Committee on Finance. - Vote 50—Industry and Commerce (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (13th Dáil) – Tuesday, 30 May 1950

Committee on Finance. - Vote 50—Industry and Commerce (Resumed).

Question again proposed:—

That a sum not exceeding £1,522,000 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1951, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including certain Services administered by that Office, and for the payment of certain Subsidies and sundry Grants-in-Aid.—(Minister for Industry and Commerce.)

Mr. Lemass

I expect the Minister will not object if I move, at this stage, to refer back the Estimate. As he is aware, we have agreed to allow the debate to come forward earlier than was anticipated. I move:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

The Minister in his statement on Thursday last made no reference to the development of this year which must be regarded as of greatest importance in its possible consequences on employment, production and the cost of living here. I refer to the announcement made by the Irish Trade Union Congress—forestalling, I understand, an anticipated similar announcement from the Congress of Irish Unions — to the effect that at a special conference convened by the congress it had been decided to demand that the general level of wages should be increased and to instruct the trade unions affiliated to the congress to serve an immediate notice of the termination of existing wage agreements. That announcement intimated that the reason for these decisions—the decision to promote a demand for an all-round wage increase and to give notice terminating the existing wage agreements—was the continuance of the unduly high level of prices which, according to the circulated statement, has resulted in workers having a lower standard of living than pre-war.

I think it is essential that that decision of the Trade Union Congress and its possible consequences should be discussed by the Dáil. I feel sure that most Deputies will agree with me that it is a matter upon which the House and the country—the workers and the employers of the country— should have the benefit of the Government's view. The Government may not feel under any obligation to have a wages policy, but in a matter of this kind they must have some sort of a policy, and it is for the purpose of getting some more recent indication of what the policy may be that I refer to the matter.

It is stated in the report of the conference held under the auspices of the Trade Union Congress at which these decisions were made that it was also decided to call upon the Government to introduce an efficient and effective system of price control. Deputies are, of course, aware of the view of the Government that the standard of living of the people of this country as a whole has improved. They have heard that view reiterated by the Minister for Finance. He has argued that because the level of agricultural production is at or about pre-war, while at the same time the volume of agricultural exports is below pre-war, that because the volume of industrial output is above pre-war while the volume of industrial imports is also above pre-war, it is obvious that more goods are being consumed in the country, which, he concludes, is equivalent to evidence of a higher standard of living. There are certain obvious fallacies in that argument of the Minister for Finance, but we can take it for the time being at its face value. We know from other evidence that so far as the agricultural community are concerned, those who get their living from the land either as farmers or farm labourers, have secured, as compared with pre-war, a substantially higher proportion of the total national income, that, actually and relatively, their position has improved. It is argued by the representatives of the urban workers, however, that they have not shared in that improvement, or have not shared in it in a fair degree.

If the Minister for Industry and Commerce seeks to counter the demand for an all-round wage increase on the ground that the available statistical information suggests that there has been an improvement in the standard of living of industrial workers, then he will no doubt be answered with the assertion that the increase, such as it is, is much smaller than that which the Minister for Finance has claimed has been secured by the community as a whole. We do know that the index of wage rates published by the Labour Court shows that the present level of urban wages, at 71 per cent. above pre-war, has increased less than the cost of living and that, if wage rates alone were to be taken into account, then, as compared with pre-war, the wage earners are 7 per cent. worse off. The Trade Union Congress argues that the average level of wages before the war was insufficient to maintain workers and their families in health and happiness. There is another statistic which, in fairness, must be mentioned. The conditions in industry post-war permit of more stable employment than pre-war and, consequently, the level of earnings has increased by more than the wage rates index would suggest. The earnings index shows an increase of 89 per cent. above pre-war, which would suggest that urban workers are enjoying an improvement in their standard of living as compared with pre-war of 3 per cent.

The Deputy has never, so far as he could avoid it, failed to enable anyone to understand clearly where he stood on any question. I am putting before the Dáil, in this debate on the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce, that this is an issue of Government policy upon which the Government cannot be silent. I have not got the responsibility of leadership at the present time. If I had, I would not try to shirk that responsibility. That responsibility is on the Minister and his colleagues, and they must not try to shirk it either. Do the Government agree that the general level of wages should be increased? So far as the House knows the Government attitude, we have on record the view of the Minister for Finance, a view expressed, it is true, in 1948 and in relation to the circumstances of 1948, that there was no justification for raising the level of wages as it was at that time. We have the opinion expressed by the Minister that the general situation has not altered materially since then, and we have had an appeal by him, addressed to the workers, not to press these demands at present.

I submit that these are not enough. We are entitled to know the view of the Government, who have at their disposal all the services of the Central Statistics Office, the help of the skilled and competent advisers in the various Departments as to the possible consequences upon production, upon employment, upon the price level of an increase of wages at the present time. If, as a result of the three months' notice to terminate the existing wages agreement, demands are served upon employers in a number of trades to grant higher wages, is it the view of the Government that these demands should be conceded or should be resisted? Obviously, some guidance must be given by those who have responsibility for the control of national affairs at the present time in relation to this important matter. If their view is that they are not called upon to say anything, that it is a matter to be settled by negotiations or otherwise between the two parties in industry, they should say so. That would be information of value in this difficult situation both to the leaders of the trade unions and to the employers and the officers of employers' organisations. There is, however, in my view, little scope for the Government to take that non-committal position. In the great majority of trades prices are controlled. The control of prices is exercised by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. One of the most obvious questions which will be addressed to him by the representatives of the workers and the employers who are presented with demands for increased wages is whether the granting of the increases will be followed by adjustments in controlled prices to enable employers to meet the increased costs.

Deputy Larkin stated at the annual meeting of his own union last week that wages can be increased all round without increasing prices, that increases of the kind which are in mind can be granted solely out of profits. Does the Minister agree with him? It is obviously a matter upon which Deputy Larkin and those who are acting with him should have the benefit of the Minister's opinion. It is my personal view, in relation to a number of industries concerning which I have information, or have been able to get information by inquiry, that it is not true that increases in wages could be granted without increased prices resulting. Nobody will claim to have a sufficiently wide knowledge of all the trades and industries carried on in the country to say that it is not true in any case. It is possible that there are some trades and some industries where the margin of profit is higher than the Minister would regard as reasonable and where wage increases could be granted at the expense of these profit margins, and without increased prices resulting to the public. But, in most of the important trades, the trades which employ the largest number of workers and particularly those trades which have been affected by the recent rise in prices in all industrial raw materials, no such margin exists. In general, all-round increases in wages must be followed by a relaxation of the present price control Orders so as to permit of higher prices to the public. Is it going to be to the benefit of the workers and the community that——

Mr. Coburn

What is your personal opinion on that?

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy cannot put it in that way. I have not got the information which will enable me——

Mr. Coburn

You have your experience.

Mr. Lemass

Yes. From experience I know that the information which anyone would require to enable him to offer a valuable opinion on a question of that kind is fairly detailed. That information is available to the Minister. In a situation of this kind it is to the Minister, to the Government, to those who have responsibility and authority, that people look for guidance — not to me. I can give a personal opinion — I have already done so — but that opinion will be naturally of less value than it might be if I had available to me the information that the Minister has. It seems to me that in the present situation my opinion is of no importance. What is important is the opinion of the Government. It is the Minister who controls prices, the Minister who can decide whether employers are going to resist these demands or meet them in whole or in part. In many cases if he says he will not alter his price Orders the employers concerned will be forced to resist the demands, no matter what industrial unrest may follow. If he is anxious to avoid that unrest, if he thinks the demands reasonable, if he thinks the rise in the cost of living justifies an increase in wage rates, if he thinks there is going to be a rise in the cost of living which will necessitate a revision of wage rates, then he must indicate his attitude by announcing in advance his intention of revising the controlled prices where in his view such revision is necessary to permit of the operation of new wages agreements providing for higher wages.

The question which was asked me by the Minister and by Deputy Coburn suggests to me that they are approaching this problem as a Party political matter. I do not regard it as such. Here we have an issue on which any Government in office would have to express a view. It is open to them to deal with it as a purely Party manoeuvre and to try to pass it off by scoring debating points here, but most Deputies will realise that, if they approach it in that manner, they are shirking their responsibility.

I think both the representatives of the workers, the general body of workers, employers and the general public should have from the Minister a clear statement of the Government's opinion as to the effect of an all-round wage increase upon the things that really matter, the level of employment, the level of production and the cost of living. It should be possible to submit that matter to scientific examination. It should be possible to get agreement between the parties in industry and the Government as to what the possible consequences of action along the lines indicated are likely to be.

I do not think, in present circumstances, there would be any justification for the Government seeking to deal with the problem now arising by means of Government control or any system of official regulation. Clearly, whatever course is taken has got to be one which will lead to negotiations between the parties in industry and, if possible, to agreement. All the Minister can give at the present time is leadership, advice, information and guidance and, if he does that, he will assist the parties and secure, possibly, an acceptable arrangement.

This whole question of wage demands and the possible effect of wage increases upon prices turns, of course, upon the effectiveness of our present system of controlling prices. We know that the trade union congresses, in their official intimation of their decision, expressed the view that an efficient and effective system of prices control does not exist. We know that Deputy Larkin, in his address to the Workers' Union of Ireland Annual Conference, expressed the view that wage increases can be conceded without any effect on prices because, as he said, excessive profits are operating in all trades, with the assent of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Perhaps I should refer to Deputy Larkin's observation in another way, because I think the words he used suggested that he recognised that prices would rise in present circumstances even with a more effective system of prices control operated by the Department of Industry and Commerce. Here are his words, as reported in the Press:—

"Prices had risen, were rising and would continue to rise because of the delayed effects of devaluation and the proven ineffectiveness of price control."

He added:—

"Because of the refusal of the Government to establish genuine effective prices control machinery, prices were again rising."

I was intrigued by the use of the word "refusal" in that sentence. It suggested that proposals were submitted to the Government for genuine effective prices control machinery and that the Government refused to act on them. Perhaps the Minister will give information on that point and perhaps Deputy Larkin will also deal with it.

Have there been proposals submitted by the Trade Union Congress, by the Congress of Irish Unions, by any individual union, by the Labour Party, or by any individual Deputy to the Government, proposals aimed at making the system of prices control more effective than it is, which the Government have refused to accept? If such proposals have been made I think the House would like to be informed of their nature and why the Government refused to accept them. There is certainly, in that quotation from Deputy Larkin's statement to which I have referred, a suggestion that the Government have done something more than failed to operate their existing powers effectively; that they have refused to consider extending these powers or to consider proposals relating to them, submitted from some other party.

And so far as the public is aware, from statements published in the newspapers. There are other cases where prices are regulated by the rule of thumb method of relating profit margins to invested capital, a system of control which takes no account whatever of the efficiency of production, of the reasonableness of the costs entering into production, which encourages waste and inefficiency. Costs are rising. There is no use blinding our eyes to that fact. There is no use in Deputy Larkin or the representatives of the Trade Union Congress contending that the only factor preventing a fall in prices is ineffective price control or excessive profits by traders or manufacturers. The published wholesale prices index will show the most important fact affecting prices at the present time. There have been substantial increases in the costs of most industrial raw materials—in cotton, leather, rubber, paper, wool. The Minister for Agriculture, to-day, in reply to a question, conceded that between 1947 and 1949 the cost of Irish wool had increased by 50 per cent.

Mr. Aiken

By nearly 100 per cent.

Mr. Lemass

By nearly 100 per cent. The cost of rubber, the cost of paper— I can speak with intimate knowledge of the latter—has increased.

Mr. Davin

What about leather?

Mr. Lemass

The cost of leather has risen substantially.

Mr. Davin

Irish leather?

Mr. Lemass

Both Irish and imported. It should be recognised also that the effect of devaluation on the cost of these materials to manufacturers here has not yet begun to operate. In most cases the actual cost f.o.b. has increased by the full amount of devaluation, by 40 per cent., but it is true that there has been some curtailment in shipping freight rate since which makes the increase in c.i.f. costs slightly less. At the present time the industries using these raw materials are in the main working on stocks purchased before devaluation and it is only now that the post-devaluation stocks are coming into use and only now that the effect of their higher cost will be reflected in profits and prices.

Most industries work upon the basis of estimating their production costs on the basis of the replacement price of their stocks and, on that basis, industries utilising these and other raw materials have been recording substantial curtailments of profits and, in some cases, actual losses, during the past six months' period. If, in addition to the substantial rise in the cost of raw materials, it is agreed that it is desirable and necessary that there should be an all-round increase in wages, then there must be, on the one hand, adjustment of existing price controls and, on the other hand, recognition that prices must rise.

I think, however, that behind this discontent amongst the wage-earners, which was expressed in the resolution of the Trade Union Congress, and which secured unanimous support for their demand for higher wages, is reaction against the Government's failure to redeem in the slightest the promises of lower prices which they had made prior and subsequent to the formation of the Government.

There is not a Deputy opposite who does not know that during the election campaign he told workers in every part of the country that prices were unnecessarily high, who does not know that he told workers that prices could be reduced if the Government was anxious to reduce them and anxious to improve its machinery of control. There were some of them who even suggested that they were high because the Government then in office did not want them to come down, being, as they alleged, the friends of the big business interests and desirous of maintaining their profits. There is not a Party now comprising the Coalition that did not pledge itself during that election, if they got control of the Department of Industry and Commerce, to establish an effective system of price control and to bring down prices. They even pledged themselves to effect a lowering of the cost of living by increasing food subsidies.

Mr. Coburn

Their policy was set out in five numbered paragraphs. No. 1 was:—

"Provide subsidies on all food production on a sufficient scale to enable the producer to provide for himself and the agricultural worker whom he employs an adequate family wage having regard to the present cost of living and modern requirements."

No. 2:—

"The subsidies provided should be sufficient to bring about a reduction of at least 30 per cent. on the existing cost of all food produced and consumed here and should be accompanied by a strict control of prices."

The other paragraphs relate to the provision of free fertilisers and things of that kind which have no direct relevance to this question. That is the type of statement to which I refer and Deputies must not ignore the effect of these statements upon the mind of the workers of the present time. The workers realise now that there has been no reduction in the cost of living. It is not contended that there has been. They realise now that there is no likelihood that a reduction in the cost of living will take place, much less a reduction of 30 per cent., such as was promised them by that particular Minister in 1947.

"The average citizen," he said, "was primarily concerned with the pressing problem of making ends meet, trying to provide his family with food, clothing, shelter and education out of an income which cannot keep step with the rising costs of almost everything he needs. These economic considerations must take priority over all political and constitutional matters."

Well we did not hear much more from the Government for some time on that subject. The House, the country and the workers in particular were left under the impression that the Government was busily concerned with plans for a reduction in the cost of living, for the implementation of those pledges which before the election, after the election, before they joined the Coalition, and after they joined the Coalition, they told the people they would carry out. I do not want to recount the history of the Coalition in relation to the cost of living. By 1949 they were boasting of their achievements in preventing the cost of living from rising, but nothing was being said of their pledge to reduce it. Yet, even in 1949 they were expressing the belief that the cost of living would go no higher.

In September, 1949, we had devaluation of the £. The Government decided, following the decision of the British Government, to devalue the Irish £ in relation to the dollar and the Minister for Finance went, in his turn, to Radio Éireann, and broadcast a statement on the 9th September of that year which appeared in the Irish Independent under the heading “No Significant Rise in the Cost of Living. Assurance by the Minister for Finance”. There is a long statement in which the Minister expressed the view that there would, in fact, be no rise in the cost of living because of the Government's decision to devalue the £. Deputy Larkin did not then think it necessary to make the statement he made this year at the annual meeting of his union, to the effect that——

"prices had risen, were rising and would continue to rise because of the delayed effects of devaluation and the proven ineffectiveness of price control."

On the contrary, Deputy Larkin spoke in a very different voice to the members of his union at their annual meeting in 1949. As reported in the Irish Press on June 20th, 1949, he said:—

"While the cost of living had in the main not increased, wage and salary earners had achieved a real gain in so far as wage and salary rates had been increased without a corresponding increase in prices. That was not sufficient. He believed election promises were made to be honoured and the Government must give more serious and effective attention to breaking the existing price level and starting prices on a downward trend."

Nothing happened between 1949 and 1950 to effect the level of prices except devaluation, which the Minister for Finance said would not increase prices at all but by the time the annual meeting of the Workers' Union of Ireland came round in 1950, Deputy Larkin had changed his mind and spoke about the Government's refusal to establish genuine control, and about prices rising.

"Prices had risen, were rising and would continue to rise because of the Government's refusal to establish genuine price control machinery."

So far as that is concerned, I would ask the workers to judge what we did during the period of the war as a whole. We came into that period with limited resources and little likelihood that we would get through the whole of it without very serious consequences, without very severe hardships for our people. Whatever we did—and we made mistakes, as every Government did—we brought this country through the whole of that period with its productive capacity unimpaired and with no section of this people able to say that they had suffered unendurable hardship, and it is not unfair to ask that we should be judged upon the whole of our record for that period, instead of on the basis of picking out one single item and misrepresenting it five years later for the purpose of implying that, in present circumstances, a Fianna Fáil Government might do the same again. I would not support it. I would not support action along that line by any Government at the present time.

I have said that we have a problem here, the problem of finding a method of adjusting the level of wages in relation to the requirement of justice and the national economy, and that that is the biggest of the unsolved problems of democracy. We have to try to solve it. Clearly, we will never solve it if the Government sits back and says nothing. The responsibility of leadership is on the Government, and, if we ever do solve it, it will be solved along that line, the line of leadership, the line of informing and instructing opinion so that decisions, when made, will be reasonable and will have relation to the general circumstances of the community, the general welfare of the community as a whole.

I want to turn now from that subject to other aspects of Government policy which naturally come under review when the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce is submitted. It is obvious, I think, from the trends which have appeared, that we are likely this year to experience an increase in the adverse balance of visible trade, a widening of the gap in our international payments. The level of imports is running substantially higher than last year, and there is no immediate prospect of exports expanding in corresponding degrees. On the other hand, our invisible income is likely to be smaller, for reasons which I mentioned during an earlier debate, particularly our net income from the tourist trade. That is going to mean a depletion of our capital resources, a weakening of our power to promote development in the future, apart from the possible consequences of the Government's shortsighted Budget policy.

It does mean, however, that if we are to raise the standard of living of our people or even to protect their existing standard of living, we have to expand our trade, exploit our own resources to get a greater output from industry and agriculture. The first step towards the achievements of these aims is to get the people to understand that they are necessary and why they are necessary. This habit of Ministers coming into the House or going through the country making statements to the effect that everything is lovely, that the country is going ahead nicely, that there are no clouds on the horizon and no dangers to be anticipated, is producing amongst the community a corresponding slackness and has also contributed to this unfounded belief that we can all be much better off doing less work than at present. I think that these statements are tending to create an entirely unrealistic view about the national position in the public mind.

The Minister has made a number of statements concerning industry. I have said before that, to the general tenor of these statements, no exception can be taken. I do not believe, however, that they represent a policy. It is true that no impediment to industrial development is being created by the Department or the Industrial Development Authority, acting in conjunction with it, except perhaps a certain difficulty in getting expeditious decisions, but there is certainly no stimulus forthcoming either. The Minister stated that a number of new industries have been started. That may be true. They are small concerns or concerns which were planned a long time ago and are only now becoming practicable. So far as the preparation of an over-all industrial plan and the vigorous application of a policy to secure the implementation of that plan are concerned, there is no evidence.

Let me give cases in point. One of the industries which it is practicable to establish here and which considerations of national security as well as other considerations of national interest require that we should establish—an industry which we very nearly came to have before the war—is the manufacture of nitrogenous fertilisers, sulphate of ammonia. I am not going to recount what happened before the war to delay and render futile the plans which were made then, but during the war, in accordance with the general policy adopted then of setting up organisations to plan post-war developments, a company called Ceimicí Teoranta was created by Act of the Dáil. That company was charged with the responsibility primarily of preparing industrial plans for the manufacture here of such chemical products as were practicable in our circumstances, and, as I told the Dáil when bringing the Bill before it, the immediate task entrusted to them was to bring to fruition this idea of manufacturing our own nitrogenous fertilisers, the setting up and operation of a sulphate of ammonia factory.

I turned to the accounts of Ceimicí Teoranta for last year, the last published accounts, to find out if there was any evidence there of any effort by that company to get ahead with that idea, and I found that their total expenditure over the year, on foot of all their research work into the industrial possibilities of various chemicals, including sulphate of ammonia, was less that £700. It was quite obvious to me that that company has now been told not to proceed with the work for which it was established. Subsequently a question was asked in the Dáil of the Minister for Industry and Commerce concerning the possibilities of that industry. He replied that the Industrial Development Authority were considering it. Why should they be considering it? We set up here by an Act of the Dail a special ad hoc organisation equipped with all the technical advice which the Industrial Development Authority has not got for the job, and why are they not allowed to continue? The Industrial Development Authority, which must consider over 200 separate proposals, is having imposed upon it this further obligation. Obviously to me nothing has been done, and if in fact the question has been referred to the Industrial Development Authority at all it is solely for the purpose of delaying it.

Before the war a private company started with Government help the establishment here of a steel mill at Haulbowline in County Cork. By the time the war started the only part of the mill which had been installed was the bar rolling plant and as the order for the rest of the plant was placed in Germany delivery could not be secured. Right during the war the mill was kept going off and on with considerable difficulty producing mild bar steel which is used in the production of agricultural implements, horse shoes and for other essential purposes. Afterwards furnaces were built and got into working order shortly after the war ended but that did not complete the equipment. Besides the furnaces and the rolling mills there should also have been what is called a bloom mill. As well as the completion of the bar rolling mill a sheet rolling mill was contemplated for the production of sheet iron, corrugated and otherwise, steel barrels and drums for which there is a substantially larger demand at the moment than for steel bars. If that industry is to be made to progress further development must be undertaken. It is doing all right. Production costs are comparable with those of the British mills and it is making profits. That is all to the good, but is there any reason why these three years should have been lost in getting ahead with the extension of the project? We have been told that it is under consideration. Everything is under consideration but nothing is done. Can the Minister tell us that there will be some definite step for the extension of the activities of this mill this year, next year or the year after?

Mr. Morrissey

Because we gave it some consideration it is paying now and giving more employment than in the Deputy's time.

Mr. Lemass

If it is giving more employment than it did in my time that is natural enough as there is no scarcity of coal or anything else now. I considered it something of a miracle that it was kept going at all. That industry is the only basis upon which we can develop that important aspect of our industry and there is no reason whatever why we should be talking about the industry and then delaying. If you took action——

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy talked about it for many years longer than I have been talking about it but he did nothing.

Mr. Lemass

I confess that the final plans were completed in 1938. They were implemented in 1939 and they would have been completed in 1940 but for the war. I was not responsible for the war.

——instead of using it in the factory for the purpose for which it was designed. Will the Deputy discuss that matter with some of the fitters employed by Córas Iompair Éireann who have seen it? I have seen some of the fitters, men who take a pride in their work and their tools, literally with tears in their eyes when they described the condition to me of that magnificent machinery which is lying in the Broadstone. You could not get the like of it in the world, and if it could be got you could not get delivery for at least two or three years, but we are letting it out of the country. What kind of industrial policy is that? Are we always to be satisfied with assembling parts which have been manufactured in Britain? We must get beyond assembly to manufacture at some stage. Is this not the time to start with the heavy motor vehicles which we use here and which we must always continue to use for essential purposes. There is no luxury element in that type of equipment. We can make it. Is there any reason why we should not make it?

I am. I admit at once that experience has shown that it is difficult to get co-operation in turf development by compulsory methods. Both before and during the war when, either by Government action or by force of circumstances, a situation was created in which the demand for turf equalled the supply, we did not get from all sections of turf producers honest co-operation. I told them in person that because of that experience we could not allow similar conditions to reappear and that, therefore, the aim of Government policy must be to create conditions in which there will be a growing demand for turf fuel, but unrestricted competition amongst the suppliers, so that a high and uniform level of quality will be maintained. I suggest here that the Government should go back to the policy we outlined in a White Paper in 1946 and make it a condition of every subsidy given to a local authority or to a private individual for the construction of a dwelling-house, every help given through protection or otherwise to an industrial concern, make it a condition for every local authority that they must instal in every dwelling-house, factory or institution equipment specially designed for the economic utilisation of turf fuel. Let the Government not be deterred from that course by arguments advanced by people who say that turf has not the same calorific value as coal or is less easy to transport or more liable to cause ash. We know all these things. We know that ton for ton, turf is not as good a fuel as coal. But it has the advantage, which coal can never have, that it is a national asset in parts of the country where both poverty and unemployment have been persistent evils throughout the centuries and where it is desirable we should have some development of that kind. We must not have regard only to the relative merits of one fuel as against another; we must put against the greater merit of coal the outstanding fact that turf is our own resource and we must, therefore, concentrate on its development. I do not know what the Government will do. I do not even know what they are doing. I know that the Turf Development Board told me in 1947 that their original £10,000,000 programme would be completed in five years and, after discussion with me, they put up another programme of equal size covering another range of bogs, a programme of which I told them the Government had approved and to facilitate which legislation was framed. That legislation was not enacted before the change of Government, but the Bill was there and the Minister for Industry and Commerce was in a position to have produced that Bill to the Dáil in 1948. He did not produce it until 1949. It has been there on the Order Paper for months. It has never got beyond the First Stage. I do not know if that means that the Turf Development Board's activities are being curtailed. I do not know what legal authority there is for giving them additional funds for any enlarged programme or what the reasons of the Government may be for the delay in the enactment of that measure. I have already told them it is an unopposed measure. There is no reason why they should not go ahead and get an expeditious enactment of it by the Oireachtas. I suspect that there still persists in their mind some remnant of that antagonism to turf which was so evident in the first months after the change of Government, and I suspect that is the reason why there is no enthusiasm or drive behind the legislation required to get that programme completed.

The tourist board was instructed to acquire these properties with the intention of selling them again, selling them either singly or as a group through the subsidiary organisation which had been set up. The primary purpose of that organisation was the development of holiday resorts here, the preventing of them being defaced by unsightly buildings or advertisements, the provision of water supplies, public lavatories and accommodation for cafés and restaurants. They were instructed to base their plans upon the assumption that each development scheme they prepared would ultimately show a profit. There was no expectation that the Government would face an ultimate loss as a result of these schemes. What has happened? What has happened at Tramore and at all these other places? Has the work been suspended? Is the whole idea written off?

Mr. Davin

What happened at Glengarriff?

Mr. Lemass

I do not know. What happened?

I notice that Irish Shipping, Limited, is making losses on its shipping operations. I do not think we need be concerned about that, because its financial position is very strong. The present scale of operation of Irish Shipping, Limited, appears to me to be such that they can never make a profit through their existing methods of working and that the scale of operation of the company must be increased. They have had some difficulty concerning the British Canadian conference. I should like to impress on the Minister that the people of this country are now fully aware of the value to them of a deep sea merchant shipping service and that they will back him in any action he may take to protect that service against attack and to secure its development.

Mr. Hickey

You were a long time thinking about it.

Mr. Lemass

Oh, no. When I became Minister for Industry and Commerce, I was as interested in developing shipping services as I am now. I made a mistake, perhaps, in that I was side-tracked. From an examination of our trade figures I decided that the most important aspect of the shipping trade was the cross-Channel instead of deep sea. It is true that, in 1932 and 1933, deep sea shipping was most depressed. Deputy Hickey will probably remember that period and remember the 50 ships or so that were lying rusting in Cork Harbour. It did not appear to me to be a propitious time for deep sea shipping development. It is quite true, however, that our most important interest is still in the cross-Channel shipping services. The bulk of our exports go across Channel and the bulk of our imports come from across the Channel. I was side-tracked when I was examining the question of developing Irish shipping on the Irish Sea into the discussions with the British combine, Coastwise, Limited, discussions which were concerned with the possible transfer of ownership of that concern or possible partnership with it which would give a degree of Irish financial participation and ensure that a number of ships would be registered here and staffed by Irish seamen. I am satisfied now that I was strung along by those gentlemen and that we shall never develop on the Irish Sea unless we have an independent organisation. This is the time we should be doing it — it is more important now than it was before the war. Some of these shipping services from British to Irish ports are now British State-owned. Our own experience will tell us that it is easier to make progress in these matters when dealing with private concerns than with State-owned concerns. One end of a shipping service is as important as the other and, unless we get rail connections and other facilities at British ports, our shipping enterprise will be unfairly handicapped.

While telling the Minister that he must not under any circumstances allow our deep sea shipping development to be jeopardised or curtailed, I want to draw his attention to the fact that we still have in that field the biggest problem still unsolved.

Mr. Hickey

What about the cooperation of the Irish people in its support?

Mr. Lemass

What has happened concerning rural electrification? I know that the Government is going to put upon the long finger the obligation of finding the money to pay the grant for the provision of the electricity at less than its economic cost. That much we learned from the speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister for Finance might have been expected to reveal that point in his Budget statement but he kept quiet about it. When the rural electrification scheme was planned there was no information as to the level of costs likely to operate. It also was one of the plans made during the war to be carried out when the war was over. When presenting the scheme to the Dáil I had to inform the Dáil that the plans were based upon pre-war prices and that while some guesses had been made there was no knowledge as to how the post-war level of prices would compare with those operating pre-war. On the basis of pre-war prices for materials it was estimated that the average capital cost of connecting every rural dwelling would be about £45. Up to the end of 1949 it has worked out at £80 14s. od. It was calculated also that the scheme would be economic if the revenue paid by those living in the connected houses, through fixed charges, was equivalent to 12 per cent. of the capital cost of connection. Deputies are aware that the consumer of current pays partly on the basis of a fixed charge and the remainder on the basis of the consumption of current. It was calculated that if the figure of 12 per cent. were adopted, the scheme would be economic but our estimates revealed that upon the basis of pre-war prices 12 per cent. of the capital cost of connection could not be secured at the then existing Electricity Supply Board rural tariff. It was desired that the electricity should be supplied in the rural areas at that tariff, and no dearer. It was calculated that keeping the price at that level, the revenue that would be derived from the fixed charges would be equal only to 10 per cent. of the capital cost instead of 12 per cent. In order to make good the difference, it was proposed to the Dáil, and the Dáil agreed, that the Electricity Supply Board should get a capital subsidy in the form of a free grant of half the total capital cost of building the net work. That, it was assumed, would enable the Electricity Supply Board to carry on the scheme on an economic basis. Now, with the capital cost working out so very much higher than was assumed at the time, the revenue from fixed charges secured to date is equivalent only to 7.5 per cent. of the capital cost of construction. It is clear, therefore, that even the 50 per cent. capital subsidy is insufficient to make the scheme economic for the Electricity Supply Board and that probably a 100 per cent. capital subsidy would be required.

What is the position? The Minister tells us that the matter is under consideration. I asked him if there has been any curtailment of the scheme while the matter is under consideration and he said: "No." I asked him if any rural dweller was refused a supply because of the way in which the finances of the scheme were working out and he said: "No." Somebody must be losing money. The capital subsidy has not been increased. Is the Electricity Supply Board losing money? If it is, is it intended to make good that loss — retrospectively — to the Electricity Supply Board? I wish to put on record my strong protest against this device of borrowing for that grant. Here is a scheme which is going to involve recurring grants year after year for 25 years. It is an imposition upon posterity to expect them to pay in their day the cost of the benefits which are being conferred upon the people of this country in our day.

As far as I know, there would be no difficulty in getting supplies if the necessary contracts were made between the merchants here and the growers in India.

Mr. Morrissey

Do not be too sure of that.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister may refer to the cost of living during the previous Administration, or he may condemn observations made in the debate. But representing a city constituency, I want to make it perfectly clear to the Minister that the people of Dublin are seriously worried about the cost of living and they are seriously worried that the present Administration have not brought it down as they promised to do. I think it is more helpful to the Minister and the Government to tell them what the ordinary people are thinking rather than to participate in this debate and say, as will be said, I am quite sure, by many Deputies, that the Minister and the Government have been doing a good job in regard to the general administration. One frequently hears the comment by ordinary housewives, when they go into purchase the week's supplies and see the small amount of change they have left after spending their husband's wages: "What are the Government doing about it?" It is in the general interest that that point of view should be put forward in the Dáil so that the Minister and the Government will be made to realise that there is substantial discontent in regard to this question of the cost of living and that there is a duty and a responsibility on the Minister and the Government to do something about it in the shortest possible time.

Deputy Lemass has referred to the decision of the Trade Union Congress to press for increases in wages. As Deputy Lemass said, that is undoubtedly a very serious matter. But the pressure of the Trade Union Congress and the affiliated trade unions and the ordinary trade unionists who are members of these organisations comes from the fact that the weekly pay packet is insufficient to meet the cost of living of the average family. It is clear that in a very short time the Government and the country will be faced with a general demand for an increase in wages. It is my own personal view that that increase of wages is necessary if the standard of living we advocate for the community as a whole is to be achieved. I do not think that this very difficult problem of an increase in the general level of wages will be solved simply by speeches or addresses that will indicate to the workers that any increase in their wages will lead to an increase in the cost of living and will be no use in the long run. The workers are prepared to gamble on it. They believe they have a just claim, and I believe with them that they have a just claim, to an increase in the general level of wages. They will look to the Government and, particularly, to the Minister, to see that that increase in the general level of wages is made from profits, and that it is not passed on to the consumer, thereby in itself raising the cost of living.

These two matters are vital and important, and I would like the Minister, in concluding the debate, to deal particularly with those aspects and with the very reasoned and constructive submissions made by his predecessor, Deputy Lemass, in regard to those matters.

Representing a city constituency and seeing, day after day, many young boys and girls unable to find here employment of a particular type, I have advocated that that unemployment problem cannot be dealt with unless new industries are established. While figures may be available — as the Minister states, the Industrial Development Authority is investigating 200 new industries — the fact is that within the past two and a half years many thousands of fine Irish boys and girls have been compelled to emigrate to find employment in England that they ought to have been able to find here, if industries to absorb them were established. The surprising thing about it is that a young man of 19 or 20 years of age can go right across to Britain and find employment almost immediately in many British industries. He can be employed there at very good wages and with reasonable prospects of promotion. In the case of those industries which have many branches not alone in Britain, but in other parts of the British Commonwealth, these young men and women lucky enough to obtain positions in them, are getting excellent opportunities; but those opportunities should be available to them here. The loss of those young men and women is a very serious and grievous loss. We have reared them, we have had all the expense of bringing them up almost to manhood and educating them; and at the time when they are able to give a productive return to the community, we must lose their services because we have nowhere to employ them here.

The responsibility of providing the employment for these young people is a responsibility of the Minister. That is his duty. While I appreciate that probably in the years to come, as a result of the investigations by the Industrial Development Authority, factories and industries may be established, there is a very serious loss to the community in the meantime. The efforts of the Minister and the energies of that particular section of his Department should be directed to the establishment of industries of that type to absorb those young people as quickly as possible.

All these matters run together — the matters of the cost of living, the level of wages, the new industries and emigration — and, to a large extent, they will be solved together, but we need more drive and more imagination in regard to the problem. If the Minister were to make mistakes, to establish the wrong factories or industries, it would be preferable to making no mistake by establishing no industry at all. There are many opportunities right through the rural areas of absorbing all the unemployment there, for the time being at least, but the unemployment in the cities and larger towns can be absorbed only by new industries. It is up to the Minister and to the Government to see that these new industries are established as soon as possible.

The personnel of the new board of Córas Iompair Eireann has been announced in the last few days. It is clear that during the debate on the Bill going through this House the Minister did not guarantee that the board would be a full-time or permanent one, but the announcement made in the last few days clearly indicates that it is only a part-time board with a permanent chairman. In my view, that board, in its personnel as established, will not solve the transport problem. I regret very much that, in dealing with this important matter, affecting the employment of so many people and affecting the community as a whole, the Minister did not see his way to establish a full-time board, at least for such period as might be necessary to bring transport out of the chaos in which it is at the moment and put it in sound working order. Naturally, I wish the new board the very best. I sincerely hope that their efforts will be successful and that the view I have formed will be proved wrong in the near future. Certainly, I would have much preferred, and I think the House and the country would have much preferred, if the Minister had appointed a full-time board to deal with the serious mess in which Irish transport is at the present time.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Lemass made a very slight passing reference to price control as it concerns one particular commodity, meat, and the moment the Deputy mentioned meat the Minister interjected as if he were satisfied that the statement made by Deputy Lemass was not a correct one, or that meat was not covered in this reference. I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to admit that when the maximum retail price for meat was controlled, meat at that time was at a certain level per cwt. and that a certain margin of profit was accorded the butchering trade. I do not know whether he is prepared to admit that the price at that time has now been far exceeded; that the price of meat to the butcher has, in fact, considerably increased, notwithstanding the butchers being kept to the then maximum controlled price, with the exception of the additional penny which was accorded after the change of Government. The Minister said he accorded that penny to the butcher only because his predecessor had committed him to it. If we are pretending to believe that the cost of living has, in fact, been reduced since the change of Government, or that it has not increased, one way, of course, of bringing that into being would be to make a particular trade, such as the butchers' trade, subsidise the price of meat until, finally, they would be no longer in existence.

I have examined this matter as closely as I could. I know that at the time the last examination was made by the Department, when the retail price was fixed, the price of meat to the butcher was somewhere around 89/- per cwt. and I know he is paying in excess of 100/- per cwt. now. We know that an average size beast of 5½ cwt. gives him roughly 60 lb. of meat on the hook, as they call it, for every 112 cwt. live weight, so that every 5/- per cwt. increase means a penny cost to him.

The Minister has received deputations of interested groups and, so far as I can make out, he has extended courtesy and sympathy to them. He has conveyed to them, if language can convey anything, that he understands their problem. The fact remains that he has not seen fit to do one of two things. One is to allow them to increase the maximum retail price of meat and face the situation that the cost of living is going up. It is going up because the purchase of our live stock from abroad means a higher price for our cattle and, consequently, our people are being caught by it. If he does not want the cost of living to go up as regards that particular commodity, then the Minister should consider a subsidy so that he can be just to the people who have to buy the meat as an essential, as part of their every-day requirements, and so that he can also be just to the people in the trade who have to cater for the public.

When he was interjecting while Deputy Lemass was speaking, the Minister gave me the impression that he was anxious to deal with this matter. So far as I and other Deputies who have examined this matter are concerned, we are satisfied that the people in that trade are not getting a fair deal at the moment. They are being kept to a retail selling price based on a cheaper cost of meat to them, a cost fixed some years ago, notwithstanding that the cost of the meat has considerably increased. There is great dissatisfaction, and grave unrest and a certain amount of unhappiness in that trade.

I am talking of sugar that we produce to a certain extent and import when we have not sufficient. I am talking of sugar which was rationed because there was not sufficient to give everybody a fair amount and which was controlled in price in order to ensure equitable distribution. We have reached the stage to-day where the Minister is saving for the Exchequer, on a rough calculation, something like £1,500,000 subsidy, portion of which is paid by the children who are paying 33? per cent. more for their sweets. If the figure of 60,000 lb. which the Minister gave to-day is correct, that is the amount that was sold off the ration in the year 1949-50.

I do not know whether the Deputies on the Coalition benches realise what is happening. Is it the policy gradually to take away from the working class the possibility of their being able to prove an increase in the cost of living by making the articles too dear and thus rendering them unable to purchase? Is that the policy we are now getting to?

Take flour. I see that the State is making a profit of something like £200,000 this year on flour — £1 a sack, profit, is the answer to another question. Again, that £200,000 is a reduction in the cost of the subsidy.

I relate all this to the mentality that opposed the approach made by their predecessors in office who felt that we would have to have additional taxation in order to maintain the subsidy on essential commodities, which affected the welfare of the people. That is why we had opposition to taxes on beer and spirits, which were removed. Now, in order to make up the deficit in the tax income which would have arisen there is a reduction in the subsidy.

Take tea. The Minister has indicated in relation to tea that he is making approximately £100,000 a year profit. He indicates that, in eight months, almost 800,000 lb. of tea were sold at the off-ration price. Who is buying the tea? It is true that hotels, restaurants and visitors are buying portion of this tea, just as they are buying some of the sugar, but a great many old people, who enjoy a cup of tea and for whom the two oz. ration is inadequate, have to pay this 6/- a lb. for unrationed tea.

Mr. Crotty

They had to do with the ½ oz., when the tourists were getting it, during the war.

Mr. Kissane

There is no war now.

Mr. Crotty

They had to do with the ½ oz.

Mr. Briscoe

Am I to take it that the philosophy of the gentlemen opposite is that if other people have done something that is wrong, if they do what is wrong to a lesser degree, it becomes right and virtuous? Is that the attitude they are trying to put up?

I see. The Deputy asked me were there any idle vehicle builders.

Dr. O'Higgins

Deputy Lemass and Deputy Cowan referred to the new demands which will be made by organised labour in the next few months. Organised labour is going to demand very substantial increases, and how these increases will affect rents I do not know. I am informed that one of the demands will be one for 9d. per hour for carpenters employed on corporation houses. If that is followed by demands from other tradesmen and unskilled men it is going to put the cost of production of houses up very considerably, and if we are to approach the letting of these houses at economic rents, it is going to mean a very considerable increase in subsidies, taxes or rates. All these demands being made by the spokesmen of organised labour arises from the fact that they say it is necessary to get these increases in wages because of the increase in the cost of living in the past few years. Either labour is wrong or the spokesmen of the Government are wrong. I say that the cost of living has gone up and it has gone up not according to an index figure which takes account of certain items, not to the extent to which they are used but to the extent to which rationed quantities of them are used. The cost has gone up for the working man if he wants extra butter, tea, sugar or flour, but if he keeps within the rationed quantities the Government possibly can argue that it has not gone up.

Minister for Defence (Dr. O'Higgins)

What was his position five years ago?

Mr. Smith

What was the position of the world five years ago?

Dr. O'Higgins

What was his position if he wanted to get a little extra?

Mr. Briscoe

There was no extra to be got.

Dr. O'Higgins

At any price.

Mr. McAuliffe

Wait and see.

Mr. Briscoe

Try it to-morrow.

Mr. Lynch

Every speaker so far has referred to the cost of living and I take it that during the course of the debate almost every other speaker will refer to it also. Deputy Captain Cowan, who has openly declared himself a supporter of the inter-Party Government and who by his vote in this House has helped to keep it in power, has sounded the note of warning to Government supporters. Since this Government came into power they have claimed that, although the cost of living has not decreased, they have kept it in check. Before the last election the vast majority of the people expected that if the present Government assumed power it would be reduced and it is quite understandable inasmuch as some of the groups supporting the Government promised a reduction even to the extent of 30 per cent.

If I may deal with these interruptions I do not mind. I should like to supplement what Deputy Lemass had to say to-day regarding the 7/- per stone which is now being charged for imported flour. There is an Order in existence called the Flour (Wheatenmeal and Bread) Order, 1949. Under that Order the controlled price of flour, if sold in urban areas, is 20/4 per cwt. when sold in lots of 1 cwt. or over and 2/8 per stone when sold in lots of less than 1 cwt. unless the flour is produced under permit of the Minister in our own mills. The flour that is now being sold is not produced in our own mills and is not, therefore, produced under permit of the Minister. The Minister for Agriculture admitted to-day that that flour was on sale at 7/- per stone. Therefore, the Minister for Agriculture and the Government generally are taking part in an illegal method of making profit. Now, neither the Minister for Industry and Commerce nor the Minister for Agriculture denied that allegation when Deputy Lemass made it here to-day. So far as I can examine existing legislation, that is a self-evident fact.

The Minister, in opening, said that 200 proposals for new industries were under investigation by the Industrial Development Authority and, of these, something over 60 had started production. Amongst eight or nine counties in which new industries have started, he instanced Cork County. So far as Cork City is concerned, I cannot remember any new industry starting there in the last two and a half years. So far as the county is concerned, I can remember only one industry having started in recent times; that industry is capable of employing only a handful of men. I think the number is something like five or six men altogether. If that is the type of industrial expansion in which the Minister takes pride, I think he would be well advised to think more seriously about real industrial expansion. It is true that many factories are being built around Dublin at the present time. Many of those were started before the present Minister came into office. I would suggest that many of these factories should not be allowed to start in Dublin at all. If it is profitable for the promoters of these industries to commence production in Ireland, then they should be made produce in those areas in which the Government considers production desirable.

Mr. McAuliffe

Deputy Briscoe would not agree with you on that.

Mr. Lynch

As representing a Dublin constituency, I am sure he would not, but I take it the Deputy who has spoken now would agree with me. The Minister's predecessor and the Minister have both given the excuse that, when an industry is about to start, they can only make suggestions to the promoters of that industry as to where the site of their factory should be; if the promoters insist on starting in Dublin, in the interests of the general economy, the Government gives way. I think that, in the interests of the general economy, any expansion of Dublin should be strenuously resisted. Dublin has become such a colossus it tends to submerge the entire State. I would suggest that in future new industries should only be promoted where the Government wants them. If the promoters are not prepared to agree to that, then the industry should not be permitted to start at all. New industries should be sited in areas that are under-industrialised, and the Government should take compulsory powers to insist on that being done. Desirable as may be the present expansion of industry around Dublin, the expansion of Dublin itself is much less desirable. That expansion is making our whole economy a lop-sided one. Practically one-fifth of the entire population is concentrated in and around Dublin.

The chassis factory has been referred to in relation to a heavy engineering industry. Possibly that industry is an exception to the rule, but the heavy engineering industry will never see the light of day so far as the present Government is concerned. It has been said that such an industry could not start unless it was allied to a going concern. If that industry were started it would, in my opinion, be merely the forerunner of many minor industries of a similar nature. Reference has been made to the number of cars run in the country at the present time. Only last year either the Minister for Local Government or the Minister for Industry and Commerce made an Order authorising the issue of new index letters for the registration of cars in the Dublin area. Last February 12 months the index letters "ZJ" came into being. Each series of index letters carries with it facilities for the registration of 10,000 cars. It is, therefore, an incontrovertible fact that between February of last year and May of this year almost 10,000 cars have been registered in the metropolitan area. I think Cork County is the next highest in relation to the number of cars indexed. There approximately 3,500 cars have been registered in the last 12 months. In practically every case the cars are imported cars. The farthest we can go here is to assemble cars. Surely there must be an opening for a heavy steel industry here in face of that situation. Surely there is a sufficiently big market to justify our building our own cars from the ground up in so far as that can be achieved.

The Minister estimated the income from the tourist industry in 1949 at £28,000,000. In the Estimates one sees a sum of £45,000 devoted to the tourist development board. I think that must be one of the soundest investments the Government has, since it represents a very big return for a very trifling sum. When Deputy Lemass earlier to-day broached the subject of tourism and the extension of tourist facilities he was met with a barrage of sneers and gibes from the Government benches. He referred to the acquisition of hotels by the tourist board as a practical step in the development of our tourist trade.

When the Minister was introducing his Estimate he mentioned, with reference to cement, that the Government had approved of a plan for the expenditure of £1,900,000 on the extension of the two cement factories in Limerick and Drogheda. I was keenly disappointed to hear that as soon as these extensions will have been carried out it will mean an increase in employment of only 180 persons. Surely, if an expenditure of almost £2,000,000— apart, of course, from the question of the production of cement—will result in the employment of only 180 persons, something more can be devoted to the development of the tourist industry which employs thousands of persons and brings to the country a net profit of £28,000,000 a year — which is more than any single industry, no matter how big, is doing at present. Apart from that, the Minister estimates the dollar-earning capacity of the tourist industry at 12,000,000 dollars out of a total income from all other sources of 30,000,000 dollars. Surely the activities of the tourist board merit a much greater investment by the Government than a mere £45,000, on these figures? Our hotels, while improving considerably over the past five or six years, are still inadequate to meet the growing tourist trade, particularly in the summer time. In areas such as Glengarriff, the hotel accommodation is entirely inadequate. The previous Government made some attempt—a costly attempt, I will admit—to meet that inadequacy. Surely, if an expenditure of £2,000,000, which will result in the employment of only an extra 180 persons, is justified, some expenditure is justified for the provision of proper hotel facilities, especially when we bear in mind that the hotel industry will employ far more people and will be far more beneficial to the economy of the country than the £2,000,000 that is to be devoted to the extension of our two cement factories.

I come now to the subject of air services which are relevant on this Estimate. Last year, at a conference of the International Air Line Pilots' Association, the Minister for Industry and Commerce said:—

"Successive Irish Governments have neglected no opportunity of ensuring that any natural advantages possessed by this country should be developed as fully as possible in order that Ireland might make its contribution to the development of international civil aviation."

That statement, in view of the actions of the Government a year or 15 months previously, was most extraordinary. I ask the Minister to name one single instance of any action by this Government which tended to develop the air services of this country. On the contrary, their whole attitude was rather to depress any expansion. It is true that they have been sending their representatives abroad to international air conferences and that they have maintained the transport and marine section of the Department of Industry and Commerce, but, without doubt, the attitude of the present Government in respect of improving the air services of this country is passive and possibly negative.

The reason why I broached the subject of air services was to introduce the question of the provision of a recognised airfield in Cork. I am sure that the Minister and almost every Deputy in the House has received, within the past few days, a circular from the Cork Airways Company setting out the decision as regards the application of that company for recognition and establishment of an aerodrome in Cork. At present, the only airfield in Cork is situated about four or five miles on the Kinsale road side of the city at a place called Farmers' Cross. During the debate on the Air Navigation and Transport Bill some of the Cork Deputies raised the question of the establishment of a proper airport at this particular venue. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce replied that the Government were precluded from carrying out any extension or development of an airport in Cork— (1) by reason of the lack of meteorological findings; (2) by reason of the existence of an air agreement between this country and Great Britain which dates back, I think, as far as 1946; and (3) by reason of the fact that Aer Lingus is itself opposed to the establishment of an air service from Cork. The first objection has been met fairly adequately by the proposed establishment of a meteorological station at, I think, Roche's Point. It is said that the estimated cost of that station is something like £3,000. Apart altogether from the findings of the experts in that station, I suggest that Farmers' Cross has been found to be a completely suitable place in which to land and take off planes. Since it was opened as an airfield something over 150 planes carrying passengers have arrived and departed from it. The existence of an international agreement which precludes air services run by Aer Lingus from Cork is, I think, very little excuse indeed. When international agreements become outdated, surely there is provision for their amendment. If every agreement that has been made even by this country with countries abroad were to last for all time, industrial, economic and other development would be at a standstill. We all learned in our school days of the British attitude towards military treaties. Thomas Davis referred to one as a treaty which was broken ere the ink with which it was signed was dry. I am not advocating a disregard for international treaties but I feel that if this Government were serious in respect of the development of air services—as the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in his statement which I have quoted has suggested—that agreement could be revised with a view to its amendment to suit what I would describe as a most desirable and essential service. At the present time the Americans are seeking to have whatever agreement binds them to land their aircraft at Shannon Airport, when they are overflying this country, amended. The Minister is to be commended on the way he is resisting that demand. The concentration of all the air services, and the landing of American planes in Dublin, would be another retrograde step so far as decentralisation in this country is concerned.

The Minister for Defence, who is sitting opposite now, knows that Cork City is as important to the south as Dublin City is to the whole country. Cork City serves a huge hinterland in Munster—as far as Limerick in the west and as far as Waterford in the east. It would serve that area more particularly in the case of air services if we had a proper airport in Cork. I think I mentioned the other day that something approaching 400,000 people were resident in Cork City and County, almost as many as are resident in the Dublin Metropolitan area. From the numerical point of view alone, I suggest that to ignore Cork as an airport is completely unjustified.

The second point is that Cork is an industrial centre, possibly only second to Dublin. From that point of view, too, one has to bear in mind the time that would be saved to business men if Cork were permitted to have a recognised aerodrome. I think if we had one it would be a great incentive to further industrial expansion in the South.

Fianna Fáil provided £12,000,000 for them.

Mr. Davin

If the Deputy is speaking after me, he can, if he wishes, contradict what I am now saying. I am speaking from my knowledge and experience of the manner in which the activities of this Government have been operated to the advantage and not to the disadvantage of my constituents. I do not object to fair or reasonable criticism by Deputy Lemass or any other leading member of the Fianna Fáil Party. If they will criticise the Government for its failure, alleged or real, to put into effect in two and a half years the ten-point programme which the Government announced to the people when they were elected then we will know where we are.

Deputy Lemass talked about the increase in the cost of essential commodities. He rather inferred that the increase in the cost of boots and shoes was directly due to devaluation. I understand that a considerable portion of Irish leather is used by the boot-and shoe-manufacturing concerns in this country. If that is so, how can the increase in prices, if there has been an increase, be attributed to devaluation? Perhaps, Deputy McGrath will oblige by giving us his version of that matter.

I deny also that the serious increase in the price of clothing can be attributed to devaluation; it is due to other causes. I may not be well informed on these things, but I am informed that the price of the raw material which has to be imported by our woollen and worsted manufacturers is due to the competition between Russia and other countries behind the Iron Curtain and Italy and other continental countries in the world's wool markets and has very little bearing, if it has any, upon devaluation.

I know that some boot-manufacturing concerns in this country—I sent three circulars to the Minister's Department a long time ago to prove this— immediately after devaluation advised their retail customers in this city and other cities and towns throughout the country that they proposed to increase the price of boots and shoes by 20 per cent. Indeed, one firm had the audacity to say that they were going to put this increase into operation from the 18th September last year just after devaluation had been announced. These boot-manufacturing concerns, when they made this announcement and also announced their refusal to complete contracts already entered into, knew perfectly well that they had a considerable quantity of raw material on their premises at the time which had been bought at pre-devaluation prices. I should like to hear from the Minister what action was taken by him to prevent these concerns from inflicting this increased price under false pretences upon the wholesalers and, consequently, on the people who were obliged to buy boots and shoes in the retail shops. As I say, I reported these cases at the time.

I am satisfied that there is a considerable amount of profiteering going on in certain commodities. Deputy Lemass and other Deputies referred to the high cost of building houses. I raised the question of what I regarded as the excessive prices at which building contractors had their tenders accepted by local authorities in my constituency. I cannot understand how it is possible for a competent building contractor to build first-class houses in the town of Tullamore at £1,042, houses which are let at 11/6 per week, while in the town of Edenderry in my constituency, where the same rates of wages are paid to building workers, skilled and unskilled, the price is as high as £1,610. The result of that is that one set of tenants in an urbanised area are paying a rent of 11/6 for houses which are as good as those in Edenderry for which the rent is 18/2.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would that not be a matter for the Local Government Estimate?

Mr. Davin

I have some grounds for making the allegation that the builders' providers are playing a very important part in the cost of building in this city and throughout the country. Is it a fact that a small builder's provider, a hardware merchant, in a town or village in my constituency will not be allowed, under the present organisational scheme controlled by the big building contractors and the big builders' providers — they are all in the same clique—to import building materials required in the locality without their going through one, two or three gentlemen in Dublin who get 25 per cent. for "ticking off" an invoice? If the builders' providers are going to get away with 25 per cent. for that kind of service to the community, is it any wonder that we have these high building costs or that the building costs cannot be brought down?

I invited the prices section of the Department of Industry and Commerce some time ago to make some investigation into this matter if they are anxious, as I am sure the Minister is anxious, to bring down building costs to a reasonable figure, to cut down the high subsidies which are being given, but not for the purpose, as they were originally intended, of keeping rents at a reasonable level. These building subsidies from the Transition Development Fund and the housing grants are going to increase builders' providers' and building contractors' profits and not to keep rents down to a reasonable level.

I wonder does the Minister or his advisers ever examine the balance sheets of some of these firms. If the Minister's advisers are going deeply into this matter for the purpose of helping to bring down building costs so far as they affect the poorer section of the community, the people who are looking for houses at reasonable rents because they cannot afford to pay anything unreasonable out of their low wages, have they found any firm in the City of Dublin, as I have, which has given bonus shares to its lucky shareholders during the last two years at the rate of one share for every share held? Is not that another glaring way of hiding profits? Is there any machinery at the disposal of any Government Department which will prevent builders' providers or any kind of manufacturing concerns from hiding their profits in that way?

I was handed a copy of a balance sheet of a clothing manufacturing concern not very long ago which I can produce if required — every Deputy is handed this kind of document to help him to discharge his duties to the community through this House as opportunity arises; this is a public document and should be in the Minister's Department — which showed that they paid 12½ per cent. to the ordinary shareholders and, without apology, put another 12½ per cent. into the reserve fund. If that is allowed to go on they will be able to give another bonus share for every one held by their shareholders at the end of another period.

That is the way in which profits are being hidden. This kind of profiteering is going on in a legalised way at the expense of the poorer section of the community. Nobody knows that better than Deputy Lemass after his 16 years' experience in office. Is Deputy Lemass or anybody on the benches opposite prepared to say in this House even now, if they did not take effective steps to deal with that situation during the 16 years they were in office, that they will back the present Minister in dealing with that situation if he is prepared to do it? How can you keep down the cost of living when that kind of thing is going on? There are very few sections of wage-earners in this country that got bonuses at the end of the year in the same way as the lucky shareholders of certain concerns in this country.

What did the Minister or his predecessor do to deal with the profiteering going on in the flour-milling industry? Is it not a fact that the Minister, shortly after coming into office, set up a commission, which I believe was called the Lavery Commission, with drastic powers, if I am not wrongly informed, to inquire into the whole of the flour-milling industry and the profits that were being made at the expense of the community by the few people who own and control that industry? I can remember a time when the Minister sat in the same group with some of those now sitting here supporting him. I remember sitting in that group in this House and on public platforms throughout the country when we advocated the policy of national control of the flour-milling industry. There are very few lucky enough to be able to make the millions being made out of that industry at the expense of every citizen during the past 30 years. Some of the people associated with that industry put their shares on the market and got a good rake-off a few years ago.

Deputy Hickey stated here the profits made by that selected few during the past few years. What are Deputy Lemass and the Opposition prepared to do about it? Why did they not deal with it during their 16 years of office, especially when they had the audacity to claim they were a workers' Government? If these problems are to be settled, we must not make Party capital out of them. They must be taken out of the atmosphere of Party politics and they will be settled very effectively and very quickly if Deputies on all sides seek a solution in the interests of the community as a whole, and incidentally in the interests of their own supporters.

In his opening statement, the Minister briefly referred to certain harbour improvements. I could go into this matter in detail from intimate knowledge and personal experience, but do not wish to do so now. If the Minister thought fit — and I am sure he was quite right — to propose spending a large sum on the improvement of Cobh and Cork harbours, he should do something for Dún Laoghaire harbour, which is styled "The Gateway to Ireland", and make it a little more presentable to the tourists coming in there. It is not necessary for me to tell the Minister about it. If he has not the files in his own Department, he will find a big file in the Board of Works, perhaps a bit rusty as it is there since 1938 or 1939, with detailed proposals for the improvement of Dún Laoghaire harbour, the railway station and the railway line bringing tourists from Dún Laoghaire into the City of Dublin. It is an important part of the Government's job to provide all possible facilities for the increasing number of tourists and I am sure the Minister, like his predecessor, is anxious to do all he can in that respect.

While on the question of harbours, I would like briefly to draw the Minister's attention to the dispute or difference of opinion for some time past between the harbour pilots of Drogheda and the Drogheda Harbour Board, in regard to the failure of that board — it is the only one in the country which has failed to carry out its duty — to administer the Pilotage Act of 1913. I will be pardoned for saying that I could talk about this at considerable length, as I happen to be an honorary vice-president—Deputy Alderman Byrne on my left is honorary president —of a small body, the Irish Pilots' Association, which is small because the number of pilots is limited. This association is entitled to representation on every harbour board, under a section of the 1913 Pilotage Act, but because of the pigheadedness of the Drogheda Harbour Board chairman and those silently supporting him, these pilots have been deprived of their legal right. I would like the Minister and his advisers to call for the file dealing with that dispute, which is going on for a long period, and bring it to a conclusion in as short a time as possible. I would like to see the dispute settled, as it has been settled in the case of every other harbour, between the pilots' organisation, who have legal rights, and the members of the board concerned. This is the only board where you cannot get commonsense to prevail. It is a trivial matter, but one which should be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, in the interests of those who use the port, in the interests of the safety of the port and of the pilots giving their services to this harbour board.

In the concluding portion of his speech, the Minister announced the personnel of the new Board of Córas Iompair Éireann. Deputies on all sides who know the past history of the individual will say that the Government is very lucky to get such an able man as chairman. From my limited knowledge of the railway men, I can say that this appointment is a very popular one. I am sure he can be relied upon to give fair play in the discharge of his very difficult duties.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Do not forget that Fianna Fáil were looking for them.

Mr. McGrath

If there is a family of any size, the increases in bus fares would amount to £1 a week.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

What did your Party do as regards fares?

Mr. McGrath

I am talking now of the people who promised a decrease in the cost of living. One of the Parties in the Coalition Government promised to cut the cost of living by 30 per cent. The Government Parties broke their promises.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I would not like to think what Fianna Fáil would have done.

I am merely pointing out the statement made by Deputy Davin, who is as elusive as could be. It means that in future they can say anything they like outside, can make any wild statement they wish, and do not need to stand up to it in the House after.

I should like to hear something about the Industrial Development Authority. It is about time that we heard something from them. Economic conditions are good and we have peace in the country. There are a number of areas in my constituency with a big labour content in which the Industrial Development Authority would be well-advised to establish factories and I hope that areas which I have referred to here from time to time in which there are a large number of unemployed, such as Swords, will be considered. There are a few factories in Balbriggan, factories which were derelict prior to Fianna Fáil coming into office. The same might be said of several other factories in County Dublin. During our period of office, between reconditioned and new factories, over 60 factories were set going, although that period could not be regarded as a normal period.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

That was when the Deputy was active as a Fine Gael election agent.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I promise Deputy O'Higgins that I will buy him a toy so that he can amuse himself while I am speaking in future. I want to know when this Industrial Development Authority will carry out the promises they are making and will see to it that factories are put up in areas where there is the greatest labour content. There is an area bordering my constituency in which the establishment of a factory was looked forward to with pleasurable anticipation, and, in this connection again, I refer to the short and narrow view taken by this Government. They would much prefer to buy something which the foreigner produces than something produced here. I speak of the factory which was about to be established at Inchicore and which has now been abandoned. It is painful even to refer to it here. These people who claimed to be the archangels of the workers and who wanted to make this country a self-sufficient nation and to keep our workers at home preferred to scrap this industry on the advice of somebody who came over here.

I wonder will the inter-Party Government ever learn anything? Are we always to have the same old policy, the policy which believes that what the other man manufactures in England is better than what we can manufacture here? Are we gradually getting back to the time prior to 1932 when factories were lying idle and producing only cobwebs? A potential industry like the manufacture of commercial cars was worth a trial, but it has gone now. Some future Government will have the ugly job of cleaning up this mess, and, if we are to carry on on this basis, our workers will have to make for the emigrant ship and the Emigration Commission will never report. I am delighted to see that some of the good work done by the previous Minister in relation to the power-house at Port Laoighise is now coming to fruition.

Mr. Davin

Where is it?

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am referring to the power-house there which is burning thousands of tons of turf.

Mr. Davin

You have the wrong town.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Portarlington — I thank the Deputy for his correction. While speaking of turf, I want to pay a compliment to the Bord na Móna engineers who did a great job of work, as I know from a visit I paid to some of these bogs two years ago. Of course, it was easy for them in one way, because they knew that they had at their backs a Government that would support them in anything they did for the good of the people. I am not now speaking of the inter-Party Government, which decided to scrap the project, and, a year after, decided that the development of that bog might be worth while, although they had abused turf and argued that coal was so much better. Everything of a national nature that Fianna Fáil did they abused viciously. They thought they could get on without any scheme we had in hands for the benefit of the country from an industrial point of view and they wanted to scrap such schemes. Now after 12 months the inter-Party Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce are again going back. I do not see why a good deal more could not have been done. They hated Fianna Fáil a good deal and it took them 12 months to change their mind and see that the work we were doing was really good work. It is very strange to see that they are going back on a number of our schemes now. Turf development was pretty well dealt with by previous speakers.

I wish to complain of the cost of electricity to consumers and the delay in carrying out rural electrification throughout the country and also of the method of connecting up houses in certain areas. When the board decides on an area for rural electrification sometimes certain houses are left out. In my capacity as Deputy I often have to make representations and they say that it would cost too much to bring electric light to this or that house now but that they would consider it in a future scheme. Then they leave the area without bringing electric light to these houses because they are a few yards outside the limit of so many miles, perches or yards. I would like the Minister to look into this because it is causing a good deal of trouble and expense to people who are anxious to get electric light. The cost of electricity in rural areas is very high.

Although the State by an Act passed by the Fianna Fáil Government agreed to subsidise rural electrification by 50 per cent. it is a very heavy burden and a factor which should be considered if the Government wants to reduce the cost of living. The initial cost of installing it in a farmhouse or worker's house is very high. In County Dublin at the moment in council cottages valued at £10 a year the initial cost is £1 2s. 6d. although they may use no electricity at all.

They are not indeed and would not be allowed to buy it out. I will give the Minister particulars. This is a matter of national importance. Only two weeks ago I had a deputation from men who went into houses of this kind and they pointed out how the cost of living had gone up for them as a result. I know that all those families after a few years will be up to their necks in debt.

Mr. Briscoe

Except that the price is not economic.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

He said that was adding to the increased cost of living. Is there going to be any decency or honesty at all about the particular line of attack which the Deputies opposite will make? Deputy Lemass says "no".

Deputy P.J. Burke spoke about emigration and the emigrant ship. I wonder that the words "emigrant ship" did not bring some blushes even to Deputy Burke's cheeks. At any rate, I am not going back to the days when Fianna Fáil were promising to send out ships to bring the workers home, but I do want to make this claim on behalf of the present Government: the policy of the present Government, and this was discussed at some length during the Budget debate, is to invest money in capital development at home and I make the claim that if £10,000,000, £12,000,000 or £20,000,000 is to be invested in capital development at home that must result in increased employment and, ultimately, in slowing down and eventually stopping emigration. I believe that that must be apparent to every Deputy on the opposite benches; I believe it is very fully apparent to Deputy Lemass who had 16 years of ministerial experience. They know as well as Deputies sitting on these benches that, if money is going to be spent at home instead of being invested in British securities, it is going to create employment; it is going to keep the people who formerly went abroad to seek work in England here at home and put them at work.

Despite that, every one of us knows the Fianna Fáil attitude on this question, as exemplified by the scandalous poster they have been putting up on the hoardings in the City of Dublin. That is their attitude to capital development; that is their attitude to a worth-while effort on the part of this Government to stop emigration and to end unemployment. They know that these objectives might well be achieved by the policy of this Government in the lifetime of this Dáil and they greet it by a scandalous type of propaganda as manifested by the scurrilous poster they have placed on the hoardings in this city. Sooner or later, some of the more responsible and more honest Deputies on the opposite benches are going to become disgusted with that type of propaganda and that type of indecent assault on the work-which this country is doing.

Deputy Burke also complained that the sale of the tourist hotels amounted to sabotaging the tourist industry. Apart from the amount of money which was being wasted by the last Government on these hotels, I think that the very existence of a number of the tourist hotels constituted a gross insult to the capacity of the ordinary Irish hotelier to carry on and operate his own business. I am glad that in that direction, at any rate, the Government have decided that State interference had gone far enough and that the ordinary Irish hotelier, who was willing to keep his hotel there, to do the best he could, with the encouragement of the Government, to cater for visitors from abroad, should be given his chance and not be put out of business by luxury hotels for which he himself was paying in taxation. That was a most unfair state of affairs to have allowed to exist, even if we were, as I say, to leave entirely out of account the amount of money which was being lost and which was being wasted on these projects. I do not believe that the selling of these hotels in any way even impeded the drive to attract tourists to this country. If anything, I think that drive has received an impetus by the fact that the tourists are going to be catered for with traditional Irish hospitality and not by State-run and State-regimented hotels.

I could not quite follow Deputy Burke's rhetorical ventures when he spoke of a policy of "no change" of a statement policy, and a ship at anchor—a ship at anchor going backwards, I think, was the illustration he gave. The whole trend of the Fianna Fáil attack up to this had been that this Government were doing all sorts of things, that you would never recognise the country when they were finished with it, that Deputy de Valera, senior, was right when he said that the country was doomed if it kept him out of office. Then Deputy Burke got somehow or other tied up and told us that there was no change at all, that it was a stalemate policy, that we were going ahead with the Fianna Fáil projects and so on. I do not pay a whole lot of attention to the Deputy.

However, the Deputy did say one thing with which I agree to a certain extent. I do not know whether the Minister could do anything about it. I asked him a parliamentary question about it some time ago and I understand that he has no function in relation to this part of the work of the Electricity Supply Board. I should like, however, to draw his attention to this particular problem again in the hope that he may make some representations to the board and that his representations may carry some weight. I refer to the new corporation housing scheme at Ballyfermot. Most Deputies will be aware that a particular problem has been created there by the fact that portion of the scheme lies outside the Dublin City area and portion of it inside that area. The position is that the scheme in its entirely is a Dublin Corporation one, that all the tenants occupying houses there, whether in the portion of the scheme lying outside or inside the city boundary, come from the Dublin City area.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am afraid I ruled Deputy Briscoe out on that. After these few sentences, the Deputy ought to be content.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I will finish by saying that if the Minister could make representations in the matter the people of that area would be particularly grateful to him. I think the statement made by the Minister on Thursday last shows a progress and a degree of prosperity in the country which has to a great extent been achieved by the work of the Minister himself. If Deputy Burke had bothered to read that statement, even if he did not bother to listen to it, he would have found out the work which the Industrial Development Authority is doing. He would have learned of the new factories and industrial products which went into production during the past year in several different counties. I believe the Minister has done really good work in his Department on behalf of our people. He has endeavoured— and to a great extent has succeeded— in balancing the scales between producer and consumer. He has a particularly difficult task, as in the post he occupies he must have regard not only to the advantage of the industrial producer but also to the advantage of the ordinary consumer or purchaser.

I think the Minister has kept the Department on an even keel and that both industrialists and consumers will feel that the report he presented here on Thursday last, covering the last 12 months of his particular stewardship, was a very satisfactory one and one of which he and his Government are entitled to be proud. I would like personally to congratulate the Minister on the work he has done over the last 12 months. If the work of the next 12 months is as satisfactory, even some of the Deputies opposite may stop grumbling.

Mr. Colley

Deputy Davin this evening proved that his adherence to the inter-Party Government has not improved his outlook. At a time when labour has given notice that, due to the increase in the cost of living it is about to cancel its agreement and apply for increased wages, he told us that the increased wages already given more than counterbalance the increase in the cost of living. He also told us that no one on the Government Benches has any responsibility for the promises made before the election. I wonder how the workers will look at those two points from a Labour Deputy. If they are not to believe anything that one tells them before an election, if it does not matter, and if that is to become the fashion in this country, where, as a democracy, are we going? It is one of the saddest things that has happened that such should be the case and that that case should be made from the Government Benches. That seems to be becoming the policy of the Labour Party, as Deputy Hickey interjected some few weeks ago something to the same effect—"What do they matter now?" I hope the Labour supporters will note these two points as enunciated by Deputy Davin this evening.

He told us also that Fianna Fáil did nothing to control the prices of essential commodities—although it was Fianna Fáil that instituted the present system, which the present Government, as far as I know, has not altered in one iota, in spite of all we heard before the election about its ineffectiveness. No important alterations have been made that even purport to improve the system that existed at the change over in 1948, yet Deputy Davin, a supporter of the present Government, tells us that Fianna Fáil did nothing to control prices. What does he say about the Government he is supporting? In spite of all they said they could do to improve the system vastly, they have not altered it in the slightest.

He also referred to the increase in social services, but he forgot to tell us that they were financed by taxing the workers in increased contributions and by withdrawing the allowances made to those people through the local councils. He forgot to tell us that. I hope he will tell his supporters those things when he meets them again and that he will repeat some of the statements he made here this evening.

Deputy M.J. O'Higgins, who has just spoken, seems to think that he has a monopoly of decency in this House, or at least that there is nobody on this side entitled to be called decent. I have never listened to him here yet without hearing him use some such phrase. As I said to him before, it is time that that should cease, as two can play at any of those games and I do not think it would improve the dignity of this House if we developed on that line. I will say no more about it, but I hope it will be drawn to his attention and that he will be more careful about what he says in the future.

Again, we have the "sabotage." Every time a proposal is put up from this side or a criticism made, it is "sabotage." There seems to be a very limited vocabulary on the other side of the House, as we had that word from the Deputy again this evening. I could develop on that point also, but I do not think it is wise to do so. I hope it also will be drawn to his attention.

The Deputy said that the poor people were entitled to have their ration retained. Of course they are—and our point is that they are entitled to more than their ration, that they are entitled to as much as anybody else in the country. It was to ensure that such poor people would have their ration in the time of scarcity that the rationing system was introduced. That reason does not exist to-day. Apparently, we are to be the last country in Europe to continue rationing. Every other country, even those that went through the war, or most of them, seem to have been able to get rid of rationing. We still continue it and apparently we cannot find a way out. With the position as it stands now, there should be some way out and the poor people should be entitled to get what they need in these foodstuffs, without having to pay additional prices over and above what they have to pay for the ration.

Deputy O'Higgins also told us that the funds realised from the Emergency Budget of 1947 were used to buy Constellations. He has shown that he is a Deputy who regularly consults the records of this House, who reads and studies them. Therefore, he must know that at the same time as those taxes were imposed the price of rationed foodstuffs was reduced and the funds received from those taxes were used for that purpose. Why he should go out of his way completely to misrepresent that situation passes my comprehension. He also tried to tell us that there was sufficient of those foods in the country at the time of the Budget, but when questioned he slipped back to the date of the change of Government, which was six months later.

He referred to a poster that is appearing at the moment about capital development, and again he misrepresented this Party. We have always favoured proper capital development. We have shown that in our record during the 16 years that we hear so much about from the other side. What we object to is the £12,000,000 of the £31,000,000 that is supposed to be for capital expenditure. That £12,000,000 should be found by taxation. That is all we objected to. Of course, Deputy O'Higgins pretended that we objected to all capital expenditure and always did. We know that the real reason why the Party opposite has departed from all financial relief this year is because they could not find the necessary money without taxing beer, spirits, tobacco and so forth.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Put another sixpence on income-tax.

Mr. Colley

The Minister seemed to be well pleased with himself as regards the cost of living—at least, what he did say on it left that impression with me. We know that the official figure of the cost of living which has just been brought out shows no change with the figure in 1947. But I do not think that you will get the ordinary person, in Dublin at any rate, the ordinary housewife, to agree with that. A statement was quoted here this evening by Deputy Lemass, a statement made by Deputy Larkin when he was speaking to his union last week. We had also a statement from the president of the distributive workers at a conference some months ago, and we had several other references to the increase in the cost of living.

The other evening I endeavoured at home to find out how the ordinary articles in everyday use in a house fare from the point of view of the cost of living. I found that footwear and repairs of footwear have gone up; transport has gone up; rents have gone up—rents in the newly built houses and under the new system are going up to a very considerable degree for some people, but rents even for the ordinary people have increased. In the case of a person who is trying to buy a house on a loan it will mean a very heavy thing with the increased cost. Sausages and puddings have gone up, and even the controlled price has been increased. Potatoes have reached the highest level ever in Dublin within the last few weeks. Eggs were 7/- a dozen last winter, the highest ever. Canned fish has gone up and unrationed tea went up by 6d. a lb. recently.

The Minister for Agriculture issued an order about the use of white flour and that increased the price of a number of articles, notably confectionery. Mutton, bacon and pork have gone up; tyres have gone up, both motor and bicycle tyres; petrol has gone up and cement has gone up-Back rashers are now 3/9 per lb. Knitting wool has gone from 10d. to 1/2 an ounce and blankets have gone up by nearly 50 per cent, from 6/6 to 10/- per lb. I believe that wool generally has gone up consideraby.

I started by saying that I thought the Minister seemed rather pleased or complacent in his statement last Thursday on the whole cost-of-living position. I do not think that there is any reason for us to imagine that the cost of living is not spiralling again. That might seem rather extraordinary to some people having regard to all the promises that were made to reduce the cost of living, but I am not a bit surprised. I do not altogether blame the Minister. It was most unfair to him, even though he did not know at that time that he would be Minister, that certain of the people behind him should have committed themselves so strongly to a reduction in the cost of living, in the circumstances that existed at the time of the election.

I would like to know from the Minister if the Industrial Development Authority has really succeeded in doing any work that will bring about an increase in employment and a stoppage of emigration. The Minister gave a list of various things in which they have been engaged but I cannot see any visible evidence of their work around Dublin. I hope that it will do good work. I have never regarded it favourably, and I expressed that view on the Bill about it, but I do hope I will be proved wrong in that regard and that it will do good work in the development of industry.

There is one matter that could engage its attention, that is, as to whether the chassis factory in Inchicore should not be set up at once, if not under Córas Iompair Éireann by some private company. The machinery is here and it is a shame that it should be up for auction and should be lying there ready for export. It is a shame that that should be the position in regard to equipment like that that could not be obtained at the moment, in view of all the trouble that was experienced in getting it. When one considers what the establishment of that machinery shop would mean in general for industry and particularly heavy industry, one must say that it is high time that the Minister reconsidered his decision in regard to that matter, just as other things have been considered. To my mind at any rate, the proposal to establish a chass is factory was one of the most important ventures in our history. It was the beginning of one of the biggest developments in industry. I suggest to the Minister that he should reconsider that matter, particularly while the machinery is here.

I do not know whether the Turf Board is proceeding under the Minister's authority with the work that is envisaged in the Bill on the Order Paper. I hope they are not being held up by lack of legal authority. When I visited the bog last year I was tremendously impressed with the work that is being done there and as to the amount of employment that could be provided by proper development of the bogs. I would like to see steps being taken to make people turf conscious. I know that experience during the emergency, particularly in Dublin, would not help to make people believe in turf as a fuel. I have continued to use turf and the turf that I have got for the last few years is better value that coal. The Minister should start a campaign to try to make people realise that that is the case. From the national point of view, and in view of the serious position in the world, it is necessary to make our people turf conscious and to do everything possible to have fireplaces installed, particularly in new houses, that are suitable for turf and that will burn turf economically.

If I read the figures in the Book of Estimates correctly, there is a net reduction of £13,000 in the Vote for Mineral Development. The amount that was earmarked at any time for mineral development was not very big and would not influence the Budget. Mineral development and exploration are things on which we should be prepared to spend a reasonable amount of money annually. It might happen that every penny of that would be lost but I think that the information which would be secured would be well worth it. That £1,000 might make all the difference in the world for this country. I put it to the Minister that if this £13,000 reduction means that there is going to be less work done in that respect, he should reconsider his decision in the matter.

Mr. Desmond

There are just a few points to which I should like to refer on this Estimate. The first point, at any rate, is much more important than some of the matters that have so far been discussed—that is the possibility of the decentralisation of industry. The approach of Deputies from country areas, at any rate, to this question, must be based on the fact that we know that Dublin at the present time is overpopulated and that practically every industry that is started is located in Dublin. Members of the Opposition, who have spoken so far, have mentioned the evils of emigration, and in that connection it is a sad fact that in many towns in the Twenty-Six Countties there is no sign of an industry of any description. It is quite clear that, not alone within recent years but for the past 20 years, there has been extensive emigration from these areas. It is a sad reflection that is one town in the constituency of South Cork, which I, with a number of other Deputies, have the honour to represent, where we had craftsmen in shipbuilding perhaps superior to those to be found in any other part of the country, at the present time and for many years past, there is no hope of employment for them in their native place. I refer to the town of Passage West. We have other areas in West Cork such as the Bandon area where flax is grown on an extensive scale. Quite recently, in conjunction with Deputy Lehane, I tabled a question here dealing with the possibilities of starting industries in these areas. There is also the possibility, if there was some hope of decentralisation, of starting a canning industry in connection with the sea fisheries in another townland.

We hear a lot about the prosperity of Dublin, but it should be remembered that actually that prosperity has been brought about at the expense of the rest of the country. There is a temptation sometimes in discussing this Estimate just to play Party politics. It would be quite a simple matter for me to stand up here to answer points made by members of the Opposition and perhaps they believe it would be just as simple for them to answer points made from this side of the House, but I suggest it would be much more helpful that, if criticism has to be made, it should be of a constructive nature. There is little use in finding fault with the attitude of the opposing side unless we ourselves have some useful suggestions to put forward. The common effort should be concentrated on keeping workers in the country, on raising their standard of living and providing them with a decent wage which will enable them to bear the increased cost of living. Many workers, we know, find it difficult to eke out a livelihood even if they are employed, owing to the present high prices. Nevertheless, if we can, first of all, concentrate on getting work for such workers in areas which have been for years back neglected, I believe we can, after that, deal with questions such as the cost of living. There is no use in talking about the cost of living where we have not even attempted to put workers in a position to buy the necessaries of life. The Industrial Development Authority is, I believe— and I give the Minister credit for it— exploring the possibility of establishing industries in various parts of the country. I sincerely hope that in their deliberations they will realise the necessity of decentralising industry, of going outside Dublin and of doing much more for the country as a whole than has been done in the past.

One point touched upon by Deputy Lemass, with which I must say I agree heartily, was the position of our shipping. Some of us years ago emphasised the vital necessity of having a mercantile marine in this country. That was prior to the war but at that time we were scoffed at. Some people were inclined to complain of the cost of the boats and of the high charges for freight, but I believe that if we are to face the future successfully, we must realise the wonderful work carried out by the men employed on our ships during the war period. We must realise the great value of having that small mercantile marine during the war years. From the experience gained during that time, we should face the future determined to see that never again will this country be handicapped as it was prior to the establishment of our mercantile marine, limited and all in scope as it was. Another point to be considered is the fact that in many areas around the coast of this country there are young men willing and anxious to avail of any work such as can be provided for them on Irish ships.

It was a sad thought that young men living around the south coast who were desirous of adopting the seafaring career in the past had no hope of entering on such a career unless they were lucky enough to get a job on an English or some other foreign vessel. Sometimes they even joined Greek ships. That was the only hope they had of earning a livelihood in the career which they wished to adopt. We should realise now that if we have sufficient determination to build up our own mercantile marine, we have available men who are every bit as competent as any you could get in any country in the world to work for us. By concentrating our efforts on building up an adequate mercantile marine, we are securing advantages for the nation as a whole and at the same time we are also providing extra employment for our people.

Another matter mentioned by Deputy Lemass, and to a lesser degree by Deputy Colley, was the turf industry. Deputy Lemass deplored the fact that the turf industry was not carried on on such a large scale at present. While I would like to see the hand-won turf schemes operated more fully than at present, we cannot forget the fact that the famous circular sent out in 1947, before the advent of the present Government, spelt the doom of hand-won turf in this country. I refer to the circular sent out to every county council telling them that they would have to provide their own finances from that time onwards. That was the start of any noticeable failure where the hand-won turf schemes are concerned. Nevertheless, I believe that the Minister should consider the possibility of hand-won turf being made more use of in the country areas, in areas down south where they may not have the advantage of machine-won turf, because, as well as creating more employment, hand-won turf of good quality is well worth using and we can save money by using it. Deputy Lemass said that speeches are no substitute for action. Without wishing to be sarcastic, may I say that slack coal in the Park is no substitute for good coal? If we are sincere and genuine, we must realise that it is no use for us to be looking for each other's faults. We must make a determined effort to see that the mistakes of the past will be a guide for us in the future, that these mistakes will be avoided and that we will carry on on a better basis.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The Minister, in his statement introducing this Estimate, said, with reference to the figures he gave the House concerning progress in industrial development in the past year:—

"They tell a story of steady progress and, I suggest, clearly reflect the confidence of the public in the Government's industrial policy."

I should like to say a few words with regard to that aspect of the Minister's statement, because, after over two years of the inter-Party Government, we can afford to look back on those two years to take stock, to a certain extent, remembering the condition of affairs over the past two years and at the time of the change of Government. If we do that, we will recognise that, when the Government came into office on 18th February, 1948, there was a feeling in this country, a feeling which was encouraged by the Opposition, that the Government in some way aimed at stifling industrial progress and would interfere with the industrial drive and with the position of industrialists and workers. That feeling was there and it was spread time and time again by speech after speech made by——

Mr. Derrig

The Tánaiste.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

—— Deputy Lemass, the deputy Leader of the Opposition. I do not know whether Deputy Derrig spoke on the same lines.

Mr. Derrig

The Tánaiste was the chief speaker.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

If he did, I doubt if people would follow the line he preached. That was the propaganda and the suggestion, and the effort undoubtedly was made to undermine the confidence of the people in the new Government which had assumed office. It was part of the general aim at that time to try to justify, in one way or another, the former Taoiseach's prophecy of doom and disaster, if there was a change of Government. The Minister, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, was the butt of much of that propaganda. It was directed against him and his Department, and the effort undoubtedly was made to suggest that he, as Minister, could not provide the proper industrial impetus which this country needed. I think it must have been a proud moment for the Minister when he was able to say, as he said, that the official figures he gave the House and the country "told a story of steady progress and clearly reflected the confidence of the public in the Government's industrial policy."

The Minister had good and sound reasons for making that statement. He was referring to figures of industrial employment over the past 12 months and new industrial enterprises commenced over that period and he told us that, since this Estimate was last discussed, the number of industrial workers employed had risen from 184,000 to 206,000. These figures show that the trend of an increase in industrial employment has been maintained to a very satisfactory degree during the past 12 months. In addition, the Minister has been able to show that, during the 12 months we are discussing, at least 60 new industrial enterprises went into operation. That again is no mean achievement. At least 60 new lines of production have commenced work in this part of Ireland, providing employment, producing goods and distributing money, under a Government which has the entire confidence of the people.

More important still, these 60 new industrial enterprises have not been, as they might well have been, concentrated in any one part of the country. I was interested to note that these industrial projects have gone into production in counties Carlow, Cavan, Cork, Dublin, Galway, Kildare, Laoighis, Leitrim, Longford, Louth, Meath, Offaly, Tipperary, Waterford, Westmeath, Wexford and Wicklow. I only wish that we had our outstanding Six Counties with us in the face of that achievement. That shows that steady progress is being made towards achieving the aim of this Government, not merely to maintain but to step up industrial production and to ensure that such industry shall be decentralised throughout the country.

I think all Parties and Deputies supporting this Government recognise that the great evil of emigration, apart from any historical background it may have, has its source in the fact that, in many parts of this country, there is not and has not been for a number of years, any constant source of employment to attract people and to ensure them a decent means of livelihood. Seasonal employment has been provided in different parts of the country under different schemes but there never has been a real effort to provide constant employment as a result of some nationwide drive or programme. While we can appreciate the reasons for emigration there is no one on those benches who can be complacent about that problem as long as it remains unsolved. While we are only discussing a short period and special phase of this problem, we can nevertheless see in the affairs of the Department we are discussing a part of the drive that is being made to provide that constant employment, not merely in the cities, but throughout the length and breadth of this country. I would like to congratulate the Minister on the story which the figures he has given tell the House and the country.

Might I also say that it must be a source of some gratification to the Minister to be able to tell the House that the Industrial Development Authority which was so viciously attacked by Deputy Seán Lemass, which was so maligned by every member of his Party, not so very long ago in this House has even in the short space of time of its existence given complete and absolute evidence of its work, merit and real value to the country.

I note that the Minister was able to say that apart altogether from the industrial enterprises and projects that have been put into operation members of that authority have visited over 60 factories in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as in different parts of this country and outside it. They visited those factories not merely for the purpose of comparing modes of production but also for the purpose of encouraging those interested to produce here at home some of the things which are being produced in England. I am glad that the Minister can state that the efforts of that authority established in the teeth of the Fianna Fáil Party's opposition has ensured in less that 12 months the production here of many lines of commodities never before manufactured in Ireland. I think that that progress, that achievement, in less than 12 months, constitutes the complete answer to the vicious propaganda that tried to spread a feeling of panic regarding the industrial policy of this Government. Everybody, be he employer or worker, is now assured that under this Government no effort will be spared to ensure that industrial production here will have the goodwill and benevolence of the Government and that the Irish producer producing a decent article and providing decently for his workers may operate here under safe and proper conditions.

While that phase of the activities of the Minister's Department has been a welcome one, I think there are certain matters regarding our industrial life in the last 12 months that should be mentioned in this House. I, for one, observed with a certain dismay the development here in the last 12 months of the unofficial strike. That is an unwelcome development and one which may cause considerable danger to the country. I am sure that the Minister is alive to that problem and I welcome the Tánaiste's recent speech about the same problem. It would indeed be a very serious thing for our industrial drive and for the country itself if the workers engaged in industry ceased to be organised with regard to pay and conditions, but I only hope that that development will not recur and I trust it is a problem which the Minister will keep before his mind. As other Deputies have pointed out, we have had the usual double dealing from the Opposition; we have had the usual effort to play two or three tunes on the same screechy pipe. Reference has been made to Deputy McGrath's condemnation of the increase in bus fares although that increase has been clamoured for by his Deputy Leader in this House for a considerable time.

A considerable amount of space has been given by the Opposition to the question of the price of rationed and unrationed goods. The usual plea has been made that the Government, by providing an off-the-ration price for tea, sugar, butter or any other commodity is, in effect, being unfair to the poorer man, the poorer section of the community, in favour of the richer man and the richer section of the community. That is the type of argument that can easily be made and that might possibly go down well with people listening to it until they examined it and recollected the type of policy operated by the Opposition when they were in power. It is not three years since the Fianna Fáil Government, for the purpose—as they claim now—of providing a subsidy for rationed tea, sugar, butter, etc., introduced and passed through the House the Supplementary Budget imposing the taxation which has already been referred to on beer, tobacco, cigarettes and cinema seats. They claimed that that was fair government, wise government, in the interests of all sections of the community; but let us examine what that meant even assuming that the money to be collected from the taxes on beer, tobacco and the other articles was to subsidise tea, sugar and butter.

Even assuming that was the case, it meant that in order to subsidise the rationed commodity for rich and poor alike, the Fianna Fáil Government taxed the poor because the tax on beer, tobacco and other rationed commodities was a tax which fell largely on the poorer sections of the community. In order to provide the rationed lb. of tea for the rich at the subsidised prices, the Fianna Fáil Government imposed a burden of taxation upon the poor. This Government has wiped out these emergency taxes and has provided in assistance to subsidy for the rationed supplies of tea, sugar, butter and flour a method of double pricing. If the machinery motivating the policy of this Government is examined, it will be found that those who can afford to pay an economic price for tea, sugar, butter and flour—that is, the richer sections of the community—now assist and help in subsidising the ration for all. Because of the policy of this Government, therefore, it is the richer sections of the community who are now helping to maintain the subsidy and not, as under the Fianna Fáil Government, the poorer sections. I will be prepared at any time to accept the judgment and decision of any fair-minded section of our people as to which is the better Government and which acts in the interests of the greater number. I think the sanity of the Government's policy in that direction can be clearly recognised and is appreciated by the people in general.

In addition to Fianna Fáil opposition, we have had criticism of certain aspects of the Minister's policy. We have had a plea, certainly from Deputy Colley, amongst others, that we on these benches should not be too hard on them. When they make speeches suggesting that the nation is not creditworthy and that the people have no confidence in the industrial policy of this Government, we are told we should not accuse them of sabotage. I could not follow Deputy Colley's complaint in that direction, but he did complain. I hope that Deputy Colley will appreciate that, if the Opposition are really sincerely concerned with the interests of the country and not merely with their own political fortunes, Deputy Colley and the other members of his Party might well go out to-night and tear down the poster up in Donnybrook, and on other Allen boards throughout the city, suggesting that this Government's policy is putting our country and our future into pawn. That poster, with its pawnbroker's sign in gilt, is obviously intended to be seen by those who have money to invest. It could only affect those who have money to invest: "Do not invest your money in Ireland; do not give your money to an Irish Government; invest it in England, or send it abroad."

Mr. Davin

Until Fianna Fáil comes back.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

That is precisely the policy and the message behind that poster. It is one of the most scandalous pieces of political propaganda and sabotage ever tried here. The purpose of that poster is to undermine the capital projects of this Government, to prevent this Government solving the problem of unemployment, to which reference has been made, and to prevent this Government giving to our workers constant employment at home under decent conditions. Realising that that is the purpose of that poster and appreciating to the full the speeches made here this evening by Deputy Lemass and other members of the Opposition, it is very difficult for us to be patient with poor Deputy Colley when he pleads: "No matter what we say, do not call us saboteurs." I am quite certain that, whatever money paid for those posters, there is many a Fianna Fáil subscriber who will never pay another penny towards that Party's funds so long as these posters remain.

Reference was made to the turf industry. I, too, would stress the importance of that industry here. I am very glad to note that in my constituency, as well as in other parts of the country, the turf production drive under Bord na Móna is going on at a greater rate now than was ever contemplated. I hope the Fianna Fáil Deputies appreciate that because the present drive is being carried along lines never contemplated by the Fianna Fáil Government. In these bogs constant employment will be provided for many years to come. It is not possible at present to foresee any limit to the supplies of turf available. That is a very welcome feature and one that has been properly commented upon during the debate.

Having been a bit hard on Deputy Colley, might I now congratulate him on what he said concerning turf itself? Deputy Colley has stressed that the turf which he himself uses is a better article than coal. Many people who have had experience with regard to machine-won turf—and I know that it is also true of good grade hand-won turf—will confirm what the Deputy has said with regard to that matter. Having just made that reference to our turf industry I should like to lodge one small protest against the criticism which has been made from time to time of coal. We must not forget that we have that mineral in this country—to a small degree, it is true, but nevertheless we have it. We have a coal industry which, in my view— there is coal, also, in my constituency— does not get the attention it should get from the Minister and the Department. More could be done to encourage those few people who have gone into the business of mining and selling coal by helping them to obtain capital machinery and equipment of that kind and also by providing assistance for them in certain exigencies in the home market. I hope that the question of developing and protecting our own coal industry here at home will receive the attention of the Minister.

Having mentioned these matters I should like to conclude as I commenced my speech by congratulating the Minister not merely on the progress which he has made but on being in a position to be able to state publicly in this Dáil —with the figures to support his word —that progress and great progress has been made in the last 12 months with regard to the industry and commerce of this country.

I made no reference to the Minister for Education. I was referring to the Minister for Agriculture when he was a member of the Fine Gael Party.

Mr. Morrissey

Would the Deputy now make a reference to the Estimate?

Major de Valera

With all respect to the Minister, that is what I propose to do. My remarks purely followed on the provocative approach by Deputy O'Higgins. If he will insist on taking the line he took to-night he will have to take the truth. Deputy O'Higgins was simply trying to make the occasion of this Estimate to indulge in that type of political propaganda and innuendo which really has no place in relation to it. If he asked for it, he got it.

However, let me come back to the particular details of this Estimate. It is apparent, looking at the figures which the Minister has adduced, that in the sphere of industry a relatively favourable situation has existed since the termination of the war. In some regards the trends have not been as favourable as they have been in this regard. The favourable trend in respect of industry and commerce largely follows from the fortunate position in which this country was placed. Again, I am tempted to follow Deputy O'Higgins because our complaint in regard to these trends, as we made it on a previous occasion, was that during the two years of the history of this Government as a whole there was in its first year a very considerable adverse dip and reversal of favourable trends. I am glad to say that in certain regards in respect of this Minister's Department that dip is not as noticeable as it is in others. It is a good thing and I am very glad to see it and to admit it, to see that the upward trend in employment, so far as industrial employment is concerned, can be maintained. However, it is a pity that the corresponding trend in regard to rural employment is such as largely to offset the value of the favourable trend here.

It is a pity also that both our agricultural opportunities and our industrial opportunities cannot conspire to check the emigration trend—an emigration trend that was checked at the end of the year previous to the Minister's taking office; a trend which was then checked but which has now gone from bad to worse in the past two years. That, I am afraid, largely counterbalances, taking a broad view, the favourable information and the favourable picture in certain regards which I am glad this Minister was able to show us. So, too, in regard to the cost of living. The cost of living has risen.

One of the perturbing things about this is that we have had heretofore certain opportunities for development and expansion here but that, owing to the Government's failure to implement their promises in regard to the cost of living, we may be threatened with a situation in regard to wages and prices which may prevent us taking further advantage of the undoubtedly favourable trend which has been here since the end of the war. It is a calamity that this Government will have great difficulty in making people understand the true facts in regard to the cost of living and the factors which control it, largely because of the dishonest propaganda—perhaps I should say irresponsible propaganda—carried out in regard to that particular feature before they assumed office. It is one of the things which, I fear, will cause trouble and, as I say, prevent us taking advantage of the favourable trend which is undoubtedly there, a favourable trend which we should be able to exploit with the maximum advantage to ourselves.

The question of the cost of living is not a simple one. We have undoubtedly upper trends in regard to food and agricultural produce. that was a factor in the past; it is a factor at the moment, one which is largely outside the specific control of the present Minister, but nevertheless, it vitally affects the general index for which this Minister, to a large extent, answers on occasions such as this. Now, in regard to imported foodstuffs, the Minister has a particular responsibility in regard to such commodities as tea and sugar, and in regard to these this Government has adopted a particular device. Deputy O'Higgins argued that there are two ways of dealing with this, and that the method adopted by the present Government is preferable to the method of direct subsidy and the raising of money by taxation. The method which the Minister has adopted is open to dispute. As I understand it, the unrationed commodities are, for example, largely used in restaurants and eating houses in Dublin, and by allowing them to find the natural price level, so to speak, money is found for the purpose of providing the subsidy for the rationed commodities. The Minister has explained that he must keep rationing there to enable the dual system to operate. The trouble about that is this—I mentioned it here on previous occasions— that there are many people working in this city who have to take a midday meal in a restaurant as part of their ordinary routine, the cost of which is part of their cost of living.

I do not know how far this applies generally, but I know that in one particular restaurant—I can give the Minister particulars if he desires them —after this arrangement was entered into and the price of unrationed commodities went up, there was a corresponding increase in the scheduled charges. The net effect of that was, in the case of people taking that midday meal, such as clerks, typists and I should imagine a large number of civil servants, to increase their charges and so contribute to an increase in their living costs. Students would be another group that would be affected in that way. I have frequently mentioned this in the past for this reason, that those in that stratum of society—we might refer to them as the so-called white collar workers—are probably feeling the pinch at the moment of economic change more than many other groups in the community. Therefore, if a particular device adopted by a Government should tend to increase the costs on people in these groups and should tend to increase their difficulties, it seems to me that this is an undesirable way of doing it because, in the long run, what it amounts to is that these people are being taxed in order that other people with comparable standards of living will benefit. The people in the comparable groups are getting the benefit without a tax upon them, which, in effect, the people of whom I have spoken bear. It is, therefore, legitimate to say that such a device can operate, to a certain extent, as a discriminating tax on that particular group.

It is a tax on essentials such as tea, sugar and butter. Butter, I think, does not come under this particular Minister. We on this side feel in principle that if you have to raise money by taxation, direct or indirect, it is preferable to tax the non-essentials, that it is preferable to tax the commodities that will not hit a particular group. Whatever else can be said about it, this point is clear, that this device comes to the rescue of the Government and that it is one which enables this Minister to save a considerable sum on subsidies. It is a device which enables him to say with truth: "I am spending very much less under the food subsidy head than my predecessors did", but the Government as a whole cannot say that they are spending very much less than their predecessors did.

If the Minister and the Government were able to say that, there would be much to justify him and his Party in their previous attitude; but the trouble about the whole situation is that the savings in this regard on the Estimate and of the Government in other ways are open to dispute because notwithstading all that, the cost of Government, the cost of administration, the expense of running the country and the demands which the Government must make on the people are higher than they ever were before. The comment that I would like to make is simply that they have been able to make certain specific savings of a disputable character, and, notwithstanding that, have been wholly unable to control the over-all expenditure of the State as was promised, and that we are drifting into debt as a nation and a State, while at the same time we are losing the benefits of what might be legitimate opportunities for recoupment or retrenchment. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 31st May, 1950.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 30 May 1950

Committee on Finance. - Vote 50—Industry and Commerce (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 May 1950