained because of the price of the commodity to consume less. Is it not possible by some method to give our own people a reasonable benefit from the production of such a high-class commodity?

But, the matter is a little bit more complex than that because of the butchers' problem. This has been going on for a long time and, so far as I understand it, it is this: that once the price of cattle in the market rises above a certain value then it becomes uneconomic for the butchers to sell at the controlled prices. Roughly speaking, I understand that is the problem. I have heard figures given for what is, so to speak, the critical value for the price of cattle, but the actual value is not material for the argument. The point is that here you have a certain natural conflict between the interest of your own consumers and the interests of your own producers. As the Minister very rightly said: "If I do not give the farmers the price, what are you going to do about it, or, if the farmers get the price outside, are you going to make them sell at less at home?"

Admittedly, that problem is there, but the fact that it is there does not mean that we should not face it, particularly having regard to this other fact—that the effect of simply saying "no" to the butchers is that the butchers are tempted to purchase inferior meat and the result to the city consumer for whom I am pleading is that not only is the quantity restricted because of the price, but the quality is restricted and is, apparently, deteriorating because of the butchers' problem.

When I am arguing this with the Minister, I should like him to understand that it is not to argue the butchers' case I am approaching it, but to argue the case of the non-vocal citizen who is suffering from the conflicting interests of our producers and our butchers at the moment. In fact, the consumer, I am told, is very often getting inferior meat, sometimes even at higher than the controlled prices, and there are allegations—it is as impossible for me to check them as it is practically impossible for the Minister —that there are cases where, because of the convention of including non-consumable portions of the animal and that kind of thing, the consumers are not actually getting value to the nominal value they are obtaining, and are, in addition, getting a very inferior quality. It is that aspect of it which makes it so serious.

Is it sufficient, therefore, to say "no" to the butchers? Obviously it is not. You may succeed in holding down the nominal value of the meat, but the indirect effects on the average citizen are too serious just to leave the matter at that. If, on the other hand, you are going to ensure quality, at any rate it must be such an economic proposition to the butcher that there will be some competition and that competition will put up the quality. Again, I am looking at this from the consumers' point of view. I am purposefully taking a hostile attitude to the butchers in this matter, but I am not to be considered as being essentially hostile to them. In order that we can go as far as we can to see what the nature of the matter is in that direction, I am purposefully taking what I might call a hostile attitude to the butchers. But, if the quality is going to improve, some competition is necessary, and competition can only occur where there is some profit being made. It is not enough simply to assume that the butcher is making a profit.

I have a report here of a prosecution for a sale beyond the controlled price. As usual, the butcher pleaded that butchers had to buy at prices which were not controlled and sometimes had to sell at a loss. I think that is undeniable. The reason I am adverting to this report is that the person in charge of the prosecution, who apparently represented the State and the Minister, dismissed the matter by saying that that was no defence, that no man stayed in business for the love of it, that the butcher would not stay in business if he were not making a profit and that was the end of it. That approach to the issue is altogether too offhand. If that representation made on behalf of the Minister means anything, it seems to me that it is far too summary a dismissal of this problem. It may be quite true, as that solicitor said, that a butcher will not stay in business if he is not making a profit. But, if the butcher has been in business, is he not entitled to continue in business, or are you going to contemplate wiping him out? The trouble is that if you put him in such straits, the profit will be made at the expense of the consumers in just the way I have outlined, so that a summary dismissal of the problem solves nothing.

That is the problem. Fundamentally it arises from the fact that the favourable price position to the farmer and the meat producer is in fact an unfavourable situation to the consumer. What is the Minister to do about it? One suggestion I have mentioned is the money which has been saved already. The Exchequer should be in a position to deal with these matters. They were forced to find certain moneys for subsidies a year ago which need not now be found and, therefore, should be considered available. Can nothing be done in that regard to provide a reasonable subsidy for cattle to the home producer? That is one possible matter for examination. There are possibly other matters which will arise on it. But the point I want to stress is that this meat situation represents a serious factor in the cost-of-living problem for the average city dweller. This is not merely to be regarded, so to speak, as a price dispute with the butcher. It is a problem that should be tackled. Something more should be done about it than merely saying "no" to the butcher. It may be that the ultimate answer may still involve keeping the price at the same controlled level to the consumer. Whatever the case may be it is a problem that needs examination and co-ordination in all its aspects. If it cannot be directly tackled in the way I suggest or in any other way, then surely some indirect method of approach should not be beyond the ingenuity of the Government.

Looking at the cost-of-living index as a whole we find this position. From November, 1947, when things were stabilised until the present day the cost of living for all items has shown a slight increase. It has risen steadily from 97 in November, 1947, to, we will say, 99. It is a small increase. It rose in regard to food but the general food index now indicates that it is approximately where it was in November, 1947. In regard to light and fuel, it is the one place where the index is slightly lower than in November, 1947, but it rose sharply during 1948 to 103 and then declined gradually to the present moment. However, that favourable trend is completely offset by the fact that the index for clothing has increased progressively from 100 to 103 Deputy Michael O'Higgins quoted figures published by the Minister of the reduction of costs and it did seem on a cursory examination of these figures that certain reductions in prices of clothing had taken place since this Government came into office. On the other hand, the official statistics show clearly that in the case of clothing, more so than in the case of food or fuel and light, there has been a progressive rise since the Government came into office. Frankly, I have not studied how that came about but I take it that we must accept the figures in the official journal. I think I have said enough to show that the cost of living remains a problem. It has, in fact, been a problem since the end of the war. It has not been greatly alleviated by the increase in wages as most people who studied the problem foresaw. As is usual when it is a race between prices and wages, the prices always seem to win.

Mr. Morrissey

Not in the last 12 months.

Major de Valera

They usually seem to win in the long run.

Mr. Morrissey

Not in the last 12 months.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,

Major de Valera

The Minister will appreciate that I am not taking the attitude that you promised to reduce the cost of living and did not do it. I see the difficulties that are there. I think we saw them for quite a long time. I am specifically pleading now for the city population. The final remark I wish to make on the subject is that the problem is still showing a hard core. Having regard to the fact that the cost of certain imported items is decreasing, is there no device by which we can actually reduce the cost to the consumer in the city? I should like to hear what the Minister has to say on that matter.

Another question affecting the city population is that of employment. That, of course, is tied up with the cost of living and also in regard to the amount of money the State has to pay. The position in the city in regard to certain types of workers is not altogether satisfactory. Notwithstanding the fact that more employment is becoming available, that more numbers are being employed—I think the figures show that progressively over a number of years now there are more employed than there were, in certain regards—the unemployment figure has also gone up during 1948. I cannot speak for the last period as the figures are not available. That is the cause of restriction in purchasing power in the city. There are also restrictions on the circulation of money.

I want to refer to the question of transport which is a very vexed one from the Dublin point of view. Many people have the feeling that Dublin is being asked to pay an undue portion as its share of the transport costs of the country as a whole. We have more to learn from the Government on the question of transport but in the meantime I should like to mention this fact. When the Dublin transport undertaking was independent it apparently could be an economic proposition. Recently there has been an increase in Dublin fare charges which represents a serious increase in the cost of living and it seems that there is no great reciprocal benefit to the city, if any.

Generally, one has the feeling in the Minister's approach to this matter that he is now attempting to take a reasonable attitude to the development of industry and commerce but that he was for a period handicapped by the statements and threats of spokesmen of his own Party which brought about a lack of confidence in manufacturers and a certain lack of confidence even amongst labour. I think we can say now that that phase should be over.

Captain Cowan

Might I ask if it would be in order to move the Adjournment of the Dáil if the members do not come in and take part?

An Ceann Comhairle

The motion is not accepted. There is not a quorum.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,

Major de Valera

Having dealt with the two particular items that were of particular concern to the city, I would like now to refer to a general one. It deals more with the future than with the present. I should like to hear from the Minister, in his reply, what his Department is doing, or can do, in regard to our general defence problem. Before the last war, even from 1936 onwards, when there was an immediate effort being made in the realms of the Department of Defence, at any rate, to prepare for the war, we had singularly little appreciation of our defence needs, of co-ordinating and preparing our resources of raw materials and commodities, of emergency plans for transport, power and so forth. These were the things which were overlooked and, in fact, for which we made very inadequate preparation. We were fortunate, as has often been pointed out, in this, that at that time we got time to face our problems. We were fortunate in that. The war situation developed gradually as far as we were concerned, and the deterioration from the economic position was sufficiently gradual to enable us to face it. The fact is, however, that it would be very unwise to bank on the happening of such favourable events in a future emergency. therefore, the lesson in the economic sphere, particularly for the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is very similar to that to be learned by the Government in regard to defence matters as a whole: that we cannot wait until the emergency situation is upon us to prepare for it. If we do, we run the very serious risk that our economy cannot stand it if the strain becomes suddenly acute without the favourable circumstances that we had on the last occasion.

In that regard, I should like to refer briefly to some of these matters. There is the question of power. Power production, of course, is fundamental for industry and, to a large extent, your success in industry will depend on your capacity to produce power, and to provide it economically. Schemes are under way for the development of our resources in that regard. I think they should be hurried forward with all speed because they are a priority both in peace time and from the emergency point of view. In that regard, too, there is a certain dispersal. One of the great dangers on the last occasion was the fact that you had only Ardnacrusha and the Pigeon House. That was all we had with regard to power in the country at that time. The situation will not be so serious in the future. I commend to the Minister's attention that, in planning such undertakings, the defence needs should be taken into account, particularly with regard to proper regional dispersal in the planning of distribution lines, and that the possible requirements of defence are one that should be considered. I think it is necessary that I should say that here because the experience in the past was that that phase of the picture was completely ignored. There was an excuse until we had actual experience, and in that connection I am not seeking to blame the two Governments that went before for that; but the fact is that, having had that experience and having had the providential escape that we had in the past, I think we should now learn the lesson so that there will be no excuse for falling down on that in the future.

Following from that, there is the question of certain basic industries, notably of an engineering nature. Again, our experience during the emergency was that we were completely deficient in anything that required elaborate or even ordinary mechanical engineering technique in the working of steel and metal, even though efforts were made at that time to get the steel mills going at Haul-bowline. We were completely dependent on outside resources, and we just could not do anything. I know from my own personal knowledge that, on occasions when we needed steel, we had to make-do with very inferior articles at a very enhanced cost. Now, I understand that industry is there and is to be developed. I think it should be, even though it may involve some cost to us. A case is to be made for it from the defence point of view alone.

I would ask the Minister in this regard that, in planning such industries, due regard should be had to their possible rôle in the case of an emergency. It is a pity, from that point of view, that certain heavy shops have been lost to us, particularly in regard to aircraft—the Lockheed factory and the Leland factory. It is not so much from the point of view of what they were actually designed themselves primarily to deal with, but the fact is that if you have well-equipped workshops in operation, with technicians who have experience in the handling of tools, then the number of things to which they can be turned are very much larger than the specific objects for which they were maintained in peacetime. Were it not for the Great Southern Railways workshops at Inchicore, and for other firms that were fairly well equipped, firms dealing principally with transport, the Defence Forces would not have been able to get certain essential material which they required in 1941 and 1942. These industries were available for turning to face emergency problems, so that from the defence point of view it is a mistake to regard a workshop or an engineering industry of that nature purely from the point of view for which it is specifically there in peacetime. It has emergency potentialities, which are very much greater and which should logically be taken into account.

Passing from these industries, we have our ordinary industries. They, too, have a certain emergency use. They will be useful in emergency and, particularly, they will be able to cope with the initial crisis of an emergency only in proportion to the degree to which a plan has been prepared and to the degree to which it has been foreseen that they will play a part. The trouble is that in industry as in anything else, if you do not foresee what may come and make certain provisions, chaos may very easily result. It is for that reason also that I would like the Minister to take cognisance of our defence problem in relation to industry.

It goes without saying that the whole supply position is one of permanent importance and cannot be overlooked in regard to an emergency, both in relation to raw materials and the commodities available. We as much as any other country—and perhaps more so— are dependent on outside supplies. Therefore, as long as there is a critical situation—and the present situation is critical enough—we should always carry certain reserve supplies, even though that involves a certain cost. That cost may be written off as an insurance, just as we maintain our Defence Forces as an insurance. The point is that without adequate provision in this regard within the sphere of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, it is idle and foolish to spend money on defence in other regards. The two must go together.

Before the last war the co-ordination between his Department and other Departments on defence problems was insufficient. There was insufficient preparation all round for that emergency. I think we should always keep the possibility of an emergency at the back of our minds, particularly in the present set-up all over the world. That being so, I would like to direct attention to the need of the Minister considering his defence problem actively and to have due regard to other aspects.

I could, perhaps, elaborate more on that, but the difficulty is that what may be the Minister's sphere in time of war is not his sphere in time of peace; but he should have no hesitation in justifying these workshops, engineering undertakings and other methods of power production from the defence point of view as well as from the general economic point of view, and I think many of us would support him in that attitude.

Transport is another matter which I omitted to mention and it is fundamental in any defence picture. It is fundamental from the point of view of Defence Forces, civil evacuation and supplies. Next to power production properly dispersed, the proper organisation of transport services is paramount. Therefore, when dealing with the transport problem the possibility of an emergency situation should not be overlooked. I have dealt with that at some length because I feel we cannot afford to ignore defence problems. For the moment the temper of the newspapers—it boils down to nothing more than that—seems to show an easing of the situation in the West. But balance that against the situation in the East and look at the picture all over and you will find very little consolation, very little hope that the international situation is going to be any better than the indications heretofore have shown.

In other words, there is still acute danger, and while such danger lasts it is obviously our duty, in the light of the lessons to be learned from the last emergency, to take suitable precautionary measures of preparation, even though many of them may be nothing more than the working out of a plan to take effect immediately the necessity arises. But, in order to have any effective plan, we must be in a better position than we were before the last emergency. Hence, the organisation of power, of certain industries and the organisation of workshops where certain engineering operations will be carried out and the organisation of transport and other matters must be looked after.

I should like to make a brief reference to the chemical industry. I am quite conscious that in this matter even the Minister's predecessors were not successful, and I am quite conscious that there are economic difficulties. On the other hand, we in this country consume of necessity a high proportion of chemicals. As regards nitrate alone, our agricultural industry needs a certain supply. A certain amount of phosphates and other chemicals are used more and more in modern life. Practically all the chemicals which we use have to be brought in from outside, ultimately at any rate.

I think there is a case for considering, both from the defence angle and our internal angle, the establishment of a chemical factory, if only in a limited degree. If it could be done, we should establish a nitrate industry and hinge the whole thing around the production of fertilisers with a view to maintaining the fertility of our land, putting back into it what we take out of it. That, probably, would be the most rational approach, and if you found your industry around that you will probably get the best results. But there are other possibilities, and a start can be made from any angle. Though much talk has been going on about this matter there seem to be very few concrete steps taken. Firms have come in to carry out certain chemical operations during past years, but if one examines them closely one will find they were usually subsidiary operations. They depend on certain imported chemicals already made and they are really secondary processes. One effort was made with success during the war to supply one industry here. It is about the only large-scale experiment that was carried out here so far as I know. In dealing with that the Minister will have certain interests to cope with, but we have talked about the matter for so long I think it is now time we did something about it.

Aside from all these matters which I have mentioned, there is one little query for the Minister with regard to this Industrial Authority. The Minister has set up a body but we have not yet seen any legislation dealing with that body or any proposals about it. I do not quite understand the delay. Why could the proposals not have been put before us in concrete form before now? Surely we ought to have them within a very short space of time. We were, after all, able to rush through the Courts of Justice Bill in a matter of two days. If the Minister has his mind made up and if the Government know where they are going and the matter is sufficiently definite to warrant the appointment of personnel there should be no insuperable difficulty in presenting proposals to the House.

There is another matter of which the Minister may need to take cognisance. I am referring to the Control of Manufactures Act. Here, again, we have a subtle change in historical circumstances. From 1932 onwards when we were attempting to establish industries in this country the position was that industrialists in England and elsewhere were definitely not interested. In fact the majority of them had hostile interests in the main. The difficulty with which the Government was faced at that time was to imbue our own people with a sufficient degree of confidence to inspire them to engage in industry and at the same time encourage people from outside to bring in capital. The Control of Manufactures Act was passed in order to preserve ownership and control of those industries in the hands of Irish nationals.

Up to the outbreak of war there was no real danger of our industries falling into foreign hands except for the sake of closing them up. They proved lucrative to those who had sponsored them and, because of that fact, the chance of closing them up was nil. Up to that time, therefore, the present Act was quite adequate and there was no problem. But the situation has now suddenly changed. We have, first of all, the general strategic situation that people now like a greater degree of dispersal. Economically, we came out of the war situation rather favourably placed. There are other reasons which suggest to the outsider that it might not be a bad idea to come in here. As evidence of that, I can cite the purchase, or attempt to purchase, much of our property by people outside this country. To some extent that effort was blocked by the imposition of the stamp duty. My fear at the moment is that outsiders may try to get control of some of our industries. In fact, some of them have attempted to do so. I myself have one specific case in mind. Possibly the Minister is aware of it also. In the case I have in mind it seems to me that there was a complete evasion of the Control of Manufactures Act. An industry which had been set up and developed under completely Irish control found itself in difficulty with a corresponding industry of the same nature on the other side of the Channel. The corresponding industry enjoyed reciprocal trading relations and thereby got the benefit of certain foreign markets. There were not available to the Irish industry. The factory here manufactured stuff for the factory across the water and that was exported to, say, Northern Europe with the name of the factory across the water advertised on the goods manufactured here. I will give the Minister full particulars in private if he wishes to have them. Naturally, I do not want to mention names here. That certainly was not a very favourable circumstance, but following on that position it appears that somebody was used here in the capacity of a "stooge"—a gentleman whose name featured on another occasion. A legal device was adopted by which control of this particular industry now lies in the hands of a foreign concern. Now the home industry is doing its share and obtaining a certain return, but that return is got in such a way that no goodwill can be established.

It seems to me, having regard to these facts, that the Minister may have to consider some amendment to the Act. If necessary, he can take power into his own hands to deal with such a situation. So long as our nationals are getting some benefit and the results of the industry are accruing to the nation, apparently the situation is all right. But the position is fraught with danger. I do not think the danger of closing down is too serious since the Minister can always take the matter into his own hands. From the point of view of the development of that industry and from the point of view of general policy the situation is an undesirable one. It is particularly important that our manufacturers should remain completely independent. I know they have been criticised by certain people in this House. I know that a lot has been said about the excess profits they are alleged to have made. I think a good deal of that criticism was unfounded. These people took a risk in establishing these industries. They put their money into them. They put their energies and their abilities into them and in very many cases they did a service to the country. They did a service to the people for whom they provided employment. These industrialists and their employees are creditors of the community. The establishment of these industries and their building up was done by our own nationals largely under their own steam. The preservation of their independence is to my mind a matter of some importance. If they lose their independence there will be danger of the subordination of the interests of this country to the interests of some outside concern. The Minister may not know the specific case I have in mind. I shall be only too pleased to give him full particulars if he is not already aware of it. The question, therefore, in the net, is whether it is necessary to adjust the Control of Manufactures Act or whether, in fact, the Minister thinks he has through his own officers or in his own Department sufficient control of such a situation. For my part, I think that if I were to hear of a similar occurrence in, say, another industry I would feel bound, as a matter of public duty, to raise the matter specifically here in this House.

These are, I think, the main questions arising on this Vote. As I started, I should like to end by appealing to the Minister on behalf of those city dwellers who are in the position I mentioned earlier, to ask him if some relief cannot be given to them in regard to this obstinate problem of the cost of living, particularly where from their point of view this meat problem cannot be solved, so that the families and the classes which I have mentioned can get back to the day when they can have good Irish beef and mutton on as many days of the week as they like without regarding it as a luxury.

Sir John Esmonde

I should first of all like to congratulate the Minister on what I consider to be the very successful conduct of his Department during the last 12 months. That success I think is most eloquently reflected in the figures which he has given with regard to the percentage of the rise in production in the country compared with a number of different years. In the course of my remarks, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to certain matters which I consider relevant in connection with industrial activities in this country and if I express myself in what might be considered terms of criticism, I should like to point out that it is merely friendly criticism from an angle outside that of a Ministerial Department.

I believe that we have in this country a very good future for industry. There are a number of factors which help towards that future and one is something that has impressed me very much in regard to matters which I have had to bring to the notice of the Department and of the Minister during the past few months. I refer to the attitude of the workers, in my constituency at all events—and I think it is general throughout the country—towards industry generally. Whenever an industry was in danger of stopping or slowing down, there was intense anxiety on the part of the workers concerned, as on the part of the employer, to keep that industry going and going on a firm basis. I have found also that there has been a very good spirit of co-operation between employers and workers in this regard.

In our approach to industry in this country I think we need a certain—I shall not say a rigid—plan and a certain amount of planning. I believe that is essential because of the peculiar background and origin of Irish industry generally. In most big industrial countries the manufactures for which they are famous came into existence for historical, geographical, geological and other reasons, but we in this country went through a period when we were ruled by an alien Government and when any attempt to take part in the industrial development of either the 18th or the 19th century was severely frowned on if such an attempt interfered with industry in England or Scotland. Therefore, when we came to get control of our own affairs, we were entirely dependent, with the exception of certain industries such as brewing, bacon curing, etc.—it is unnecessary to go through the whole list—for most of the goods consumed here on countries abroad. Leaving that aside altogether, since the last war, the world has entered on a new phase and when we consider that as recently as last week one heavy importing country of the world, namely, South Africa, closed down altogether on imports, we can readily appreciate that one must make one's plans entirely in terms of the conditions of the middle of this century with regard to the development and growth of industry generally. We have in this country a future which depends, I think, upon certain well-laid plans, and for the benefit of the Minister and the House I should like to give my views, for what they are worth, upon the general situation as regards industrial planning.

I think we should base our plans first of all upon industries in which we can use the raw materials available at home. We have of course a large number of industries based upon that principle but we have not gone by any means the whole way. I had occasion on the Estimate for Fisheries to refer to the canning of fish but that is only one item. In addition we ought to concentrate upon industries for which portion of the raw materials is produced here. In any case, in any industry that is fostered here, we should have regard to the fact that a large part of the products in the way of food, clothing, etc., are suitable for home consumption. Many other articles will find an outlet in the very big market we have at the present time in connection with the housing drive. In addition, we must not lose sight of the fact that under any general long term plan, we must run our industries in such a way that portion of the manufactured products is available for export to a suitable market. The reason for that is two-fold. Firstly, we must have goods to earn dollars and hard currency. That is the way the world is set up at the present time. Secondly, and I think this is rather important, we must have goods to fill the empty bottoms of our mercantile marine. That should be a very important link in our commercial and industrial activity. We must bring about a state of affairs so that when our ships go to fetch goods they take goods with them.

We must bear that very strongly in mind. I think those are the main considerations with which we should plan our industry in this country, but there are certain weaknesses which we must not disregard. There are two sources of weakness—really both arise out of the same thing—and I think the Taoiseach, in his speech in the chamber of commerce in Waterford the other day, referred to it, that is, the investment of Irish money in Irish industry. The sources of weakness which I see are, first of all, by no means enough credit is available in the country at the present moment for use in industry. The reason for that is that credit here is not controlled by the Government. Credit is controlled by joint stock banks acting through their joint committees, and if the joint stock banks say tomorrow: "We will raise credit by 5 per cent. or lower credit by 5 per cent. in comparison with what it is at the present time," it will have an immediate repercussion on Irish industry. But there is worse than that. The difficulties Irish industry and life in this country generally have to contend with are not confined to absence of credit only, but to the fact that credit is controlled from outside our shores. When the Taoiseach said the other day in the chamber of commerce in Waterford that sufficient money was not invested in Irish industry, it is due to the fact that a number of our banks are operated from London. They hold their meetings in London and they are manned by a certain number of directors, some of whom have no residence in this country and others of whom visit this country once in two years. The investments and savings of Irish farmers at the present time are being used to finance industries that could be in competition with our own.

An Ceann Comhairle

What has that got to do with the Estimate?

Sir John Esmonde

I will pass from that. I was pointing out a source of weakness to industry in this country.

I believe that the Minister has a proper approach to industrial production in this country. I have followed very carefully the speeches he has made, both up and down the country and in this House, and I feel perfectly satisfied that he is fully alive to the importance of the various matters that go to build up Irish industry and also to the dangers which exist and which stand in its path.

I would like to mention mineral development. Mineral development has now entered a different phase in the world. I understand that there were certain mining activities in this country in the past when lead, for example, was at a very much lower price than it is at present. I understand that the price of lead is now something like ten or 20 times what it was before the war. I would like to see not so much exploration as development taking place in the old workings which were abandoned 50 or 60 years ago due entirely to the cost of the mined ore at that particular time.

In regard to industrial research, I feel that a great deal has not come out of it yet. With the enormous increase in the number of articles which come under the heading of plastics, one would imagine that it could have been ascertained whether plastics could be developed in this country out of different raw materials. This question was brought home to me here in this House when, in answer to some Deputy, a Minister—I think it was the Minister for Agriculture—stated that foreign timber had to be used in the manufacture of egg boxes. It strikes me that the Industrial Research Department could surely take up the question of whether there would not be some very easy simple method of treating Irish timber so that it could be used for the simple business of making egg boxes. It seems to me that that is something they could undertake and I was very surprised, indeed, to hear that Irish timber was not suitable for the manufacture of egg boxes. After all, they are not a very difficult article to manufacture.

Transport: the Minister knows that I probably differ slightly with him on the question of the use of the lorry. I know that there are arguments for and against the use of the private lorry which has come to be known as "the plate". I have very strong views indeed on the proposition that the collection of and distribution of goods in rural districts should to a large extent be left in the hands of private enterprise. It is, I think, for the benefit of trade, industry and production that every small producer, whether a farmer's wife with a dozen eggs or a man with a load of pigs for the factory, should be in a position of pressing a button, if it is in the city, and, in the country, of sending word to a neighbour: "Will you have your lorry in my yard at 4 or 5 or 6 o'clock tomorrow morning to take goods to the nearest railhead or wharf?" You cannot do that with Córas Iompair Éireann and you will never be able to do it with Córas Iompair Éireann. If you change the name of Córas Iompair Éireann a dozen times over and reorganise it into something else, you will never get that. If the people living in rural districts know that a suitable conveyance will be available at their door at the time arranged by themselves to suit themselves to take goods to railhead or wharf they will produce more. There has been a great deal of talk here in this House about co-operation between farmers in rural communities. What better co-operation can you have than the knowledge that there are one or two lorries with a plate in your parish and that they are going to co-operate to take your goods out of the district to where they will earn money and bring other goods back into the district? I do not believe that that type of service by private enterprise will do the central transport authority a bit of harm. On the contrary, it will do it a great deal of good and bring to certain districts an increased amount of goods traffic.

There is another question in regard to transport and I think this affects all services of a semi-government character in this country such as the Electricity Supply Board. There is a kind of idea that the people down the country do not count as much as people living in the city. I want to give an example here in this House of the mentality which exists in Córas Iompair Éireann with regard to the country. Córas Iompair Éireann has a monopoly for carrying passengers with, I think, one or two exceptions here and there. At all events, it has a monopoly in Wexford. There is a district roughly south of New Ross which is bounded on one side by the sea and on the other by a river. It is a well populated and industrious district and those people are as much entitled to transport as the person living in Rathmines, Terenure or Crumlin. In the ordinary course of events an agitation grew up that a bus should be supplied to bring people into New Ross for marketing and so on and out again. I had certain distinct evidence that there would be plenty of passengers for that particular bus. Why did we not get it? Not on the grounds that there were not sufficient passengers, not on the grounds that it would not pay, but we were told to reconstruct our roads and when we had done that we would get a bus. I want to say here, as representing a rural constituency, that it is a great piece of, I will not say impertinence, but wrong appreciation of their function for a company which has a monopoly of the transport of passengers in this country to say: "You make your roads right and we will get you a bus." I say in answer: "There are our roads and we could run a bus as we are entitled to and it is up to you to make a bus to fit our roads." That very same week, the tramlines were being torn up in Dublin on the Dartry and Terenure routes, in order that the people in Dartry and Terenure would have an efficient bus service; and there is always an outery if there is a bus short or if there are not enough buses on all routes. There you have a district in County Wexford, inhabited by brother Irishmen, and until they have reorganised their roads this great company will not give them a bus to travel in.

Regarding marine services, I often wondered when we started our merchant fleet—I think we started it very much too late, and that we should not have waited for the world war to commence—why we did not get a few tankers. We consume a big quantity of oil of various kinds and other countries have tankers. A tanker, if it has supplied the needs of its own country, will always get a job of work to do carrying oil to some other country. It came to my notice recently that one of our ships, I think it was the Irish Rose, which is on the Scandinavian route, goes over to Ardrossan to fuel and loses both fuel value and hours of time for which money is being paid out. It seems to me that, with the rise of the mercantile fleet and the fact that oil seems to be the coming fuel for motor boats, it is strange that we have not got a suitable oil depot in this country. I was very surprised to hear we had not. I acquired the information quite accidentally in the course of conversation with a friend who had been on a trip recently to Sweden. I discovered that the boat had to go out to Sweden to get goods to bring back here —principally timber and wood pulp— and that there were very little goods going out with the exception of some canned meat and so on. We have something for which the Swedes are crying out and are importing from Scotland at present. Possibly we could not supply it yet, but it is an item of industry which could be looked into. Apparently, one learns as one goes along. The Swedes require vast quantities of powdered lime for various manufactures and they have none in their own country. This boat could take such a cargo, as the Swedes are getting the lime from Scotland at present.

Turning to our tourist trade, I hope I will not be charged with a moral criminal offence on the spot when I suggest that, for the purpose of attracting tourists, our tourist resorts should take some example from the continental resorts. This country is full of people who are fond of a bet on a horse. I cannot see any difference between the roulette table and a bet on a horse and if, in our various resorts, we had municipal casinos with roulette tables, I believe that the tired businessman with a good wad of notes in his pocket would be attracted here just as soon as to the Belgian or French coast, to Monte Carlo and such places. I understand that, for some reason or another, the game of chance with the little ball and coloured numbers is frowned on, but I cannot see any difference between it and the Irish Sweep, or a little bet on a racehorse.

After he came back from the United States, the Minister referred to the point I am making now. In connection with planning in all countries at the present day, the English are very keen on their export trade and the Americans are very keen on building up in Europe an economy that will give them some place in which to sell their goods. We could take advantage of that position and there could be fitted into the picture a suggestion that came from the Minister. The Americans might be interested in furthering some industries in this country suitable to their own particular economy in Europe. I do not mean that the control of such an industry should pass into American hands, but I think the Americans could make use of their money in this country in connection with their programme of economic development.

In conclusion, my experience throughout the length and breadth of this country, wherever I go, has been that the people realise that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has taken over, particularly in view of the recent war, a very difficult and comprehensive Department. I am told everywhere that the method and manner in which he is running that Department has met with the complete approval of the majority of the citizens of this country.

Mr. Bartley

I have no objection to offer to the last remark of Deputy Esmonde about the Minister's administration, but I think we are entitled to criticise generally the policy of the Government, which, in my opinion, has had disastrous effects on some parts of the country. The Minister did not say a whole lot about employment, but he did make one statement to indicate that the numbers in employment in the production of transportable goods were the highest on record. That statement, as it stands, is quite true, but, if we look back over a number of years and compare the progressive increase since the end of the war with the increase following the coming into office of this Government, the fact that the figure for 1948 is the highest is not in itself any cause for complacency.

Taking the figures in the Irish Trade Journal for March, 1949, in the group of industries which represent 80 per cent. of the employment in the production of transportable goods, we find that, for the six months' period from September, 1945, to March, 1946, there was an increase of 6½ per cent. in the numbers of persons employed; in the next six months' period, from March, 1946, to September, 1946, there was an increase of 4½ per cent.; from September, 1946, to March, 1947, there was an increase of 3 per cent.; from March, 1947, to September, 1947, a further increase of 3 per cent.; and in the period ending March, 1948, which more or less coincides with the time Fianna Fáil went out of office, there was a still further increase of 3¼ per cent. For the first six months of the change, the increase was only ½ per cent. In other words, there was an average increase over the five half years I have mentioned of 4 per cent., but, when the change of Government took place, the increase was only ½ per cent.

That is a fact of which the Minister and the Government particularly must take notice, because it shows a trend. The figure for September, 1948, was 92,000 odd, and, while it is the largest, in actual fact, it would be still larger if the trend which had set in 1945, when capital goods became more or less available, had been continued. It is that trend, shown by the figures published by his own Department, that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. These figures, according to the Trade Journal, are the employment figures for the group of industries which represent 80 per cent. of employment in the production of transportable goods.

The constituency I represent is very interested in this question of employment. It has lost, in great part, the emergency employments which it had during the war. Turf was the principal employment and we have had sufficient discussion of the turf industry, so that I do not propose to say very much about it now. The industry generally must be of primary interest to those poorer agricultural areas which have to rely on means of making a livelihood other than agricultural pursuits. The change of policy in relation to matters which gave employment in the poorer areas during the emergency produced a peculiar result in my constituency. I asked the Minister for Social Welfare to give me the comparative figures of unemployment, that is, of those on the register, in November, 1947, and November, 1948, and I find that for my constituency, which would be represented by the figures supplied by the three offices, Galway, Oughterard and Clifden, the figures in 1948 were less than those in 1947. I find also, however, that the amount paid out in 1948 was larger than the amount paid out in 1947 in unemployment assistance.

These figures would appear to be contradictory, but I see the meaning of them straightway. What happened was that, as soon as the turf industry ceased, the young unmarried men, all those who had no domestic ties or responsibilities, cleared out almost en masse and these are the people who received the small amounts of unemployment assistance. The numbers must have fallen considerably, there fore, as is verified by this official reply from the Minister; but the increase in the amount paid out is accounted for by the fact that more people with dependents, more married men, who cannot so easily leave their small patches of land and go to England, came on the register and these are the class who received the largest amounts. That is a state of affairs about which we cannot be too complacent.

With regard to the operation of the employment periods, I do not know whether or not I have correctly interpreted the figures which the Minister's Department supplied, but it seems to me that there is a bigger drop in the number of unemployment assistance recipients at the commencement of the first employment period, which applies to people who have means, than there is when the second employment period comes into operation, the time when the men without means or dependents go off the register, or are no longer entitled to unemployment assistance. The reason I mention that is that the Minister recently made a speech in Westport in which he referred to the large numbers of people on the register who would not take employment. I put a question down to-day asking the Tánaiste for information on that matter, and, strange, to say, the Tánaiste, who is the Minister in charge of Social Welfare, was unable to give me the information. I wanted to find out the numbers of those without means or dependents who were offered employment since the end of the employment periods last year and the number who had refused, and it seems very strange to me that the Department was unable to supply the figures.

On this side of the House we believe that anything he can do to encourage the tourist industry should be done and, for that reason, I must criticise the decision of the Government with regard to the hotels. I do not ask that these hotels or any other undertaking that is costing money should be carried on for a long period at a loss but I do maintain that the hotels set up by the Tourist Board have not got a fair trial. I really have only one of them in mind, the hotel in my constituency. From the very day it was set up, there was a continuous campaign of denunciation of these hotels. One argument was that they would compete with private hotels and another was that they would induce people from other countries who had a lot of money, which possibly was got in a doubtful manner, to come here and enjoy themselves at the expense of the Irish poor. That campaign, in any event, has depressed the hotel industry in my constituency and at least one other important hotel has been put on the market as a direct consequence, in my opinion, of this campaign.

In Connemara, where the Minister, the Government and previous Governments found it very difficult to find employment and means of distributing money amongst the people, tourism meant a certain increase in the standard of living and if two of the important hotels in the place close down it will definitely put a damper on the tourist industry in the area. If a district has the reputation of having good hotels in it people will be attracted to that place because they will be sure of decent accommodation. Tourists like to have a number of first-class hotels in a district and they like a change. All down the years we have seen tourists going from one district to another. That applies particularly to anglers. They like to spend a while in each place.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

There would be very few Irish anglers at Ballinahinch. None of us could spend £40 a week.

Mr. Bartley

The only comment I have to make on that is that this is the first time in my memory that an Irish angler was able to fish at Ballinahinch. It was the only time he was able to buy permission.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

He would want to be a very wealthy man.

Mr. Bartley

I think my answer to the Deputy's remark is good enough.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It is not. £4 a day would be too much for the Irish angler.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Bartley.

Mr. Bartley

No matter what the length of your purse was, you could not fish in Ballinahinch until the Irish Tourist Board took it over, unless you were persona grata with the people who occupied these places and they did not usually have very many Irish people in their coterie of friends. As a matter of fact, one of the main objections of that class to the Irish Tourist Board having these places is that they have not got the same perquisites in the way of free fishing that they used to have as a result of their acquaintance with the occupiers of these places. They used to get fishing practically free. They can fish now at Ballinahinch but they have to pay the price and they have to employ a gillie. Employment of a gillie has been insisted on by the management of that hotel. In that way the Tourist Board showed that they would not allow people who could pay to get out of their obligation to the people of the locality who were, I think I can safely say, the prime consideration of the Tourist Board. The first consideration of the Tourist Board was that employment would be given in those places, and in Ballinahinch they gave a pretty decent livelihood to about 50 people. In my own knowledge, one employee, who was a porter or in some occupation of that kind, after one season banked a very considerable sum of money, much more than he would have been able to send home if he had spent two years in England.

It is because of things of that sort that have come to my knowledge that I feel so strongly about the attitude of the Government in regard to Ballinahinch. Surely to goodness, if the Government had to reduce the standard of living in a place like Connemara as much as they did by closing down the turf industry and by reducing the employment schemes the following winter, they should not have followed up that policy so inexorably by hitting on the head everything that had been established there in recent years to bring some little comfort into the lives of the people. It is the same with regard to everything that was established in those areas. If every congested area has been treated in the same way an West Galway nobody can escape the conclusion that this Government has a bias against those areas. Take the attitude of the Minister for Agriculture on the question of the tomato houses as just one other instance. I would appeal to the Minister to keep Ballinahinch going for another year, in any event, and let us see if it will not offer some hope of coming reasonably near paying its way by the end of that time. I would also make another request to the Minister in connection with Ballinahinch. There are large properties outside the hotel itself. I should like him to find out for me and, indeed, for his own information, to what extent the loss that has been sustained in the operation of that hotel has been sustained in the management of the property other than the hotel. I should also like him to inquire into the expenditure—he gave me a figure recently—for the equipping and the furnishing of the place. While I am defending the Tourist Board's decision to set up that hotel, I think there was not sufficiently close supervision in the early stages of its development. Having said that, I shall say no more about it.

I desire to draw the particular attention of the Minister to Galway Harbour. The Minister knows that there is an application in his Department from the Galway Harbour Commissioners for the past year and a half— I think since about October or November, 1947. Galway Harbour is in the position that it cannot hope to make much revenue from post-war traffic unless it can improve the capacity of the harbour to accommodate larger ships. One stage of the works has been carried out, as the Minister knows, at a fairly high cost. But, whatever its magnitude, it would have been three times as great if it had been done since the war. They were fortunate in having it carried out before the war. The cost of it was financed entirely out of local resources—the revenue of the harbour itself and a guarantee by the Galway County Council and the Galway Corporation. Galway County Council contributes a sum equivalent to a rate of 4d. in the £ and the corporation contribute a sum produced by a rate of 1/- in the £. Under the Galway Harbour Act the works must be completed within the time laid down. Then years was the time laid down, with a possible extension of a further ten years. The previous Minister agreed to extend the time for a further ten years. The further ten years will have been completed by the year 1955. The position is that, if the second stage of the works has not been completed by that time, the Galway Harbour Board is precluded by the Act from undertaking that second stage of the works unless the surplus of revenue of the dock, without the aid of the rates, will be sufficient to finance such works—having cleared up the loan charges which they are liable to pay at the present time and a deficit of £12,000 in their revenue account which they have accumulated. Unless this State steps in, Galway Harbour will be in the position in which it has accumulated a huge debt which it cannot clear and the docks will not have been adapted to use for post-war traffic. Between the two stages it is in a half-finished State and a sum of £370,000 has been estimated as being necessary to complete the work. I know that the last Government intended and I understand from the Minister that the present Government intends to formulate some kind of a national harbour policy. The quicker that policy is formulated and put into effect the better.

I would ask that the very special position of Galway Harbour be taken into account. I know that the provisions of the 1939 Act can always be amended and improved by a further Act, but the Galway Harbour Commissioners have to deal with the position as they find it. They are being tied up if they cannot get this second stage of the work, which is absolutely necessary, completed by 1955. The principal dock is not at all suitable for the type of boat which is now employed in the cargo-carrying service. We have a deep dock, the Dun Aengus dock, which is a small dock and which is quite deep enough for the average-sized boat. That dock has to be connected with the commercial dock. Plans have been submitted to the Department and unless that connection between these two docks is made neither the commercial dock nor the Dun Aengus dock will be of any advantage to the Galway Harbour Commissioners— rather will they be a liability. Further, the old dock main gates into the commercial dock will have to be removed at a cost of from £20,000 to £25,000. If something is not done soon these old dock gates will collapse, and in that event the commercial dock cannot be used by any type of boat. That is a matter of great urgency and of great importance to Galway. I hope that the Minister will see that the application of the Galway Harbour Commissioners, which is there for the last one and a half years, will be attended to and that some communication will be sent to the harbour commissioners indicating what the Government proposes to do.

I wonder if the Minister will be able to give us any information as to what progress the Industrial Research Council has made or if it is investigating the use of seaweed for the production of yarn. I understand this was undertaken in England during the war and that our Industrial Research Council was associated with the work. I believe the yarn has been produced, but whether or not it can be produced on a commercial scale is another matter. I was told that it was tried out and found to dissolve in water and that somebody hit on the idea of weaving it into some other fabric and that, on the fabric being washed out, the seaweed dissolved in the water, the result being a much finer woollen fabric than it was possible to get by any other means. If such a yarn were produced I imagine we would be able to compete successfully with the very fine yarns imported from Italy and France. It is a development which would be of first-class importance to our poor areas if it takes definite shape. I should like the Minister to give us any information he can on the matter when concluding the debate.

I should also like to find out—possibly it would be more appropriate on the Vote for External Affairs—what is the result of the trade agreement made with France, particularly in regard to the export of woollen textiles. The trade agreement with Great Britain hit the parcel post end of the Irish woollen trade very severely and we were hoping that the trade agreement with France might make up to some extent for the losses on the British market. It is a matter of interest to the poor areas and I should like the Minister to say what the position is and what the prospects are for development.

There is one local matter to which I wish to refer, arising out of the transport question. I do not want to say very much about transport, but the Minister, in his opening statement, pointed out that £360,000 had to be advanced from the Central Fund to Córas Iompair Éireann in July, 1948, and in January, 1949, to meet interest on State-guaranteed debentures. The fares have now been increased and the need to repeat expenditure of this sort has been obviated. The only comment I have to make is that it is a pity the Minister did not make his decision sooner. He has to bear whatever opprobrium attaches to the increase of fares and, if he had faced up to it sooner, he would have lived down the opprobrium by now and saved the Exchequer this sum.

We have no great grouse in the West with regard to the services generally. A great deal of political capital was made out of the fact that the railway line in West Galway was closed in the year 1935. If a plebiscite were taken west of Galway on the question of road or rail services, I have no doubt what the result would be. The road services have been brought into every village in the area. The bus and the lorry serve the remotest of these villages now. When the railway was operated people had to hire sidecars and drive up to 15 miles to get the train. They had also to maintain a large number of horses to bring goods from the railway station, and these horses had to be fed on corn brought from areas outside Connemara. All that has been done away with and the people have transport at their doors.

From that point of view we are satisfied enough, but I want to renew my representations to the Minister with regard to the interruption of the service from Galway to Lettermullen because the county council is dilatory in repairing bridges. The county council offers the excuse that the Government have cut down the road grants so enormously that they cannot go on with the work. As transport is a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce, I should like to point out to him that many thousands of poor people have to travel long distances to get this bus. The point of my question to him recently was that he should get Córas Iompair Éireann to continue this service on the understanding that when the bus came to one of these defective bridges the passengers should alight and walk across the bridge and then get into the bus on the other side. The reason I made the request was that the local people are asking why an empty bus cannot be allowed to cross over these bridges when a heavily laden lorry with its load and driver and helper, which is much heavier than an empty bus, is allowed to go over the bridges. If the bridges are able to stand up to that, why will they not allow an empty bus to cross the bridges? I think that is a reasonable suggestion to make. It will mean that these people will have the service which they had formerly. If there was a little slowness in repairing the bridges people would not notice it so much, but when they have to walk long distances they will not give their blessing to those who are responsible and the Government gets its share of the blame.

Mr. Connolly

The previous Deputy experienced some difficulty in relation to the figures for unemployment and unemployment assistance. It is a difficulty which many of us sympathise with because we have experienced it ourselves. It is one of the defects of this organisation of the Department of Industry and Commerce that, whereas the Minister is responsible for unemployment and, naturally, to some extent, can be held responsible for unemployment when policy is discussed, yet the compilation of the statistics governing the extent of unemployment and the nature, variety and depth of it relates to another Department, the Department of Social Welfare. However, I suppose we can hardly go back to the time when the Department of Industry and Commerce was responsible for the compilation of these industrial statistics, particularly as it has been indicated by the Minister that, in the process of shedding some of the functions of this overgrown monstrosity of a Department, he has relegated the statistics branch to the Department of the Taoiseach.

There are many points and aspects of this Estimate which are of great interest to this House and might evoke a fair amount of consideration from the House, but the one of paramount importance to the Department, the Minister and the House as a whole as the guardian of the welfare of the people of the country is the question of employment. I propose to address myself to some extent to this question. That it is of the utmost importance, that its gravity cannot be disputed, is instanced, I think, by the very grave warning issued by the leader of the Labour Party in this House with which, with great haste, I wish to associate myself. I regret that I am not speaking to the Minister himself, but I am sure that the sentiments I express will be conveyed to and understood by him. I wholeheartedly endorse what Deputy Larkin said when he stated that he was

"not going to be associated with any Government or Party or individual who feels that the unemployed are to be the subject of open rebuke, strong criticism and scornful references because they are in the unfortunate position of being denied reasonable opportunities of earning a living under decent conditions."

I have noted with regret and with dislike that there has been a growing volume of adverse references to the unemployed. I thought that mentality was dead, I thought it had been killed by the war and by the activities of those workless people in this country who have gone to the dangers and hazards of employment in England. I thought that mentality which looked upon the unemployed as shirkers, which scathingly referred to the fact of the disinclination, as they thought, of the unemployed to work, had been killed by the war. But for some unknown reason, whether it is to escape the responsibility or whether it is because the solution to the problem escapes those who indulge in this type of remark, there has been a very dangerous tendency to get back to those pre-1932 days when the unemployed were referred to in such terms and, in fact, constituted such a very important aspect not only of our industrial but of our political life in those days as to contribute very considerably, I think, to the return of the Fianna Fáil Government. That mentality should die and should be buried, and buried deeply.

The dimensions of that problem have been referred to by Deputy Larkin. It is of very little interest to those who are unemployed to get the figures given to us by the Minister in relation to industrial production in this country. It is quite true that, according to his figures, industrial production in transportable goods has increased over the period to which his Estimate refers by about 15 per cent. and that as far as industry as a whole can be estimated there is an improvement to the extent of 16 per cent. That is of very little interest to those who are as yet or continue to be unemployed and it is of very little interest to the sections of industry where they have not the benefit of or do not participate in that general improvement, such as the sections mentioned by the Minister, the leather and footwear industries in particular, where there is unemployment and short time and where the symptoms of a crisis appear to be developing, symptoms to which I suggest the Minister should direct his attention.

Though one may take comfort, as the Minister definitely does, from this improvement in our industrial output, one should not, I think, be too over-confident about the matter. We may have reached a period which can shed a certain amount of satisfaction upon us and give some of us a certain amount of smug satisfaction but there are portents to the contrary in other parts of the world which undoubtedly have their reaction on our economy. We cannot in the present world consider ourselves as being in water-tight or economic-tight compartments. Any major development in one section of the capitalist world has its effect all over the area in which capitalism operates. In the United States at the present time economists and thinkers, those who are concerned about these matters, are becoming worried as to whether we are going to witness again a slump of such dimensions in the United States as may have very adverse reactions on all the other sections of capitalist economy throughout the world.

I merely instance this as a method of suggesting that we should be on our guard and take steps in time so to organise or protect ourselves that while we cannot hope to escape the full effects of any adverse decline in American economy, yet we might by judicious reorganisation, by protection and by various other economic agencies and tricks be able to mitigate the effects of what may be a coming slump. If that slump does affect our economy, I suggest that it can affect it in a way that can be of very grave significance to the country as a whole and that it will inevitably result in a swelling of the unemployed. The figure that we reached during the period under review of 84,000 unemployed distributed over the whole area, all types of industry, rural and urban, is indeed a warning of the gravity of the situation. We have yet time perhaps to take some steps in relation to it.

If, in the coming winter, this figure should mount we might witness again those stirring days when, in order to obtain justice, in order to obtain their demands for work, their demands to be given the opportunity of providing bread for their families, the unemployed started their marches on Dublin, their marches on the Dáil and all that type of activity, which I am sure the present Minister and the present Government would be the least likely to enjoy or in any way to take comfort from. They would, I believe—I am sure as far as one section of the Government is concerned anyway—be over-anxious to mitigate that increasing unemployment and the effects of it, not only by the provision or by an increase of social benefits and of relief for the unemployed, but by taking such steps as may enable industry to absorb the unemployed to a greater extent than it appears to do at present. The different factors in relation to that question of the absorption of the unemployed and the development of industry are too many to address oneself to at the present time, but there are a few aspects of it which could be fairly quickly remedied if the Minister were inclined to deal with them, if he were inclined to examine the question or to re-examine it and to take it under further consideration, and probably revise his views, or change his attitude in regard to certain fundamental aspects of this question of industry.

With regard to some of the aspects of this reorganisation of industry, which it seems to be agreed is necessary, I should like to contrast one attitude, which appears to be rather general on the part of the Minister, with the attitude of the Taoiseach in regard to the same matter. The attitude of the Minister appears to me to be reflecting the attitude of those industrialists who think that they and they only have the knowledge, capacity and confidence to run their own industry. I can say that many of them, from my own personal experience, appear to think that. I am referring now in particular to the footwear industry—the boot and shoe industry. Many of them seem to suffer from a very exaggerated conceit of their own competence to organise their factories with, I think, lamentable results. Whether, consciously or unconsciously, the Minister has given that sufficient thought or not, I am not aware, but we have in the Minister's introductory speech his examination of the boot and shoe industry. It can be taken as an example of this question of the examination of the whole industrial position, particularly in regard to those sections of the community which have got into difficulties or are not developing to the extent they could, and are not absorbing labour to the extent that they should, and to that degree are contributing to unemployment. He talks about the difficulties of the industry. It is quite true, as he has stated, that he has not neglected the interests of that important industry; he has consulted with the different elements which participate in that industry, not only with the industrialists but with the trade unions and with the trade union officials who are interested in it. But his main reliance, for the making of an improvement in that industry, is on a committee which, at his suggestion, was set up by the manufacturers to make a comprehensive examination of the industry and to submit proposals for action.

Now, here we have a case where the whole burden of the examination, the creation or the thinking out and the making of proposals for the reorganisation of that important industry rests upon a group of manufacturers, and unless I am mistaken—if I am I should like to be corrected—there is no evidence whatever of the workers being concerned in this re-examination and there is no indication that the appropriate trade unions have been asked for their advice, even though they do some pretty constructive thinking about this matter. As the Minister knows, they are concerned not merely with trying to improve the conditions of the workers whom they represent, with trying to get increased rates or improved conditions for them, but they necessarily have to give their attention to the organisation of the industry as a whole, and they have, I think, equal, if not superior, knowledge to that possessed by the employers as to the detailed organisation of the various factories. As I have said, in contrast to the Minister's attitude, there is the much more pleasing attitude of the Taoiseach, as indicated by his Waterford speech, in the course of which he said :—

"An aspect of the human factor in industry which had not been sufficiently appreciated was the failure to secure the participation of the worker in industry. The workman could not be expected to contribute of his best to productivity and high output unless he had a clear understanding of the problems of industry and unless he could be satisfied that some of the benefits of high productivity and output would accrue to himself. It would be of advantage to the community generally, and to industrialists, if, on a voluntary basis, workers could be induced to take a personal interest in the management of the industry in which they were occupied."

We would all welcome that, but instead of that, unless the Minister takes the initiative, it will be considered that he supports that false idea of the manufacturers that they, and they alone, know how to run or organise a factory: that the workers have no say in that matter, and that the workers are not competent to participate at the present time in this question of increasing productivity and of organising it on a basis which would be more profitable to the manufacturers and more profitable to the workers as well.

That is an important point in relation to employment, though the Minister, indirectly, has paid a very fine tribute to the workers in so far as they must be credited with the increased productivity shown by the over-all figure which he has quoted. If they are responsible, and I believe them to be very largely responsible for achieving the highest standard of output that has been achieved in industry in this country since records were kept, then surely the time has come for the Minister to insist that those who have achieved results of such outstanding importance should participate in the management of the industries in which they are occupied.

On the other side of the picture, there is the fact in relation to that industry that there has grown up, during the war period particularly, a tendency on the part of manufacturers to act in a very anarchistic manner, to misunderstand, or not to understand at all, the dimensions of the market in which they are engaged and, without reference to the general well-being, to improve and increase their productive organisations to an extent which is not warranted by the market at their command. This is abundantly shown by the figures given by the Minister in relation to the footwear industry. The fact that we have been producing of late years a quantity of goods far beyond the capacity of our home market to absorb can lead to but one thing. It can lead only to the bankruptcy of some of these concerns, with consequent disemployment, constant short time on the part of some of these factories.

This is a matter on which we should have some indication of policy from the Department. the matter may yet be too new to the Department or to the Minister to have worked out a policy. It may be a very difficult matter to work out a reasonable policy and it may be one that is fraught with political difficulties, but be that as it may, I think we cannot with any equanimity look upon development where the factories are now so equipped that they could produce the entire complement of footwear required by the citizens of the Republic in much less than the time in which the citizens would consume those products. In other words, it might be estimated that a number of these factories have become unnecessary. With the development of equipment in better financed, better organised or more firmly established factories having a higher industrial potential, they have so taken over a section of the market that they are leaving some of the weaker factories in a position where they will face increasing unemployment on the part of the workers.

This is a matter that probably would require Governmental intervention. If this committee to which the Minister has referred cannot produce a very good form of voluntary co-operation and reorganisation on behalf of the industry itself, it would appear to me that the Government must take some hand in regulating the industry in such a manner as to produce the least hardship on the workers. If that is not done there will be increasing dissatisfaction, there will be the usual wave of unofficial strikes, and there will be a situation in which large numbers of these operatives who have become skilled in their particular sections of the trade will emigrate and they may find that though this will lessen the impact of the crisis on the industry as a whole, when it starts going again after a period of decline they will have the same difficulties as they had at the start in training good operatives who will be willing and capable to run the industry.

From all these angles I urge the Minister to give the greatest possible attention—and I know he has been doing so—on the basis of some planned policy and to take into consideration whether he can overcome his natural, or perhaps unnatural, aptitude towards a laissez faire policy in regard to these matters, as was indicated by some of his introductory remarks. He should realise that what may apply to this industry to-day may apply to some other industry to-morrow, next week or next month.

While the main consideration should be the relation of industry to the home market, there is the possibility of an export market, but in view of the competition from the Continent and England and the huge industrial equipment other countries have, it would be a very difficult matter for us to get an export market of any dimensions. If we are to get that export market, it ought to be got on some specialised line to which all our manufacturers will contribute in some way or another so as to enable a product representative of Ireland, of having some definite connection with Ireland to be exported— something that would command attention in America, on the European Continent, or in England. We might establish a good export market with a specialised line, but that appears to be a very slight factor in mitigating unemployment in industry.

Our efforts should be directed towards increasing the number of employees and reducing the 84,000 now unemployed. If those able to work were absorbed in industry they could buy two pairs of shoes or boots instead of one, and that would definitely react on employment in the boot and shoe industry. In relation to other industries, there would be a similar reaction. That is what renders the question of unemployment so very important to all of us.

We have a great interest in this Industrial Development Authority and we are all anxiously waiting for an opportunity to discuss that matter in full. Already we have had a slight reference to it when a motion was before the Dáil dealing with the development of the industrial resources of the country. We are all waiting an opportunity of giving constructive thoughts on that matter. Constructive thoughts in regard to the abatement of unemployment and the proper organisation of industry are more germane to such a subject as the Industrial Development Authority and had better be reserved for that occasion.

In regard to the unemployed themselves, I have mentioned my concord with Deputy Larkin in reference to statements about the unemployed. The attitude that the unemployed take to these various jobs should be understood. I am sure that it is understood by the Minister because of his connection with and knowledge of the Labour movement. Now, Deputy Larkin related his remarks to the Ballyshannon-Erne scheme and the developments there where the question of the employment of hundreds of workers arises. But a similar question arises in small towns where there are four or five hundred people, or even 1,000 people, where the unemployed are offered work within the meaning of the Act and according to the law, but because of the conditions, difficulties and disadvantages attaching to such offer, the workers refuse to accept. We had a case like that in my own constituency. I addressed a question to the appropriate Minister in reference to certain unemployed who were offered and refused work. I do not want to give details now, but the case may be a typical one, particularly in considering the unemployed register. I do not want to suggest for a moment that I have the slightest sympathy with all the nonsense talked about the unemployed register and I hope the Minister is not deceived by any nonsense talked by the Fianna Fáil Party—for purely political purposes— in reference to the constitution of the unemployed register. I think that is sheer baloney and the problem of the unemployed is too serious to permit of any attempts at diverting attention from it in that fashion.

The case that I referred to was one where on one occasion 70 men and on another six men were paraded by the local employment exchange to go out and offer themselves to a farmer four miles distant from their homes. Deputy Larkin said that whenever a job has a bad name that bad name travels quickly. In small towns the local people will know the reputation of the surrounding farmers as employers. When a job has a bad name, nobody could expect town workers who know the conditions on the farms around to offer themselves to some cantankerous employer who is in perpetual trouble with his workers, who has continuous rows with them, who frequently takes a pitchfork to them and they to him, who is constantly using bad language, who indulges in slave-driving tactics and, furthermore, who persistently refuses to pay his workers until the last moment on Saturday night.

Just the other Saturday, I was driving home from a town where I had a meeting with a couple of colleagues. On the way we gave a lift to a young woman with a boy of about three years of age. She was laden down with parcels. She told us she lived four miles out from the town and there was no bus service of which she could avail. I asked her how it happened that she had to do her shopping at that late hour and she told me it was due solely to the fact that the farmer who employed her husband refused to pay his men until the last moment on Saturday night. She had then to lug the young lad into the local town with her and depend upon the kindness of some motorist to give her a lift home. When a bad name attaches to a job, no one could expect workers, who have a certain prestige and character and manliness, to offer themselves for such work. I think the Act is too harsh. I think there should be some clause dealing with such cases as this. If there were such a clause, it is possible that we might have a better understanding and appreciation of the situation. The unemployed would prefer to go without their unemployment benefit or assistance rather than work for an employer who has a bad reputation.

I know of one specific instance of that. Possibly that instance could be multiplied in other parts of the country. Where a number of unemployed refuse to work, there must be some fundamental reason for that refusal. Their refusal may look bad to those who do not understand the circumstances. In the case of Ballyshannon, where some hundreds are involved, it does look as if it reflects very badly on the unemployed. But it must be remembered that, from the point of view of the unemployed, there are extenuating circumstances for their refusal to accept work when it offers. There must be some sound reason which will impel them to forgo their benefits rather than take certain work. It was proved conclusively during the war that when work offered under satisfactory conditions the unemployed were more than anxious to take such work.

The Minister referred to the widespread prejudice against Irish manufactured goods. That is a matter which may call for attention and it is one upon which we could make some constructive suggestions. In Deputy Lemass's mind there appeared to be some doubt as to whether such an attitude does exist over any wide sections of the community. Having been Minister for Industry and Commerce so long, I presume he could hardly believe now that there could be such a prejudice still in existence. He said that there will be criticism of Irish goods if quality is defective, but that there certainly does not exist prejudice in the true meaning of that term which will deter people from buying Irish goods even when quality is satisfactory. I know a number of instances of my own knowledge and I know how this prejudice is created. I have brought my investigations in this respect to the notice of the Department and I have made constructive suggestions whereby I think this prejudice could be overcome. I wish to amplify that now to some extent. I am referring to a product with a very restricted market. The industry is a small one, but it is an important one since it has a direct bearing upon the transport industry. It is essential that it should continue as an ancillary to the transport industry. This industry manufactures sparking plugs. It is on a comparatively small scale, but, nevertheless, it is getting into difficulties. Its market is falling. The workers have been put on short time and the promoters of the industry fear that, if they have to close down, the workers they have trained in the last 15 years will emigrate. If that happens and conditions afterwards become better, through Governmental or other interference or other economic changes——

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 31 May 1949