Last night I was dealing with the position as regards milk. I am glad that my colleagues, Deputy Hickey and Deputy McGrath, are here, seeing that they were very insistent that the retailers in Cork City would have to give a twice a day delivery.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 50—Industry and Commerce (Resumed).
We had this three times last night from the Deputy.
Seeing that this will apparently go down in history as the most generous gesture that was ever made by a Minister—one-sixth of 1d. per gallon——
If the Deputy debated that last night, he should not repeat it now.
He dealt with it very fully.
Can I deal with the price of milk as fixed by the Minister under this Vote?
Where?
Did the Minister not fix the price of milk to the consumer?
No, not in Cork.
You would escape anything. There are a few matters in connection with the sugar industry that I forgot to mention last night and, looking over my notes, I decided that I would like to deal with them. I can assure the Minister that he will find nobody in this House or outside of it more anxious to help in every way possible than I am. I think I also gave him that offer some months ago at Question Time, when we were dealing with the importation of sugar. He will find nobody more anxious than I to see a full production of sugar to meet our requirements. I give him that definite assurance as one who practises what he preaches. Despite the Minister's gibe on milk last night, I can assure him that I have increased my acreage of beet this year, when I saw it going down this year and last year, by three times. I can give definite evidence of good faith in that respect.
I will refer now to the actual situation in connection with sugar. There is a joint responsibility as between the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is forced to provide the sugar, to see that the sugar is there, and the Minister for Agriculture. If our full requirements of sugar were produced here the total cost would be £4,062,500. If that were to be imported from Cuba or elsewhere, it would cost £7,200,000.
I heard that last night from the Deputy—about the £7,000,000 worth from Cuba and Formosa. We do not want to hear it again.
Very well. I want to point out the effect the advice of the Minister's colleague would have if that industry were abandoned here. I am sorry that Deputy Coburn is not here when I say that the first effect it would have would be on Córas Iompair Éireann. The total freightage carried by Córas Iompair Éireann last year was 2,404,000 tons. The beet industry accounted for 1,300,000 tons of that. If the beet industry were out of it that would leave only 1,104,000 tons of goods carried by Córas Iompair Éireann. In addition to that—this is a matter that should interest Deputy O'Higgins, who last night advocated the increased use of Irish coal—the Irish coal mines would lose a market for 100,000 tons. There would also be a loss of £300,000 in factory wages and salaries. I am dealing now merely with the factory end of the matter but I might also mention that over £300,000 was paid by the sugar company in taxation last year. Those are factors that any Deputy, who feels he has any responsibility as regards the future of affairs in this country, must definitely take into consideration. I think it is criminal to have a situation in this country where you pay less for an essential commodity to your own people than you pay to the partly coloured gentlemen in Cuba or Formosa.
The next matter with which I should like to deal is the position of Rushbrooke dockyard. We have had various complaints and excuses given here in regard to employment in the dockyard. I have no intention of going into these matters here. I think it is a matter that can be ironed out between the parties concerned, but I would make a present of another suggestion to the Minister in this connection in addition to that which I gave him last night in connection with Haulbowline. My suggestion is that if a slipway were erected, the men who are temporarily disemployed at Rushbrooke could be employed in their off time in the building of small ships. It would be a very easy matter to put a small ship on the keel there and provide employment for these workers during their off period.
I would suggest that the Minister should get the members of the Industrial Development Authority, when they visit the area, to go into that matter and to see how far my suggestion is practicable and could relieve unemployment there. At present we have the position that if a man gets a month's work in the dockyard he has to remain for five weeks or six weeks afterwards idle, waiting for another job, and the tendency for him is to leave the district altogether. We cannot afford the loss of skilled workers in this industry. I, therefore, make an appeal to the Minister to examine the suggestion I have made.
The next matter with which I wish to deal is the question of tourists and passengers coming into Cobh. That matter was dealt with by my colleague, Deputy McGrath, a few days ago. It is of major importance to the principal town in my constituency that this matter should be dealt with speedily. I have witnessed the conditions there practically every week, and I would urge on the Minister that every effort should be made to have the present undesirable conditions remedied immediately. I may tell the Minister that there was a feeling of heartbreak in Cobh when those who were carrying out the borings there were shifted up to Cork. There is a guarantee that they will be shifted down again, but I do not think they have yet arrived. This is an urgent job, but I do not think the Minister quite realises its urgency. The Minister need not think that I wish to deprive him of any political capital which can be made out of it. I give the Minister all the kudos that is his due for what he is doing. I make no bones about that. The point is that the thing is being done and that some move is being made in regard to it. I do not wish to delay the House further. I am glad that the 10.30 rule operated last night to give me an opportunity to deal with a couple of these matters which I had forgotten.
I notice that Deputy Corry referred particularly to sugar production. He knows very well that were it not for the fact that our people are consuming more sugar than ever before, it might not be necessary for us to import so much sugar as we are importing at the present time. The Government recognises that if the people require sugar the least we might do is to try and provide it for them. There are four sugar beet factories in operation in this country at the present time. We have observed that in the last few years Tuam factory is not producing anything like the same relative quantity of sugar as the other three factories.
There seems to be an inclination on the part of growers in the Tuam area to go out of beet production. Every effort should be made to encourage the production of beet in that area, in order to bring the factory into full production again. I believe that we have not sufficient sugar factories in Ireland and that we want one located if possible in North Leinster. The other factories are located in the West and South, but North Leinster appears to have been forgotten so far as the establishment of sugar factories is concerned. Apparently the difficulty, so far as the area that normally supplied Tuam factory is concerned, is that the labour required for the growing of beet is not forthcoming. There is an inclination on the part of those who were formerly engaged in that very laborious work to take up some other work. I think it desirable that some better mechanised methods should be introduced in the production of beet for sugar manufacture. I believe that the introduction of such machinery would have the effect of increasing the amount of beet available, and consequently the amount of sugar produced from these factories.
Deputy Lemass tried to convince the House that there was a certain degree of confusion in existence so far as the industrial policy of this Government is concerned. The Industrial Development Authority was established for the purpose of approaching industrial problems with a proper degree of organisation, and Deputy Lemass surely would not suggest that it was established for the purpose of causing confusion and chaos in industry. Its fundamental aim is to approach the problem of industrialisation in a constructive way. Since over 200 new factories have been opened in the past two years, it cannot be said that there is any decline so far as the establishment and encouragement of industry is concerned, apart from the fact that there are over 10,000 more people now engaged in industry than there were in February, 1948. It cannot be contended, therefore, by Deputy Lemass, the former Minister for Industry and Commerce, that this Government is not actively implementing an industrial programme and extending industrialisation as far as possible in order to meet the needs of our people with home-manufactured goods rather than imported goods.
A large range of commodities which are not manufactured here have to be imported. Some commodities have to be imported because we are not yet in a position to manufacture a sufficient quantity of them for ourselves. But this is a comparatively young country so far as legislating for ourselves is concerned. A policy of self-sufficiency cannot be put into effect overnight. We have been trying to establish a policy of self-sufficiency for the past 30 years. We shall continue to do so. We are now actually in a position to export surplus goods manufactured here in open competition with other industrial countries. Britain is perhaps our largest market at the moment, but we are also exporting our own manufactured goods to Sweden, France and some other European countries. That development of our external trade is a very welcome one.
In his general outline on industry, Deputy Lemass suggested that this Government had created a greater measure of prosperity in the rural areas than it had in our cities and towns. There is a good deal to be said for the creation of wealth and prosperity in rural Ireland. The people from the rural areas come into the cities and towns for normal trading and in that way the wealth created in the country flows into the cities and towns. It must be admitted by the Opposition that there are now better wage levels than there were at the change of the Government. If wage levels are higher now it must be contended that a certain measure of prosperity has been created. Many years ago a former Minister for Finance boasted that he had transferred a balance of wealth to the extent of 30 per cent. in favour of the rural areas. I think a certain return of that measure of wealth was due to the rural areas. The fact that there has been an increase in agricultural prosperity, resulting in prosperity in the towns and villages, is a very welcome development.
Deputy Lemass once again followed his Leader when he stated that plans were in existence for the establishment of certain industries before they left office. I shall not dispute the fact that there were plans. Every Government plans. The Cumann na nGaedheal Government planned and its plans were eventually implemented by the Fianna Fáil Government. It is the normal function of any Government to plan for future development. The claim that plans were in existence does not mean that the industries to which they related were an accomplished fact. The plans were merely under consideration, and if they have been put into effect by this Government, this Government is entitled to claim a large measure of credit for having put them into effect.
Let us consider now the position of the cement industry, for instance, as we found it in 1948 and as it is at the present time. There was always a substantial demand for cement. I believe that sufficient was not done by the previous Government prior to the war to ensure that this country could provide its full requirements of cement. Notwithstanding the fact that the production of cement has trebled during the past two years, it is still necessary for us to import a certain quantity in order to meet the demand for housing and other construction works. I think that industry was overlooked prior to 1939. It could have been developed to a much greater extent. Now the country is faced, as it was at that time, with an increasing need for more houses and our activities are curtailed to a certain extent because of the shortage of cement.
Deputy Corry criticised the importation of sugar. He said we should grow sufficient beet here to fill our requirements. I regret he did not put forward some constructive suggestions, as a result of his intimate practical knowledge of beet growing, which might be helpful to the Minister in solving the problem of producing sufficient beet to ensure an adequate supply of sugar. I agree that the country should be capable of growing sufficient beet to fill our requirements. That position has not yet been reached. I know that the Fianna Fáil Government had to resort in the past to the importation of sugar in order to bridge the gap.
Deputy Lemass referred to the White Paper on turf. I remember that White Paper in 1946. It appeared to be a colossal programme of development. It appeared to be a plucky attempt to solve our fuel problem. In 1946 hand-won turf was at its highest level. It is not quite clear from the White Paper whether it was intended to develop turf on a hand-won basis or on the basis of mechanisation. If it was intended that turf should be produced on a hand-won basis, entailing a heavy expenditure thereon, it would have been nonsensical. I think that explains the reason why Deputy Lemass, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, brought in 500,000 tons of American and South African coal the following year. Naturally enough, the people who had been using wet turf for years availed of this coal very readily. If Deputy Lemass were sincere in the White Paper he issued in 1946 I do not think he would have brought in that coal in such a large quantity over such a short period. I think the truck drivers were making anything between £10 and £15 a day drawing this coal into the Park. Unfortunately, a large quantity of that coal is there still. I refer, of course, to the African coal. It is a remarkable fact that this coal that was imported from Africa was produced from a mine from which coal was never exported before—and they had to find the Irish to buy that coal and bring it in here. There is still a large quantity of it available for anybody who will purchase and use it.
That brings me to a question which I should like to put to the Minister, namely, that in order to reduce the loss which the taxpayers have suffered and will suffer further from the wastage arising from the importation of the African coal, is there anything he can do to get some kind of cash or good money for this African coal which is there in the Park and which, apparently, there is not a great inclination on the part of the general public to use? Could he mix it, perhaps, 10 per cent. with what is regarded as better coal? Would he be able to mix the African coal with the better coal so that he might get rid of it and be able to save a certain amount of taxation which was necessary to purchase that coal in the first instance? So much for the 1946 White Paper regarding turf production which was produced by the Fianna Fáil Government, and Deputy Lemass particularly. If he was sincere in his determination to put forward a programme of the nature indicated in that paper I think that he would not have imported 500,000 tons of coal from America and Africa at a time when there were probably well over 1,000,000 tons of hand-won turf in the Park which would last over a number of years.
I am very much in favour, if possible, of the development of the production of machine-won turf. I feel that if it can be adapted for domestic use in this country, apart from industrial purposes, no effort should be spared to get suitable machinery and to adopt suitable methods which will ensure that the turf will be available at a price within the reach of consumers and at a price which will compare favourably with coal, having regard to the calorific values of both. The establishment of further factories since the change of Government has definitely contributed to the prosperity of the country. It cannot be contended by Deputy Lemass that there has been any backward step. In fact, if anything, there has been a very rapid advance and there has been a very determined approach by the Minister to the problem of establishing industries in this country. In the course of his speech he referred to the control of wages and prices in industry. He appeared to be disappointed that there was not a reduction in prices and at the same time a rigid control of wages. Those who are engaged in industry understand the position in relation to the cost of production on the one hand and in relation to labour costs on the other hand. Employers and employees and the unions representing the employees are reasonable people. They would be able to examine the figure for themselves in a calm way and they would be able to satisfy themselves as to whether an increase in wages or a control of wages in industry would be justified. The Wages (Standstill) Order which was made under Deputy Lemass's Government caused a good deal of contention, especially in industry. The control of prices and of profits was not so stringent although there was, I presume, about 150 Control of Prices Orders in operation at that time, but there was also the possibility of a grading system which was able to get over the difficulty regarding the control of prices. It was never easy to get over the Wages (Standstill) Order so far as the employees were concerned. Their pay had to be the same whether the workers liked it or not.
The cost of living figure is, I believe, at present 100—taking 1947 as a basis, in which year, also, it was 100. In the years 1948-9 there was a reduction of one point or even of two points—I think it was 98 in comparison with 100 in the year 1948. Therefore, in view of the fact that wages have been increased approximately on an average 30 per cent. since 1947——
Where?
——it is easy to see that the cost of living could have been reduced 30 per cent. if the wage levels were kept at the figure which existed in 1947. It was a matter of deciding whether it would be better to put into the pockets of the workers a greater amount of money which would enable them to spend more money, even if they did not get the same proportionate value for it and leave them with the choice of purchasing goods in their own way. Deputy Lemass, in the course of his speech, pleaded for peace in industry. I do not think it can be contended that there is strife in industry at present. I think there is a large measure of peace and progress in industry at present. Those engaged in it know that the welfare of the nation is at stake. So long as they appear to be met as far as possible by their employers, they will, in the ordinary way, be peaceful in industry. That brings me to the Trade Union Congress announcement of some days ago which was mentioned here. I feel the trade unions should play their part in dealing with unofficial strikes owing to the hardships that such strikes usually cause the community. An unofficial strike causes greater hardship amongst the people than an official one. It is an unhappy development since the end of the war that these unofficial strikes appear to present themselves here and there. I contend that no Christian civilised community should be held up to ransom by the threats or consequences of unofficial strikes or lightning strikes when there is machinery there which the unions can put into effect—they are men who have studied the position very carefully and on whom the employees can rely to do the right thing. Rather than have unofficial strikes, the employees should look to their unions for protection and not take the matter into their own hands, and come out in an organised way and describe the action as "unofficial strike" action. It is a tragedy that, after the unofficial strike has taken effect, the trade unions do not do their part by saying: "We cannot recognise this action" and, therefore, direct the employees to take certain action. Instead of that, there is an inclination on the part of employees to go out on strike unofficially and then to look for recognition from the trade unions. The trade unions should be slow to grant that recognition to them.
So they are.
It must be admitted that both employers and employees have a responsibility to the public. Since the unions represent the employees, I feel that they should face up to their responsibilities by controlling concerted unofficial strike action by their members. Naturally enough, these strikes cause hardship to the general public. This fact is more keenly recognised, probably, by the trade union officials than by the ordinary member of the union. He does not realise the great hardship which certain sections of the public must suffer as a result of such action.
I should also like to refer to disputes between unions. In the case of these disputes, I feel that the welfare of the community should be considered and that rather than have a general strike some kind of agreement should be reached. I do not think the public in general should be asked to stand by until these disputes are fixed up. We had an example of that some time ago. There was a dispute which affected the north-eastern portion of Dublin City. The owners of the Córas Iompair Éireann buses which were concerned in that dispute, who are really the taxpayers, had to tramp the streets to and from their work and for the purpose of doing their shopping. The buses, even though they are the taxpayers' property, were off the roads. I feel that where there may be dispute some effort should be made to ensure that the public would not be asked to do without something which is their own property—that is, transport in the City of Dublin. I feel, too, that some method should be devised to ensure that such a thing would not happen again. I think it was not anticipated at the outset that the public would have to tolerate such hardships for such a long period. I think that, in order to avoid such occurrences, proper machinery should be established so that when a dispute arises it can be settled without causing hardship or inconvenience to the public in general.
Deputy Lemass, in the course of his speech, quoted from a speech made by the Minister for External Affairs on the 6th September, 1947, in relation to a reduction in the cost of living. We must remember that, since 1947, the black markets have disappeared and that wages have been increased, and that, as regards a large variety of commodities, there has been a downward trend in prices. It may be contended that the downward trend has not been as much as might have been expected. I see that Deputy Hickey does not agree with me. If we say that wages have been increased by nearly 30 per cent., then the spending power of our people has been increased, and so, indirectly, the cost of living must be regarded as having been reduced. I believe that, but for the fact of devaluation, our cost-of-living figure, instead of being 98 in comparison with 100 in 1947, would be still lower this year. We were not responsible for devaluation, and we have to accept the position as we find it. There is no doubt either that there could be lower prices if the wage level of 1947 still existed. The cost of labour has a bearing on the costs of production and on the price of goods. It is reassuring to know that, notwithstanding the fact that wages have been increased, the general price level has not advanced to a very considerable extent.
There was some reference made to the price of wool. There appears to be a great world shortage of wool and cotton at the present time. I think that explains why the price of wool has increased to such an extent. In 1940, and in earlier years, the price of wool was not anything like what it is to-day. It has to be remembered too that, during the war years, our people suffered many hardships because of shortages of different kinds and of the then wage levels. Our resources in 1940 were at a very low level. It was only in that year that we started on the upward trend. I would say that the turning point came in 1938. We began then to have a greater measure of prosperity than we had in the previous seven or eight years. There can be no doubt that, if we had a greater measure of prosperity in 1938 than we had, if we had a larger livestock population and more prosperous farmers, we would have been in a better position to face the difficulties of the emergency period.
Another thing that demands a good deal of attention at the present time is rural electrification. We find that during the past 12 months 2,000 miles of wiring were provided in comparison with 400 miles in 1947. I know, of course, that there were shortages in 1947 as a result of the emergency, and hence we cannot put those figures side by side and make a comparison. It is disappointing that the Cumann na nGaedheal policy of rural electrification, to be found in the Shannon Electricity Act, was not put into effect before the war. It is regrettable that the progressive action of the Cumann na nGaedheal Minister for Industry and Commerce, so far as electrification is concerned, was not taken up actively by the Fianna Fáil Government during their period of office before the war. The value of electricity is now appreciated by the people and they are availing of the rural electrification scheme. I have no doubt that electricity could have been provided much more cheaply before the war. The charges for electricity in rural areas are pretty high in comparison with the urban areas. If such current were provided before the war, the difference would not be so great. In the urban areas the electricity was provided before the war, and that probably explains why there is such a great difference per unit now between the rural and urban areas.
I was glad to see a good report regarding air development and that the figures for our air programme during the past 12 months were satisfactory. We would not have had the same story if we still had the Constellation air force it was intended to use, but would be carrying a heavy loss instead.
As petrol rationing probably will be cancelled soon, I wonder if the Minister would try to purchase supplies of petrol in sterling areas as far as possible, rather than in the dollar areas. There is an inclination on the part of Great Britain now to avoid the purchase of petrol in the hard currency areas, owing to the effect of devaluation. I am sure the Minister could tell us the sources from which petrol is being obtained and can be obtained in the future.
I am in favour of protection for all industries, so long as they are able to give our people first-class goods at a reasonable price. There is a limit to the amount of protection that can be afforded. A certain amount is necessary when an industry is being established, but I feel the protection should not be afforded to such an extent that people are exploited by a level of prices far above that at which such goods could be obtained otherwise. The policy presently being pursued by the Minister in that direction is a very sound and steady one, taking into consideration all the time both the interests of the public in general and the interests of those engaged in the manufacture of the articles used in this country and the other articles being exported in competition. They appear to be first-class articles, capable of taking their place on the world market at a competitive price.
I am satisfied that industry is in capable hands at the present time. The progress of the past year and the year before that is a good indication of the manner in which the Minister is handling his Department and his capability in dealing with the many problems which arise. I regard it as a colossal Department. I feel it is really too big for one man or two men, and the fact that it is making such good progress is certainly a great credit to the Minister and his officials.
There is still good scope for development of industries. The Minister indicated that we spend £1,000,000 per week on imported goods which we could manufacture here if we could get, first of all, the time to establish the industries; secondly, the necessary people interested; and, thirdly, all the other necessities which go towards the establishment of an industry. I hope that, next year, the Minister will be able to come back and tell us that, having regard to the fact that we were importing £1,000,000 worth per week in 1950, he decided to establish certain industries, as a result of which we will be paying less for imported goods. I hope he will be able to tell us that at the end of this financial year.
The decisions taken by the Minister for Industry and Commerce affect very vitally the budget for the family. Though the housewife may read in the paper that the cost of living is stationary, if she goes into shops to do her weekly shopping and finds the prices have gone up, you would not blame her for thinking that, though the cost of living had officially remained stationary, the cost of housekeeping has definitely gone up.
In order not to delay the House, I will take two or three articles used in every household in rural Ireland. One of them is oatmeal. Oatmeal, to my mind, should be one of the cheap commodities, but recently it went up very much in price. If every child going to school in the winter and every man going to work could have a hot meal of porridge for his breakfast, it would stand him in good stead during the day, especially when you realise that many men depend on bread and tea only for their midday meal. Another thing that has gone up is sasages. The cost of bacon and meat is so high that the housewife has often to rely on sausages to fill the gap. Another item which has gone up is paraffin, which is used throughout rural Ireland, except where people are lucky enough to have rural electrification. Not only has it gone up in price but it is very inferior in quality and quite often has to be strained before it can be used properly. I hope the Minister will do his best to see that at least these three items are reduced in price as soon as possible, or at any rate not increased.
The tourist industry affects beneficially not only specific tourist resorts but also the farming community. The thousands of tourists who come to this country consume the produce produced by the farmer, such as butter, milk and vegetables, which have not got an export market. Therefore, I hope the Minister will do his best to expand the tourist industry and to study the likes and dislikes of the tourist. Every satisfied tourist is a potential ambassador for this country. He goes back to his own country and comes in contact with his friends; and if he has enjoyed himself here he will be able to influence those people for good and reach them in a way we would not be able to reach them by speeches or articles in papers. Because he has had pleasant associations with us, he will take an interest in the welfare of this country. Many international difficulties could be solved by closer contact between nations in this way.
Many Deputies have raised the question of providing industries in rural areas. That is very important. In my constituency there is a factory working in a small village and it is employing over 100 people. It is more than likely that those people would have had to emigrate if that factory had not been established. When people come to the Minister with ideas about starting factories in rural districts, if they say they cannot start in a particular area because there is no water supply or no electricity, I hope the Minister will do all he can to bring those facilities to that town or village, if that would mean that a factory would be established there.
Deputy Larkin.
I beg your pardon, Sir, I wish to voice a protest, that a certain suggestion has been made for my colleague, Deputy Larkin, to speak next.
I made no suggestion.
I am sorry. If it did not come from you it came from someone else.
Deputy Larkin.
I am accepting your word, Sir.
In dealing with this Estimate, it is very easy to try to cover too great a variety of subjects and in that way fail to place emphasis on the matters that really are important. I think, on the whole, looking back over the two years during which the present Minister has been responsible for this particular Department, that he is entitled to be congratulated on all the difficulties he has overcome and on the position with which he now provides us as a starting point from which to deal with and consider the future.
During the course of this debate we have as usual listened to a continuous string of admonitions and platitudes from the Fianna Fáil Benches regarding industrial development. We had Deputy Major Vivion de Valera seeking at great length to prove that immediately the present Minister took office we had an almost catastrophic increase in the figures for unemployment. It is as well that we should keep the record clean and straight. There was an increase in the figures for unemployment in 1948, but the reason for that increase was the clearing of the mess left by Fianna Fáil and it took the best part of two years to do that. Fianna Fáil Deputies who are interested in the development of Irish industry—and nobody questions their sincerity— should recognise that the first problem which faced the present Government was the situation in the boot and shoe trade and in the clothing and woollen trade, a situation so desperate that at one period the boot and shoe trade was working on an average of one third of full time. I am not suggesting for a moment that that situation arose because Deputy Lemass suddenly reversed his whole policy regarding the development of Irish industry, but a mistake was made and that mistake had to be corrected. The mistake was that this country in 1947 and into 1948 was completely swamped out with imports of British manufactured footwear to the extent that even yet some of those importations are lying on the shelves in the warehouses.
It is not fair or proper to take the line of saying that merely because there was a change of Government the whole policy of development on an industrial basis in this country automatically came to a stop and that no further progress can be made until those who were in office for 16 years are again given the reins of office. Fianna Fáil are not the sole custodians of the interests of Irish industrial and economic development and they are no more immune from making mistakes than anybody else.
While we have heard Deputy Lemass on a number of occasions indicate that his allowing quotas to be fixed for the import of large quantities of footwear in 1947 and 1948 was an attempt to break the retail prices of boots and shoes, nevertheless he must accept responsibility that, through some mistake either in the administration of his Department or in the formulation of the actual licences, a gate was opened wide, through which poured a quantity of shoes almost equal to a whole year's production of the Irish boot and shoe trade. We had the same development regarding the clothing trade.
Anybody who has been associated during the past two years with industrial activities is aware that, during the first few months of office of the present Government, the main preoccupation of the Minister's Department was to try to plug the holes which were left in that protective wall when Fianna Fáil went out of office. It is only now, after two years, that the damage has been repaired and that we are in a position to try to plan on the basis of the actual requirements of the country and of an understanding of what the future will give us.
Not only had we these tremendous difficulties regarding some of the most important industries in this country, but there was another factor of which Deputy Lemass particularly should be aware. During the emergency we had a complete relaxation of practically the whole of our tariff protective system for Irish industry. In other words, we were in a position where we required to obtain goods from any and every quarter for our people, and measures which were normally in force to protect our industries had to be withdrawn so that there would be as free and ample an importation as possible of any goods which were available. When the emergency ended, the whole protective barrier had to be re-erected, but re-erected in a situation which, in many ways, had drastically changed from 1939. While it might appear to be very easy to reimpose in 1947 or 1948 a tariff which had existed in 1939 on a particular line of imports, the application of that tariff, because of the change in economic conditions in the intervening years, presented tremendously grave problems, because if a tariff were automatically imposed which would mean securing the employment of one group of workers, in another part of our industrial economy another group of workers might be put out of employment. The problems, therefore, which had been dealt with by the Fianna Fáil Government and Deputy Lemass over a period of seven years had to be re-examined and restudied and solutions had to be found in a period compressed into 12 months. The fact that that has been done by the present Minister with very little dislocation of the activities of our industries or the displacement of any significant group of workers calls for a particular tribute to the Minister himself, to the officers of his Department and I think, particularly in the later stages, to the Industrial Development Authority, on whom a great deal of this work has been thrown.
If we, on all sides, are—as I think we are—genuinely concerned with the development of our Irish economy and of Irish industry, it is more important that we should realise what facilities are available to us and on what foundation we can build than to take the line that, because of the change of Government and the passage of two years, everything that had been done was wiped out and that the things which might have been possible for us can no longer be achieved.
Nobody differs with Deputy Major de Valera when he argues that we should pay attention to, and concentrate on, trying to develop some of the basic types of industries which are not only essential to a peace-time economy, but become vital in a period of war or emergency. My criticism of the present Minister is not that he has departed from the Fianna Fáil industrial policy, but that he has followed too closely a policy which was a hit-or-miss affair over the 16 years during which Fianna Fáil was in office. During that whole period no serious attempt was made to sit down and study our economy as a single unit and determine what exactly were our requirements if our people were to be afforded a rising standard in life; how we could relate the needs of our agriculture to the development of Irish industry and how, on the basis of these main pillars, we could provide within acceptable and reasonable limits for our own needs and at the same time make available in some way, within the limits of the present system—and those limits are very narrow—an expanding economy which could hold out better and improving prospects for our people as far as their standard of life was concerned.
Everybody is aware that during the period of office of Fianna Fáil we had a position in which, where industrial development was taking place and new units of industry or factories being established, they were not being established as part of an over-all plan properly considered and determined. In many cases, the determining factor was purely the number of votes that could be got by establishing a particular factory in a particular spot. The result was that, even in 1938, we had reached a position in relation to many of our industries in which the home market would not absorb any more of their products and we had the problem of having to find export markets for Irish-produced goods. Yet, at the same time, our own people were unable to buy sufficient of these goods being produced by these Irish factories. There is a definite relation—and it is something we have yet to study— between the possibilities of expansion of industry and the ability of the ordinary public to buy the products of industry. Until we find the solution, we will be faced continuously with recurring crises, so far as Irish industry is concerned.
It is not a problem peculiar to this country. One of the most powerful and wealthy countries in the world, the United States of America, has the same problem—on one side, sections of the American people with probably a lower standard of life than that of any other civilised country and, at the same time, pouring out of American industry, such a flood of goods that they have to find ways and means of disposing of them all over the world. The problem that exists in America exists here, and the solution has to be approached in the same way. I want to touch on that matter when I come, later, to deal with wages, which have already been referred to, but I urge the Minister to follow further the path on which he set his feet when he took the very wise and important decision of establishing a central authority to deal with industrial development, the Industrial Development Authority, to utilise that authority in an effort to get the type of economic and industrial survey that should have been made many years ago. I urge him, then, on the basis of that survey, to set out something in the nature, first, of a short-term and, secondly, a long-term plan for the industrial development of the country, having regard not merely to the need of the basic industries referred to, but to the possibility of providing for Irish industry and Irish economy that form of expansion which will make possible the safeguarding of its security on the basis of an ever-expanding ability to consume goods on the part of the Irish public.
So far as the Industrial Development Authority is concerned, I make only one other comment. When that authority was established, I think that all of us interested in the matter— even Fianna Fáil, although they talked so much against it at the time— believed that the most important responsibility being placed on that authority was the problem of industrial development, as such, and I think it is a mistake, and one which should be corrected, that there has been passed over to that authority a tremendous amount of the routine work of the Department. It is neither fair to the authority, nor will it be fair to the Minister because he is largely weakening and taking away the effectiveness of one of the most important instruments established in the country to date. In so far as the Industrial Development Authority will have power to consider and deal with questions relating to tariffs and protection for existing or new industries, that should largely be at top level, as dealing with main principles and dealing also with the possible effects and counter-effects of the application or removal of particular tariffs; but the ordinary routine work should be dealt with through some other form of machinery associated with the authority.
I believe that if we allow the present trend to continue, we will destroy the effectiveness of this body and defeat the very purpose for which the authority was established on the suggestion of the Minister. I believe that is so important that, even now, I would revert to the suggestion made here before the Industrial Development Authority was established, that we would be justified in having a special Minister whose responsibility would be that of economic and industrial development and that that in itself is a sufficiently big task to justify removing from that Minister all the routine work of an established Department. Many of us at times seem to think that a Minister in any Department consists of half a dozen people rolled into one, and, in relation to this Department, we expect more from the Minister, whether he be Deputy Morrissey, Deputy Lemass or any other member of the House, than is humanly possible and at the same time expect him to be able to produce the results required by the country from the Department as a whole.
The Department of Industry and Commerce is a most cumbersome, complicated and scattered Department, a Department which operates in a wide variety of spheres of government and administrative activity. It requires more than the full-time attention of the Minister and why we should expect any human being, with that tremendous burden of administrative routine work on his shoulders, to be able to remove himself from the ordinary daily worries and cares and examine long-term problems affecting the future of the country for probably the next two or three generations, I do not know. I believe that, whether it is this Government or a Fianna Fáil Government, if we are really sincere and anxious to see development of Irish industries taking place in a proper manner and at the greatest speed possible, we must decide that it does necessitate the appointment of a single Minister charged only with that responsibility and relieved of all other problems in connection with the ordinary routine work of the Department. Associated with the Minister, we would have the Industrial Development Authority which could be utilised as the machinery for the detailed examination and submission of projects to the Ministry and as the channel through which contact can be maintained with both employers and employees and with the special technical staff which, I hope, will be available to carry on its work. Until we think along these lines, there is going to be a certain hit or miss character in our development.
Everybody welcomes the statement of the Minister regarding the establishment of the 60 new industrial units to which he referred. Some of the speakers suggested that it would be helpful if we knew the character of these units—the numbers employed, the type of products they were turning out and their location—and possibly the Minister will give that information before he concludes. I have no doubt that, having got the information, we will find that it is almost exactly the same type of development as took place during the past 16 years. For that reason, I think we have to take a broader view and realise that, good as it is to see any new factory development, it is far more important that this development should take place along a planned and directed line which will continue to give an ever-expanding basis of further development rather than a haphazard, accidental type of development depending purely on the possibilities which individuals may see of securing a return on capital investment.
In connection with industrial development, there is one matter to which the Minister should give some thought. In the Minister's introductory statement, he referred to our export and import trade and gave a division of that trade as between dollar areas and sterling areas. He indicated the extent of exports to Britain and Northern Ireland and also the extent to which we are exporting manufactured goods. There is one aspect to which we should give some consideration, that is, that in respect of exports of live stock we are in a most peculiar position because we export live stock on the hoof to the British market, and because of the prices that have been secured, we have the problem that has been facing the present Minister and the community as a whole in regard to the price of meat. I do not want to touch on that at the moment because, more than other members of the House, I realise that it is not a simple subject and that it is very easy to make a fool of oneself talking about a matter that is so complicated that even the master victuallers cannot find a solution. Because of our exports on the hoof, we have the problem of the price of meat to the domestic consumer. Because of exports of cattle on the hoof, we are short of hides and short of raw materials for by-product industries. The work of slaughtering is carried on on the other side of the Irish Sea instead of in Ireland. I would urge the Minister—because it is his problem as well as that of the Minister for Agriculture—to explore to the very limits the possibilities of developing a dead-meat trade. I am aware that pleas have been made for this continuously over the last 30 years, but the reason why I think it is necessary is that we are so dependent, from the point of view of agricultural exports, on the British market that it is essential to take whatever steps are possible to reduce the dependency and to try to provide a greater measure of employment at home in manufacturing goods for exports.
As far as agriculture is concerned, it seems to me largely immaterial whether a beast is shipped on the hoof or in carcase form so long as the farmer gets a proper price for it, but it makes a tremendous difference to everybody outside the farmer, the buyer and the shipper, whether that beast goes on the hoof or in carcase form. It makes a difference to those engaged in the slaughtering and dressing trade. It makes a difference to tanners and to the boot and shoe trade. A dead-meat trade would provide the basis of probably a dozen other small industries in the manufacture of byproducts and would afford an opportunity of reaching other markets than the British market.
This particular matter is peculiar in many ways. Some weeks ago I sat in the Minister's Department and listened to an Englishman saying that he thought the Irish must be the greatest fools in the world, that we are the only country at the moment shipping cattle on the hoof into the British market, that no other country would do it. If an Irishman said that nobody would think it was surprising, but this was an Englishman, a man who had been in a particular trade for many years and is now associated with an Irish industry. He said he could not understand why we were willing to allow ourselves to be put in that most difficult and awkward economic position when every other exporter to the British market insisted on the beasts going in carcase form and thereby reaping all the benefits.
I do not think it is necessary to press either the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Industry and Commerce unduly on this matter because both of them are convinced that a dead-meat trade is essential, but I do feel that greater attention should be given to it and greater efforts should be made to remove many of the obstacles on our own side and to get acceptance on the part of the British Ministry of Food of the proposition that they must extend to us the same facilities as they readily extend to other countries supplying them with meat.
There is one small matter in connection with which I would like information from the Minister. At the moment, there is an arrangement by which we allow the importation of certain goods on a quota system. The quantity of goods imported is then allocated on a basis of quotas to various manufacturers and wholesalers. I understand that a situation has arisen whereby a manufacturer employing maybe 100 people and using a particular raw material may have a smaller quota of that imported material than a wholesale agent who does not employ even an office boy, and that, on occasions, the manufacturer may find himself in the position that he cannot continue production and keep his staff employed unless he goes to the wholesale agent and buys from him supplies of that essential material. The fact of buying from the wholesaler represents an addition of anything from 10 to 17½ per cent. on the price of the material and the finished goods. I think that is outrageous. I can understand that there is the difficulty that regard must be had to the livelihood of an agent who had been engaged in importing goods pre-war. When we take control of imports and license imports and allocate quotas, regard must be had to the livelihood of the agent and, possibly, those he employs. But there is a position with which I am personally acquainted, that a factory employing up to 100 people can either stop or pay a levy of 17½ per cent. to one individual for the right to use goods that are imported for the benefit of Irish industries. That is becoming a limit and the Minister should stop it. Quotas should be allocated on the basis of the purpose for which we allow importations.
When we are asking every section of industry, employers and workers, to co-operate in order to bring down prices of all types of goods, there can be no justification for allowing one individual to impose anything up to 20 per cent. on the price of raw materials and a consequential increase on the price of the finished article merely because the Department has issued a quota to him in respect of imported materials. Very often the material passes through two or three wholesalers' hands. The percentage is added, one on top of the other, until we get a house of cards.
The Minister, in the course of his speech, referred to factory inspectors. I am very glad that he now realises that there is a great deal of leeway to be made up. Again, this is not a situation of the Minister's making. During the emergency, the factory inspection staff were taken off normal duties and put on to other work in the Department. There has been great delay, not merely in returning these officers to their normal duties, but in replacing the wastage of the war years. The Minister should take even more active steps to bring his inspectorial staff, not merely up to pre-war level—I do not think it has reached that yet—but up to present-day needs. He referred to the difficulty of obtaining suitable staff. Part of that difficulty might be eased if there could be a division of labour. The factory inspector has to inspect the factory, not merely from the point of view of safety and hygiene; there is also a great deal of labour inspection work in regard to statutory rates of wages and conditions. If there is difficulty in getting individuals who have the necessary qualifications in respect of both branches of work, there could be a division of the work rather than allow it to fall behind.
The standard of inspection is very low, and there are continuous complaints, particularly from workers, as to the inadequacy of the inspection and the failure to enforce the orders made either by the Minister directly or by the statutory bodies operating under his authority. The result is that not merely have we fallen behind in the enforcement of the standards we have adopted by statute, but we are falling behind generally in regard to factory hygiene and the welfare and safety of the workers.
I hope the Minister will indicate the position in regard to the proposed amending Bill arising out of factory legislation which was referred to here by Deputy Lemass nearly four years ago and which was supposed to be in the process of being drafted. This question of factory inspection is very important because, through the very failure of the inspectorial staff to keep up to proper requirements, there has been a great deal of leeway allowed and there is now a growing pressure on the part of the trade unions and the workers to require not merely the enforcement of existing standards, but the provision of very improved standards by industrialists, to be enforced by the Government through new legislation.
I would like to refer to one matter relating to the Electricity Supply Board; possibly it may have been touched upon already in the course of the debate. In earlier discussions on the Electricity Supply Board I indicated one of the defects that I saw in the board's machinery, and that is its removal from the life of the ordinary people. It is largely a technical board, very competent to undertake its particular work, but it has very little regard for the problems of the mass of the consumers. That is a very important side of the Electricity Supply Board to consider. If there is any monopoly in this country it is the Electricity Supply Board. If there is any monopoly against which the ordinary consumer has little or no redress, it is the Electricity Supply Board. Because on that board there has been a failure in the past to give proper and adequate representation to consumer interests, we have got a number of problems arising that we can only seek redress for by referring them to the Minister and inviting his sympathetic interest.
Around Dublin we have a number of housing schemes in course of construction, just on the outskirts of the city boundary. A scheme starts within the boundary and goes out into the county and we have the intolerable position that a working-class family, living on the city side of the boundary, pays for its electricity under the two-part system and is charged at the fixed rate of 6/6 for the two-monthly period, in addition to paying the ordinary unit charges. The next house to it is on the county side of the boundary, and the family in that house, living under the same conditions, pays 100 per cent. more—13/-. The explanation is very simple. The Electricity Supply Board determines its fixed charges on the density of population, valuation, the level of rates and various other factors, and then arrives at a flat charge. The charge for the City of Dublin is 6/6 and the charge for the county is 13/-.
Whether the Electricity Supply Board will give serious attention to this matter I do not know. It has been brought to their attention and we are told that it is being considered. The people for whom we are building houses in the Dublin County area have not only the problem of increased rents and fares and the difficulty of purchasing ordinary necessities to face, but they have to pay an additional levy to the Electricity Supply Board because the city has grown beyond its bounds. It is really an administrative problem and there should be no difficulty on the part of the board in settling this matter within one week. The point is that until it is settled this problem will continue, as these housing schemes push out into the county.
There was a similar difficulty experienced in regard to a housing scheme at Dún Laoghaire. The same problem affects the people there. They go into a house provided by the Dún Laoghaire Borough Council and they are asked to pay a charge of 6/- or 7/-. After a short while they are told that they must pay 13/-. The ordinary family cannot easily move out of their house; they are stuck there. The Electricity Supply Board collect the charge. If the money is not forthcoming, the electricity supply is cut off and the people have to pay an additional sum to have it restored.
There is little use complaining because no one can do anything with the Electricity Supply Board. The people simply have to take what the board dishes out. It is an intolerable situation, largely because of the monopolistic position of the board. We supported that monopoly and we recognised the justification of it, but I submit that there should be representation on the board for the consumers' interests and there should be greater regard given by the board to the needs of consumers.
I want to touch upon another matter raised by a number of speakers. It is a very important matter. It is all very well to speak about the development of Irish industry and appeal to employers and workers to give of their best in the interests of the country. Unless we study the problem and try to understand the various factors which make up a desirable form of co-operation, we may find things happening that tend to upset all our plans.
One important consideration is where the ordinary workers come into this picture. I had hopes that during the past couple of months—and there have been a number of opportunities here— there might have been a reference by members of the Government to this position. Deputy Lemass, with his usual hardihood, opened up the whole problem. I admire his courage but I do not altogether admire the way he dealt with the matter. He has tried to shoulder on to other people some of his own responsibilities.
We have a problem in this country at the moment that is serious and will have to be considered. It is, I think, part of the responsibility of the Government not to interfere with the trade union movement but to express the Government's own viewpoint, because the trade union movement would be glad to hear it. Let me say that the trade union movement is not tied to the apron strings of any political Party or any Government. We are going to be just as independent if we had a Labour Government, a Fianna Fáil Government or an inter-Party Government. The duty of a trade union is to look after the interests of the workers and to see that they have a good standard of living.
We are not unreasonable people, and if we do state a case we like to have it examined in order to see how it will stand up to examination. The case we are making to-day is not a sectional case; it is a case that has the interests and the welfare of the whole of this country's economy at heart. I should like to sketch the background of the position in which the ordinary workers find themselves. When, in 1946, the controls imposed by Deputy Lemass were relaxed we had got an adjustment of wages given to the workers by agreement, under the auspices of the Labour Court. Sometimes some people who speak here seem to forget the contribution made by workers in the trade union movement in this country during the past ten years. The general line followed by the trade union movement was that it was in the best interests of the country to try to close the gap between prices and wages by reducing the cost of living rather than by seeking to do it entirely by means of an increase in wages.
With very great moderation, especially when you consider their experience for the previous seven years under the Fianna Fáil Government and particularly under Deputy Lemass as Minister for Industry and Commerce, the mass of organised workers ultimately agreed to limit their claims to an increase on pre-war rates of wages of some 50 per cent. at a time when prices and the cost of living were running in the neighbourhood of from 76 to 78 per cent. They got very little credit even from those they were trying to assist. Within a matter of a few short months, practically the whole of that gain had been wiped out by a further increase in the cost of living so much so that a further effort had to be made to try to redress the balance. Some of the speakers in this debate have spoken about improving and raising the standard of living. Let us be quite clear that when we speak for the workers, we are not speaking even of pre-war standards of living because we have not got them back yet; we are speaking of recovering some of the ground we have lost. We are going to recover it and we are going to move up much further. We made that gesture in 1946 and 1947 and then again prices started to move against the ordinary working-class family, until the increases in wages that had been gained by agreement had been wholly wiped out, and the question was raised what was to be done.
Then we had a peculiar leadership from Fianna Fáil. It is very interesting to hear Deputy Lemass advise the present Minister, as he did the other day, that the present problem can be dealt with and determined on a scientific basis. "It should be possible," he said, "to submit that matter to a scientific examination"—that is, whether the cost of living had increased and whether there was any justification for an increase in wages. There was not much scientific examination of the matter in 1947. There was, on the contrary, a very definite effort, an ultimatum issued by the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party that if the employers and the trade unionists did not agree amongst themselves to limit wage improvements the Government would do it by reintroducing wage control. Of course Deputy Lemass was a little wiser than his Leader. He put a little sugar on the pill. He said he would prefer if it could be done by agreement and that he would be ready to assist. The difficulty with Deputy Lemass is that sometimes he finds himself in the wrong Party. He realised at the time that the problem was very difficult and, so far as he was personally concerned, he did appreciate the problem that was being presented not merely to the Government but to the employers and also to the workers. That ultimatum, however, was definitely presented on the 15th October, 1947. As a result I believe we have the position which places Deputy Lemass where he is to-day instead of the place now occupied by Deputy Morrissey.
The trade unions then entered into negotiations under the knowledge and with the constraint that if they failed to arrive at an agreement with the employers the Government was going to step in and reimpose wage control. The history of wage control during the war was, as Deputy Hickey stated, that increases were limited to 16/- a week and workers were not allowed to get any more during those seven years. What was got by the other side in industry I shall deal with in a moment. The discussions took place in an atmosphere in which Deputy Lemass and his Leader had power to carry out their threat. The discussions, nevertheless, went on even though the threat was removed. The trade unions still exercised that sense of responsibility and concern for the economy of the country that very few give them credit for and after very difficult and protracted discussions they arrived at the arrangement known as the 11/- agreement of 1948, under which claims to increases were to be limited to 11/- per week.
The peculiar thing about the trade union movement is that we are very simple-minded. We always take everybody at his word. When we made that agreement we understood that every employer was accepting an obligation to increase his workers' wages by not more than 11/- per week, and that every trade union was accepting an obligation not to ask for more than 11/-. There were certain conditions. If a union asked for 11/-, the onus was on the union to prove their case. On the other hand, if an employer was not in a position to grant 11/-, then the onus was on him to prove his inability to do so.
We found, however, as we found on many occasions, that it is somewhat difficult to make an agreement with employers that is going to be lived up to not only in the letter, but also in the spirit. We found ourselves being placed in the peculiar position that union after union and section after section of workers were compelled to go to the Labour Court, go through a great deal of delay and protracted waiting, while the employers calmly went in and asked the unions to prove that they were entitled to get the 11/-, even though the employers were well able to pay it. When we realise that the agreement of 1948 has been honoured by the trade union movement for two years in face of very great difficulty and with tremendous pressure from members of the union, I think some appreciation should be shown to the organised workers for the contribution they made to the economy of the country and to its stability. Now we want to know what appreciation we are going to get. It is true, as Deputy Davin says, that we got an increase of 11/- in 1948. It is equally true that the full effect of that 11/- increase has not been wiped out by subsequent increases in prices. It is also true that if the change of Government had not taken place in 1948 we would not have got that 11/-. Not only that, but we had the very definite statement that, even though the cost of living might continue to rise, there would be no guarantee from the Fianna Fáil Government that there would be any compensation given to the workers. However, we got the 11/- and the cost of living has remained steady officially.
I do not think the present Minister, speaking quite frankly, is going to base his attitude in regard to wage claims on the official cost-of-living figure. He knows how it is formulated. He knows that it is completely ineffective as an indication of what it costs the workers to live. We are waiting now for two years to get a new, properly determined cost-of-living figure. I think it is time it came. The present interim figure, arrived at late in 1947, is of practically no value and it has practically gone out of any discussion in regard to what the cost of living is. The position is that we got the 11/-. We have enjoyed that 11/- since 1948. Now we are losing it. Before we lose it altogether, we want to know what the position will be. It has been stated here by Deputy Lemass that there is a responsibility on the Government to indicate its wages policy. Speakers on the Government Benches told the Government not to interfere. There is a middle course which we would like the Government to follow.
So far as the trade union movement is concerned, the trade unions have already determined and made known their policy. The Trade Union Congress had its conference. I do not think it is a question of forestalling or being a bit ahead of the Congress of Irish Unions because they are very largely working hand in hand. That is for the good of the movement. At the same time, we feel that the Government has got a responsibility in making an approach to the employers to have regard to what may be the outcome of these discussions and the effects of them upon the economy of the country as a whole. I submit that, so far as the Government is concerned, there is good ground on which this Government, or any other Government, can make its statement sympathetic to the workers' position and fully justify it. I submit that, if that statement is made, it will be conducive to effective and friendly negotiations between the organised employers and the workers, it will probably bring about an adjustment in the present position with the least upset to the economy as a whole, and will be very helpful in avoiding those industrial difficulties that might otherwise arise.
So far as the Trade Union Congress is concerned, I shall very briefly now put the position to the House. First of all, we are not dealing here with merely adjusting wages to prices. We are dealing with the question of a standard of living. Let me say, in passing, that if Deputy Rooney was correct in his statement that we got a 30 per cent. increase in our wages since 1948, I do not think we would be troubling either Deputy Rooney now, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or anybody else. Unfortunately, that is not the position. We got an improvement of about 5 per cent. We are dealing with standards. In 1938 there was a standard determined here. It has never been questioned. I refer to the minority report made at the inquiry into the banking system in 1938. That report was made by a very objective and responsible person who now occupies a very responsible position in regard to industrial relations in this country. After a very careful examination and analysis, both of which are available to anybody who studies the report, he decided that a man, his wife and three children in the City of Dublin could not maintain a minimum existence on a wage of less than 71/3 per week. Nobody has ever challenged that finding—no Government, no Minister, no economist and no sociologist. That figure stands unchallenged to-day. Since 1938 the cost of living has gone up by 80 per cent., and to-day that same minimum standard would require a wage of £5 12s. 0d. per week in the City of Dublin for a man, his wife and three children. If one examines the official records, one will find that, so far as the manufacturing industry is concerned, adult workers as a whole receive an average wage of something less than £5 per week. In the City of Dublin very few of the ordinary unskilled or semi-skilled workers have a wage in the neighbourhood of £5 12s. 0d. per week. But that is the position when merely applying the 1938 standard.
In the White Paper on social security issued by the Minister for Social Welfare we find that, even to-day, in 1950, nearly half of our wage earners are receiving less than £3 10s. 0d. per week, so much so that we find ourselves in the position of having to make special provision in regard to social security for the low-wage group. We look then at the reports of the nutritional survey and we find that, from a nutritional standpoint, the best-fed people in the country are the farmers—it is only natural that that should be so—and the worst-fed people are the ordinary workers living in the towns and cities. If we take the figures in the survey and tot them up, the miracle is that the ordinary family has any money to buy anything else outside of food.
The position is that, so far as wage and salary earners are concerned, they have made repeated contributions not merely during the whole of the emergency but also voluntary contributions from 1946 to date in order to try to get a reasonable equilibrium between their income and the cost of living. So far they have failed to get that adjustment. It is quite correct, and we must all accept responsibility, that when this Government took office a definite statement was made that the cost of living would be reduced. I do not think that we should now run away from that statement. It is demonstrably clear that over the initial period that continuous threatened rise in the cost of living was halted and the figure was stabilised. Government action was effective in the beginning in maintaining that position.
There is nothing wrong in admitting now that the cost of living is again getting out of hand, even though that is due to factors outside of our control. It was quite clear that following upon devaluation last year these effects were bound to ensue. It is quite clear that they will continue. I think to some extent some credit should be given to the Minister and his Department when we realise the very substantial increase that has taken place in wholesale prices, especially import prices, and the fact that the official cost-of-living figure has been held at 100. That does not alter the fact that we are facing a position where there will be a still further increase. We are facing the position where the increases that have been given are no longer reflected in the index number. Because we seek to be honest and try to face up to the position, we must face the position on the basis that this is the time to deal with the problem and we must not wait until it reaches such proportions that it will overwhelm us. We must not wait until we find ourselves on the crest of a wave of industrial conflict which can only be settled by whichever of us proves to be the best and strongest organisation.
The present situation is that the ordinary wage and salary earners are finding themselves in a position where they cannot continue any longer without some relief. And they propose to get that relief. They have already decided that the 11/- agreement should be terminated and new efforts made by the co-ordinated and joint effort of the respective congresses to try to work out a general co-ordinated policy acceptable to and understood by employers and with the goodwill of the Government behind it. Deputy Lemass said that he did not think there was any need at the present time for any Government control. We have always felt that way. I suppose there is no sense in continually labouring the point that Government control created many of the difficulties that we are trying to get rid of to-day. But we do ask for the understanding and sympathy, not merely of the Government but of all political Parties, in relation to this particular problem.
We believe the time has come when some consideration must be given to the great mass of wage and salary earners. I have listened here to constant pleas made on behalf of the farming community. Nobody objects to the improvement that has taken place there. Nobody is objecting to the fact that the farming community is getting something in the nature of £20,000,000 a year under various headings; nobody is objecting to the fact that, although we pay some £12,000,000 a year on food subsidies, a possible 8 per cent. of that goes directly to the farming community. Everybody wishes the farmers well. Everybody is glad to see the farmers with a few more pounds in the bank and a few more American cars on the road. Everybody is glad to know they are eating better. There are two sections in our community that are very important, the farming community and those who constitute the industrial and commercial community. It is about time that the latter section received some consideration. If they do not get it, the farmers will ultimately pay for that deficiency. The farmers are already producing more butter than we can eat. We would have no trouble in getting the butter eaten if our wage and salary earners had enough money to buy it. We would have no trouble of getting rid of the milk if they had enough money to buy it. But they have not got the money. There would be no difficulty in prices being paid for meat in the butchers' shops; the principal daily headache for the working-class housewife is the problem of deciding how much she can afford to spend on meat. The sooner the farmers realise that the best protected market they have for their products is the stomachs of the Irish working-class people the better it will be for everybody. Under our present system of economy, one cannot fill anybody's stomach unless one has put some money into his pocket. We have not got enough money in the pockets of our Irish workers at the moment to be able to buy the products our Irish farmers are producing. The same problem arises in regard to Irish industries. I do not think there is any further danger at the moment of anything like inflation taking place, considering that in big houses you will find cut-price sales taking place. That indicates that there is not much of a shortage of goods. The same can be said in regard to the grocery trade. What is worrying me is the problem of getting people with enough purchasing power to buy the goods. So long as we have—as we continue to have—Irish children going bare-footed, insufficiently fed and poorly clothed and our people living in houses with furniture which in many cases is made of butter boxes and orange boxes, we have not a surplus of goods with which to build up an export trade. We will never have a surplus of goods for an export trade until our own people have enough—and we have a long way to go before we reach that point. It is from the point of view of giving our wage and salary earners a greater purchasing power in the economy as a whole than they have at present and from the point of view of having an appreciation of fairness that we think this problem should be considered.
The Minister for Finance gave a figure in relation to the improvement in the national income since pre-war. The only major change that is of interest to those who have to depend on wages and salaries is that while the cake has been made bigger somebody has managed to get away with a much bigger slice at the expense of their slice. We are told here repeatedly, and especially so in the past few years, that if workers want to improve the standard of living they must make the national cake bigger and thus have a bigger share. The fact of the matter is that the cake has been made bigger but that somebody has managed to increase his share very considerably. In 1938, out of the total non-agricultural income, 65 per cent. went towards wages and salaries. In 1947, thanks to the operation of the Fianna Fáil Government, it had dropped to 50 per. cent. I do not think that trend has been stopped yet. Profit and rent and interest, which got 35 per cent. in 1938, is now getting 50 per cent. That is a fairly good achievement in ten years. The time has come when there should be a little readjustment in respect of the slicing of the cake. We are continually told that wages cannot be increased any further without affecting prices. How is it that profits can be increased? During the period from 1938 to 1947 wages were increased by 50 per cent.
People were advised to invest their money here because of the danger of investing it outside.
It would probably be better invested here than anywhere else in Western Europe to-day because in the ten years over the war period profits went up by 170 per cent. to 180 per cent. That is a pretty good achievement. That was all up to 1947. Of the increase of some £96,000,000 that took place in the national income between 1938 and 1947—that is, in the non-agricultural section—two-thirds of the increase went to profits, into the pockets of people the majority of whom give very little service to the economy of the country. They merely put their money in and draw the cheques. One-third went to the workers who not merely carry on the ordinary day-to-day work of industries but who carried on during the onerous period of the emergency, working under great difficulties, with insufficient and inadequate food and under the daily strain everybody was subject to at the time. They got roughly £30,000,000 out of the increase and the other boys got £60,000,000.
Nobody would mind if all that happened during the years from 1938 to 1947 when everything seemed to be upset. But from 1947 we have started to get back to some kind of a settled period and to catch up on those gentlemen with the loot. One would think that now all these problems would cease to exist. I remember that, in 1948, the Minister for Finance, in introducing his Budget, referred to the excess profits tax which had been terminated the previous year. He urged manufacturers and distributors to exercise something in the way of a public conscience, if they had one, and to utilise whatever profits they had to reduce prices and, by improving their methods of production, to bring costs to a lower level. He ended with the threat that if they did not do so he would utilise the reimposition of the excess profits tax as a means of dealing with them. That tax has not been reimposed. Presumably the Minister is satisfied with what has been going on, although I do not think he is. It is about time he realised that very few others are either. In spite of all that happened from 1938 to 1947, it seems to have been getting even worse from 1947 up to the present time. In the period from 1947 to 1949 these very profits which required drastic measures to be taken by the Fianna Fáil Government, and also to be continued by the present Government, continued to be earned and prices have not dropped—and wages, as I have said, have been kept at a fairly steady level during this same period. Of these different public companies who, in 1947-48, made a total profit of £1,140,000, one year later the same group of companies made profits to the amount of £1,396,000—an increase of 22 per cent. in one year. Probably, when Deputy Rooney was speaking about wages, he got wages and profits confused, because it is the profits that have increased by 30 per cent., not wages. Seven companies increased their profits from £107,000 in 1947 to £130,000 in 1949—an increase of 7 per cent. in 1948 over 1947, and another increase of 18½ per cent. in 1949 over 1948. The trend is upward, not downward.
These companies are mainly engaged in the manufacture and distribution of clothes and food. If any Deputy read the Irish Independent I think of one day last week he would have noticed a tabular statement showing the yield of various industrial investments in this country. The interesting thing was that the highest yield—not the highest rate of dividend—per £100 invested was in the drapery group and it was higher even than in England. Yet, in this drapery group, made up of Irish investments here, we have a number of companies—and it has been referred to time after time in this House—whose shares you could pick up for scrap in 1938 out of the waste paper basket. Now, God knows what they will cost. Some of them are paying not a dividend but an actual yield of over £9 on every £100 invested, when in 1939 they could not pay 1d. Surely that is a situation we cannot continue to ignore and about which the workers are quite entitled to say that there can be an increase in wages and an adjustment of wages not merely to compensate them for rising costs but to try and restore some of the standards they lost during the period of the war? That can be given solely at the expense of profits.
The Minister shakes his head. I shall be only too glad to hear the Minister's statement on this, because we are not trying to bargain. We believe that we have put up a statement that requires examination. We want to know what is the answer to it. Is it correct that these profits are being earned? If they are, why is it that some share of them cannot be given to the workers? It may be argued, in the case of a particular company, that it may be making so much of a profit, but that the profit in itself would not be sufficient to allow for an increase in wages. We do not pin all our hopes on an increase in wages. We would very much prefer if we could get the position of the workers eased by a reduction in the cost of living without an increase in wages. How long are we going to wait for that to take place? The workers have now been waiting since 1939, and even to-day, in 1950, their real wage standard of living is 7 per cent. below what it was in 1939. There is a limit to our patience. If we are to be asked to forgo an increase in wages, we are quite prepared to do it if there is a determined effort made to bring down the cost of the articles necessary in a working-class home.
Personally, I do not believe that our price control machinery is effective. I have stated that time and again. I am only repeating what the Minister said when he was on the other side of the House. He has stated, both in private and in public discussions, that it is effective to-day, and that at times the profit margin allowed to manufacturers is unfair because it is so small. I do not want to doubt the Minister's word, but there are an awful lot of people in this country who just have no faith in our price control machinery. They base their opinions on their experience not merely in the last two years, but more particularly in the years between 1939 and 1947. Until that machinery operates in public, until the public know how it functions, until they know what principles guide and determine its decisions, they will continue to have no faith in that machinery. You will not be able to convince the ordinary worker, in cases where profits are increasing year after year, in cases where they have increased since the end of the emergency by no less than 22 per cent. in one 12 months, that this price control machinery is effective.
When we speak of profits, we get an even more interesting picture. Not merely are many of these companies paying increased profits, but they have also taken out of the "kitty" reserves which they had put away for the day when they would be able to buy new machinery and re-equip their industries with new buildings and the latest methods of production out of the great profits made during the war— profits which were to be turned to the benefit of industry as a whole. They are taking that money out of the "kitty" all right, but they are distributing it to their shareholders in the form of free bonus shares. Take a list of public companies and you will get probably, out of a group of 60, somewhere between 15 and 20 which have issued these free bonus shares to their shareholders, varying from 50 to 100 per cent. of an increase in the capital holding of individual shareholders. One company, which issued 100 per cent. of a capitalised bonus in 1939, issued another one in January, 1950, and it is still paying 12½ per cent. That would be pretty good going for highly industrialised countries such as England or America, but it is a record for a country like this. It is useless to suggest that we have got to continue to ignore these factors.
I said a little earlier that the organised workers would quite frankly and honestly prefer if an easement in the position could be secured by a reduction in the cost of living for the masses of working-class people. On three different occasions since the emergency we have made our contribution in that direction. In 1946 we accepted a 50 per cent. adjustment in wages over pre-war rates as against a 75 per cent. increase in prices. In 1947 we again tried to hold back in the hope that we could make a contribution that would ease the problem of reducing the cost of living. In 1948 we made a voluntary agreement, again limiting our claim. On each occasion the mainspring of that idea was to try and avoid giving any excuse to employers that where increases in wages had been given they had been of such magnitude that a further increase in prices was not necessary. That has not been the case in any single instance.
I have sat on joint committees with employers when they decided to give increases in wages. The employers signed statements which were submitted to the Minister to the effect that this increase in wages would not require any increase in price because it would have a negligible effect on costs. That joint statement was signed in good faith by the workers, but within a matter of three months there was an increase in prices. We know all these things. We are suggesting that increases have already taken place in a whole range of items that are not reflected in the index figure. These facts are becoming more apparent every other day. With devaluation there is the possibility of a further increase in prices taking place.
We have to remember that when we sit down to study this problem we have to decide, first of all, that the mass of wage and salary earners are entitled, as a matter of appreciation for the sacrifices made and the services given during the past ten years, to some adjustment in their standard of life so as to bring them back somewhat nearer to what they had in 1939; secondly, that if we cannot effectively reduce the cost of living, there should be compensation given to that group of people in the community, who have apparently been left behind by everybody else, to enable them to meet their increased costs; thirdly, that it is not fair to expect the ordinary wage and salary earner to be content with wages that are still under the 1938 level, while still higher and higher profits are being made by employers. If, in the case of some particular concern, the increase in wages cannot be met out of the profits of that concern, then let the Government reimpose the excess profits tax and use the money received in that way to subsidise some of the basic foods. We do not mind how we get it so long as it is possible for ordinary men and women to live in some kind of security, decency and comfort. We do not mind whether we get it directly in the form of wages or, indirectly, through a reduction in prices effected through subsidies.
We do not want to be forced into the position, failing to get a reasonable and acceptable agreement with employers through their organisation, of having to go into guerilla warfare. The position is that either we have got to get a sensible approach by employers and a sympathetic understanding on the part of the Government which could be indicated by public statements for the general benefit of trade unions and employers in regard to this whole position, or else we will have wide-scale industrial conflicts developing in the next few months in this country. Everybody will regret that, as it would not be helpful to anybody, but would be very costly. The sacrifices would be very heavy on the workers and it will not be helpful to the particular industries involved or to the economy of the country as a whole. The position is delicate and the claims of the workers cannot be denied. During the past two years repeated appeals were made to the workers to give of their best to increase production. I do not think they have done too badly. The figures given by the Minister in his introductory speech show that since 1938 the volume of production has increased in all industries by 39 per cent. and in manufacturing industries by 43 per cent.
It has been calculated by the Irish Trade Union Congress that in all more important aspects the individual output per worker has increased by 20 per cent. in manufacturing industry and by 12 per cent. over industry as a whole. That is a very considerable increase. It is even more so when we recall that there has been very little widespread effort by employers to re-equip their industries with the latest type of machinery and to adopt the latest methods. A great deal of that increased output must be credited directly to the individual worker. If we are to have these continual appeals to workers to assist in increasing production by giving greater output per man, what return are they to get for that? Are all the benefits to be garnered and monopolised by the employers, and the workers told they must be content merely to work harder and get no recognition or appreciation of their efforts? That would be a disastrous position.
It is most difficult under any circumstances, with the history we have had of industrial relations both in this and other countries over the last 50 or 60 years, to get the average worker to concern himself with problems of output and increased production; but when they do make an effort, when they do take an interest and do produce results, and are told there is nothing for them, we may as well give up any hope of trying to raise our general standard of industry on the basis of co-operation and the willing efforts of the workers. That responsibility rests almost entirely at the moment with the Government and the spokesman of the Government, to give a lead in that regard, to tell some of the people speaking for employers that the time has gone by when Irish industry can be regarded as a private monopoly for a few individuals. Irish industry is part of the heritage of the Irish community as a whole. We have recognised and accepted, as far as the law is concerned, the position of the workers as owners of industry, but they have certain public obligations. No more than the farmer who abuses and destroys the land given to him by the Irish nation can be allowed to continue that destruction, can the private employer be allowed to abuse his position in industrial economy without regard for the private individual or the community as a whole. I suggest we must have regard, in the problem of production, to the contributions made by the workers, as that appreciation is due to them and a share of the benefits of increased production should be extended to them.
I hope there will be, before negotiations are opened up between the trade union congresses and the organised employers, an indication on the part of the Government and other political Parties, including Fianna Fáil, of a sympathetic understanding of the workers' position in this matter.
I would impress on the Minister the desirability that, in his reply in the debate to-day, he should deal with this matter, which requires consideration and full reflection. It is a problem facing not merely the Minister responsible for industry but facing the whole community. The problem is to try to bring about this very necessary and very justifiable adjustment of workers' living standards and the relationship between their wages and the cost of living and their position with regard to the community as a whole. We should bring that about with the best understanding on an agreed basis, after proper and reasonable discussion and so avoid difficulties and disturbances in our industrial economy, if it is at all possible.
This debate on industry and commerce is the most important one we have in this House. It has changed a good deal from the first debates I remember. In those days, there was a very high degree of hostility to the development of industry and, in fact, that continued up to the period of the war. However, the industries which had been established previous to the war gave such good results to our people and brought them such comfort and happiness during the war that a change has now taken place, and I am glad to say that practically the whole House is now unanimous that we should proceed to develop what is called the industrial arm. It was first started here for the purpose of relieving emigration and to give employment when the stream of emigration would have stopped. Therefore, if we had reached that point and brought about that situation, it would have brought the greatest possible benefits to the country. Unfortunately, for the last couple of years that stream of emigration has taken on renewed force. Those who read the papers will see statements by eminent people, lamenting the continuous stream of emigration. Those of us who go through the country, through the different towns and villages, realise at once that emigration has taken on renewed life. Many faces are missing and when we ask about them we are told that those people have emigrated.
I believe that industrial development can stop emigration. From the figures given here by the Minister as to the huge sum of money we expend in purchasing commodities abroad that if we had the will—and apparently we have the will—we could develop ourselves, it is obvious that we could give employment to our people here. Of course we have attempted to do that, and I must say that for the last two years the Fine Gael portion of the Coalition Government have changed completely their minds on that. I would like to congratulate them on the change that has taken place among them. At the same time we have here some great difficulties as far as the development of industry is concerned. One of the biggest difficulties is the cost of living. That is more or less like emigration —you look at the figure and you are sure there is none. When you look at the cost-of-living figure you are sure it is low, but when you start to pay the bills you scratch your head and say: "I wonder what has happened?" If we cannot get the cost of living down there is no use pretending that it is down. It is extremely high and if we cannot reduce it we will have anarchy. There is white bread at a shilling and the other commodities—tea, butter and sugar—also at a high price on the black market. Take any man with £3 a week and five or six children—what are they going to do? Can they buy on that market? Can they pay a shilling for white bread and so much for flour on that money? They cannot, of course. What is happening is that those children have to go hungry. Other people older than they are get uneasy at that sort of thing and say: "At the first opportunity I will hop it". Therefore our main task and the task of the Government should be to get down the cost of living. We heard Deputy Larkin on that and Deputy Larkin is perfectly right. If the cost of living is high wages must go up because the value of wages is what they can purchase.
When we were the Government nobody could blame us for not attempting to get down the cost of living. We realised the necessity of it, with the result that we are on these benches to-day. The reason we were put here was that we taxed stout, cigarettes and other commodities in order to reduce the price of bread, butter, tea and sugar. You cannot go back now and do that, but you will have to find the money somewhere else. If money is not found to reduce the cost of living the results here will be serious and dangerous.
I heard Deputy Larkin making a very peculiar statement. He stated that Fianna Fáil established industries in order to get votes. In other words, what he meant to convey was that we established an industry in a certain town in which there was a big population and in which we were looking for votes. The greatest difficulty we had in establishing industries was the man with the money. He was, naturally, determined to put the industry where he wanted it, not where I or the Minister or anybody else wanted it. Therefore, that statement wants some substantiation. We could not possibly compel the people who owned the money to establish an industry in a place where maybe it would be unprofitable.
The whole question of employment on the land is one that has become very serious. Farmers have complained to me that they could not get men, that men cannot be found. That was one of the principal reasons for the reduction in tillage. The Government congratulated themselves on the fact that there was a scarcity of labour. They did not tell us that it was entirely due to emigration and, therefore, emigration is beginning already to hit production. The fact of the matter is that, although this is a rich country with good land and a reasonably good climate, our food position is extremely dangerous and precarious. We have too much milk and no potatoes; we have now too much butter and very little wheat. I think that sensible people—and there are sensible people on the opposite benches—should have taken precautions some time ago to see that this country has food. I am one who does not believe that we are just going to have war to-morrow morning but there are an awful lot of people who are under the impression that war is imminent. I was under the impression that we would have no war because I saw no steps taken to provide for our people in case there was one. Our position if there is war will become extremely precarious. Our wheat is reduced and all forms of food production are reduced to a very dangerous level. Therefore, I would say to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who is responsible, that he should make an effort in the coming year to see that there is more food production.
I do not know that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is responsible for wheat and butter.
For the collection of food and the price.
"Growing" is what you mentioned.
I will not proceed with that, but the Minister for Industry and Commerce is responsible for the price and the price is responsible for production.
Deputy Larkin made one remark which deserves some consideration when he mentioned the dead meat trade. I take it that I may refer to that. As some of you know we had a dead meat trade here at one time. We had a large, well-equipped factory in Drogheda but it went down. They had to close, the reason being that we had not the uniform type of production here which exists in other countries. The main reason, however, was that when the cattle were slaughtered, chilled and sent across to the British market the price offered for them was exactly the same as was offered for Argentine chilled beef and, therefore, it could not keep up that industry. That means that if we started that industry again we would have to reduce the price of cattle here. For the moment maybe Britain is taking a certain amount of beef but they have always been more interested in stores. They wanted the raw materials for their own industry and consequently they purchased stores and our beef trade was turned into a store trade.
I want to conclude my remarks by saying how glad I am to see practically everybody here unanimous as far as industry is concerned. Industry is the greatest friend the farmer has. If we had sufficient industrial development in this country the farmers would have a sure and secure market.
It is also important to the tourist industry, another industry that got a good shaking up in the last couple of years, but has now got its breath back again; it is greatly respected at the moment. Industry has a big bearing on tourism, because many tourists come to see industries and they are the best commercial travellers we could have. The more foreigners we get into the country as tourists or otherwise the more they talk about what we have to sell and that is the best possible method of getting connections for the sale of our industrial produce. Therefore, the tourist business is, I think, one of the most important businesses, outside the development of industry, in the Minister's charge. I am glad that recently he and the whole Coalition Government have changed their minds on the question of tourists and I hope they will do all they can to develop that industry, not for the sake of the Government, but for the sake of the country at large.
Deputy Larkin, in the course of what I considered a very fine contribution, referred in some detail to the activities of the Industrial Development Authority. He mentioned that it was his opinion that the work that Industrial Development Authority was set up to do was being hindered to a great extent by the fact that it was asked to deal with routine matters. If that is the case the Minister should consider it very carefully, because there is so much necessary work to be done by this body that it would be a tragedy if it were not allowed to go ahead at full speed.
I have spoken before of the need for establishing industries in rural areas, with particular reference to the West of Ireland. There seems to be a decided objection on the part of industrialists to cross the River Shannon. I am sure there are various sound reasons from the industrialists' point of view—reasons of finance and transport—which cause them to be shy of setting up factories in the West. Any Deputy from the West will agree that the biggest drain of emigration comes from across the Shannon, and I think it is the duty of the Government, when they find that, in spite of various enticements, the private industrialist is not prepared to set up his business in the West, to take a hand. We know that, in Britain, there were for years huge pockets of unemployment, but, in the last few years, due to the policy pursued by the Government in Britain, there is very little or no unemployment in these localities. The British Government took it on themselves to set up State industries which absorbed the workers and unemployed in these localities, and until this Government or some other Government sees fit to do likewise in the West we will not stem this drain of emigration.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present——
As I have said, in spite of the enticements offered to private enterprise, it has failed west of the Shannon to provide industries which will stem emigration and solve the problem of unemployment. There are many small towns, not alone in the West, but all over the country, in which certain industries could be established. At present, in these towns, it is necessary for a number of people interested to get together and form an industrial planning association which gets in touch with the Department or, in recent months, with the Industrial Development Authority, in the hope of getting information with regard to a suitable type of industry for their town. Very often, these negotiations fall through and the whole question of an industry for the town lies for another few years. In the meantime, the boys and girls of the town and surrounding districts are left without employment, and they naturally go across to Britain, where they will get work without any trouble and without any delay.
While that situation exists in rural Ireland, no Government can be satisfied that it is doing its duty in the matter of solving these problems, and I feel that the Government, as an experiment, should decide to start an industry in a particular locality where private enterprise will not do it, but where it is necessary that it should be done because of the unemployment problem. If the Government set up such a factory, it will be found after a while that the people with money in the town will be only too anxious, will be tripping over each other, to take up shares in that industry. Personally, I would not satisfy them in that respect to the extent to which they would desire to be satisfied, but the suggestion should be examined carefully because otherwise we will not get these industries started. The Industrial Development Authority, in this connection, could be a very great help to the Minister in advising him as to the particular localities suitable for industries.
We have the statement from the Minister that we imported last year over £60,000,000 worth of goods that could and should be made here. The Minister rightly deplored the fact that we had to import that amount of goods. I agree that efforts are being made to get some of these goods produced at home, but I am not satisfied that the effort is big enough or that there is enough energy or drive behind it. We heard a lot of talk about the "Buy Irish" campaign, but I do not believe it has been a success, in view of the fact that we have to import so much of these goods which could be made here. The Industrial Development Authority has a job on hands. They should examine the details of this import of £60,000,000 worth of goods and decide how much could be made in different areas throughout the country, and make recommendations to the Minister for the establishment of factories as soon as they have examined the question of the importation of this £60,000,000 worth of goods.
There is another matter of even greater importance that should be examined by the Industrial Development Authority. I do not think it would be outside their scope. It is the question of mineral development. The more industries we can have based on native raw materials, the better. Such industries are the only type suitable for the country. I have in mind the question of the development of our coal industry. I want to deal with an area that I know well, Arigna. Deputies and Senators have outlined the position with regard to Arigna time and time again and yet nothing seems to be done about it. I understand from the Minister for Finance that we are now going to have the services of American expert mining engineers. I hope that the services of these engineers will be availed of in regard to Arigna. It may interest Deputies to know that in 1872 or so it was stated authoritatively that the time had arrived for a vigorous and scientific exploration of the mineral deposits at Arigna. Coal was discovered at Kilronan, and the Irish Parliament at that time voted a large sum of money for the making of roads into the mine, it was regarded as of such great importance for industrial development. Not as much as one stone of that road was laid, the reason being quite evident: the British and Welsh mining interests smashed the scheme. It is well known that the quality of coal in Arigna is excellent for domestic purposes and is regarded by experts as the best coal in Europe for smelting. What has damned the coal industry in Arigna is the question of transport. A narrow gauge railway was made to serve two sides of the mountain. That did more harm than good to the industry. It increased handling charges. There were not enough wagons available to take away the coal that was mined.
Years ago there was an unlimited market for Arigna coal in various parts of the country. In Limerick City they could not get sufficient quantities of Arigna coal. The chief engineer of Guinness, Dublin, said that the only fault he had to find with Arigna coal was that he could not get it in sufficient quantities. That statement deserves very serious consideration.
I do not know how true it is, but it has been said by experts who gave evidence before a commission that coal is not the only mineral available in the Arigna area; that under the coal, in a reasonably accessible position, there are quantities of iron ore. One expert stated that there is exposed in the beds of the Arigna and Stoney Rivers and the streams that flow into them sufficient iron ore to keep a furnace producing 2,000 tons per week for the next 100 years. That statement should be examined.
If we discover that certain of these findings by experts are not reliable, I would like the Minister to examine the mineral question in Arigna from another point of view. We have established in Kildare and other places generating stations producing electricity from peat. I would like if the Minister would have examined the question of the suitability of Arigna coal for a power station. The coal is available in four mountains. There is no mining involved. It is a matter of going in and taking it. If the proper machinery were available and the work tackled in a big way, it would be the best means of providing employment in the West of Ireland and of stopping emigration. At present, there is a number of colliery owners there. I say, without putting a tooth in it, that they are only poking at the coal. They are doing their best under the circumstances. None of them has the capital to develop the coal properly. As a result, they are in difficulties every day in the week in regard to the sale of the coal and the cost of the coal. If the thing were to be tackled properly, an Irish exploration and development, company should be set up to examine the whole problem and, if the area were found suitable, these colliery owners should be compensated for their rights and the industry should be run by a State company. The thing should be done properly.
Having recommended to the Minister the question of coal development, especially in the Arigna area, I pass on to another fuel that was referred to by Deputy Lemass, namely, turf. I cannot understand the attitude of Fianna Fáil on this question of turf. I have to admire the brass neck, if I may so describe it, of Deputy Lemass when he blames this Government for destroying the turf industry. We all know that, in 1947 and for part of 1948, coal was coming in from South Africa and Britain. I may be wrong in describing it as coal, but it came in under that description. It is still in the Park. I do not want to go back to the county council schemes and the hand-won turf because they were responsible also for destroying that. I do not want to open up old sores, but I certainly want to refute the suggestion of Deputy Lemass that this Government was responsible for destroying the semi-automatic-won turf schemes, such as in Tipperary, Galway, Roscommon, Clare and Westmeath. We are all agreed that the turf industry must be developed to the utmost extent. Machine-won turf and semi-automatic-won turf is an excellent fuel. It is excellent for domestic purposes and very suitable for industrial purposes. I am not saying that without proof. Anyone who has time to spare should visit the Gentex factory in Athlone. There is not an ounce of coal burned in that factory. It is all machine-won turf, turf semi-automatically produced, and they find it is far more suitable than coal and a far more economic proposition. Due to the fact that they buy huge quantities of this turf within a radius of 12 to 15 miles of the town, it means that there is good employment on the bogs there. That is the position as a result of this factory taking so much.
But not alone industrially is this turf suitable or successful; it is an ideal fuel for the ordinary household. Unfortunately, a few months ago a decision was taken to close down these semiautomatic turf schemes. I want to congratulate the Minister on his wisdom in reopening a number of them. Various reasons were put forward why the schemes should be closed down. One reason was that a large amount of the turf was left unsold on the bog. That was quite true in a number of cases, but I think we should examine that and find out the reasons for it. I think that it was criminal on the part of the turf board to go full steam ahead producing machine-won turf without making any arrangement whatever with regard to its sale.
I have seen canvassers, salesmen for Bord na Móna, going around to people. I do not want to make an attack on them, but I do say that Bord na Móna would have been better of without their services. They just asked a man would he take some machine-won turf and, if he said, "No, I do not want it," that was all there was to it, no more. They might have said to people: "I will bring you a sample of the turf so that you can try it out and, if you feel satisfied, perhaps you will give me an order." I have gone to a number of people who were rather sceptical about the value of this turf. I got them samples of a cwt. or so and since then they have used nothing but machine-won turf.
There is an unlimited, untapped market in this country for machine-won turf. One of the problems with regard to machine-won turf is its bulk and the difficulty of storing. Until Bord na Móna set themselves to tackle that problem we are not going to have all the turf sold. It would be necessary to establish in each town a central depot where this turf could be stored in large quantities. The turf must be sold from that depot to suit the needs of the people as they want it; in other words, it must be sold like coal. If I want two cwts. of turf I should be able to get just that quantity out of the store, and I do not want to be asked to take the turf in one or two ton lots.
Most houses in towns have not the storage accommodation for large quantities of turf and it is necessary to have the turf made available just as they want it, the same as coal. We hear a lot of pious talk about "buy Irish". We should burn Irish coal and Irish turf. The trouble is that the big merchants in Galway and elsewhere have their stockyards full of coal. I suggest that not an ounce of coal should be allowed into the country. If fellows came along to-morrow morning from various towns and went to Arigna they could buy the coal in Arigna and sell it at £5 or £5 10s. a ton, £2 a ton less than British coal, and the people would be getting a better commodity.
I am afraid that when the bogs were reopened this year a valuable period of time had elapsed for cutting turf. The position next year will be that these bogs cannot possibly show a profit; they will be definitely at a loss. The decision to reopen them came at a time when the first cutting should have been completed. I hope the fact that it will not be so successful this year will not be used next year as an excuse for finally closing these bogs down. I hope Bord na Móna will examine the possibilities of a good marketing system for one turf and the setting up of storage centres. I trust the Minister will see his way to eliminate all coal imports into the turf areas.
Last year, between April and December, we imported 1,291,000 tons of coal. In that same period our State Departments used 17,000 tons of coal. I see no reason in the world why these Departments could not have used native coal or turf. I am convinced that there exists in the minds of higher civil servants in this country an antagonism towards our native fuel. The best way we will know how sincere people are in regard to burning turf is when we see that they use it themselves. I know for a fact that quite a number of people will burn nothing but coal, and British coal at that. If we are serious about developing our mineral resources and keeping people in Ireland in good employment, why not start out with something that is already there and that only wants to be improved?
The wives will have something to say to it.
Deputy Davin says that the wives have something to say to the burning of coal. I do not blame housewives in Dublin for disliking turf. During the war years they were fleeced; it was an absolute disgrace, the stuff that came to Dublin. I saw it coming from Galway, Donegal, Roscommon and Mayo, and the fellows driving the trucks prayed for rain all the way up—and I am putting it very charitably at that. That would be about the best way to describe it. That stuff was foisted on the people of Dublin as turf. It was up in the Park and you could have a mud-bath with it any day in the week. Of course, there is bound to be antagonism in the minds of the people of Dublin, after going through years of hardship, trying to burn that kind of stuff. It is no harm for those people to have their fingers burned— the people who brought up that turf. It is no harm that they are now left sitting quiet for a while. They will not get away with that racket again, ever.
I am talking about the use of turf in rural areas and towns throughout the country. I do not want to see this machine-won turf coming up from the West of Ireland. There is no necessity for that, because there is a sufficient market available in the West of Ireland and elsewhere to absorb all the turf that can be produced. There is no necessity for sending turf across the Shannon up here to Dublin; I think that would be a waste of time.
There are one or two matters I wish to refer to. Deputy O'Reilly mentioned the tourists and he said he was glad that everybody was keen on the tourist trade. Of course, everybody believes that the tourist trade is one of the most important means of earning dollars that we have. I think that is a matter that should not be dragged back and forth across the House in an effort to score Party points.
Suggestions have been made that the Clann na Poblachta Party were against the tourist industry. I do not think that that allegation need even be answered. It is a typical twist on the part of our political opponents across the floor. The main thing, so far as Fianna Fáil is concerned, is that we are against Fianna Fáil. I think we should examine the problem of the tourist industry, especially of American tourists, and that we should be very careful of certain aspects. I think it would be a wrong thing to set up in this country a tinsel imitation of the American way of life in regard to our hotels. We have all met plenty of American people and it must be admitted that our experience of them has been that they come to see Ireland as it is, without wishing to see a reproduction of the American way of life here in Ireland. They want first of all clean, good food; clean rooms, plenty of hot and cold water — in other words, bathroom accommodation. If they are provided with decent accommodation, the people from America will be satisfied. I know that when they go down the country, they want to see an Irish dance or a ceilidhe or go to a local fair. They want to see the Irish people as they really are and they do not want this false set-up that might come about here if we were to follow up the American idea in regard to hotels and so forth. I think that the Minister will have to be very careful in that respect. I would suggest that, even if it should result in some criticism of his policy in regard to the tourist industry, he should set up a committee composed of members of all Parties to examine this question. Let them get down to brass tacks so that we shall be able to speak with one voice, in regard to the tourist industry at any rate.
With regard to the sugar industry mentioned by Deputy Corry and Deputy Rooney, I should like to say one or two words with reference to the beet factory in Tuam. It is a tragedy that we have to import sugar from places such as Formosa. The one factory that I know that has not been pulling its weight is Tuam. I know that in my own constituency in Roscommon the area under beet went down from 500 acres to about 40 acres. In Mayo it went down from 3,000 acres in one year to about 300 acres and in Galway it went down from about 15,000 acres to about 6,000 acres. I think we should examine, first of all, the reasons for that reduction in acreage. I am not an expert on sugar or beet, but some people who are in close touch with that industry attended a meeting in Tuam recently. We had a discussion of the reasons why the beet industry was failing in the Tuam area and various suggestions were put forward there. I found, according to some of the views of the individuals connected with the Sugar Company, that they just did not give a damn whether or not the factory was left in Tuam. As a matter of fact, I am inclined to believe that they were more than anxious to have the factory removed out of Tuam to some other part of the country. That is an attitude which gives very slight encouragement to the farmers in that area. They were more or less told by certain individuals at that meeting that they were a different race of people from that of the rest of the people of Ireland. They were told that the farmers in Tipperary and in West Cork were decent farmers, the inference being that the farmer west of the Shannon did not count at all, that he was a lazy individual and that little or nothing could be expected from him. I thought that was a slur on the people of the West of Ireland and I made my views clear at that particular convention.
I do say with regard to the West of Ireland that there is a special problem in connection with beet, due to the size of the holdings there. There are many small holdings and it is not as easy to harvest beet as in the South and Midlands, where the acreage is much bigger. Machinery is the only solution that I can see for these harvesting problems and such machinery should be made available, if at all possible, on a co-operative basis. I do not see why the Sugar Company should not make machinery available for the use of the farmers there, and I am sure that the acreage in the West could be stepped up, in fact doubled, if that were done. The production of beet entails a good deal of hard work for those engaged in it, and the farmer who finds that he will make more out of a cash crop, such as potatoes or oats, is inclined to go in for these instead. Of course that is a wrong outlook and it is one which should be discouraged as much as possible by means of lectures. I think that the Young Farmers' clubs down the country would be a great help in getting rid of the idea that beet should be looked upon as a cash crop. I am afraid it is being looked upon in the West as a cash crop.
At this meeting held in Tuam a political bias was definitely introduced and an attempt made to give a political slant to it. I think that is deplorable. Efforts were made by a certain Deputy to quote the Dáil debates, at this meeting comprising representatives of all Parties, to show that so-and-so said that the factory should not be in Tuam and that he wanted it transferred to Portarlington or elsewhere. In other words, this individual tried to give the people in that locality the impression that because a Deputy from the Midlands spoke in favour of removing the factory to the Midlands the Government were in full agreement. That was the idea behind the conduct of this particular individual. I want to take this opportunity of saying that, if people are going to persist in introducing a political slant into the problem of beet production in the West of Ireland, they will ruin the whole thing.
Mention has been made here in some detail of the question of industrial development in rural areas. I have in mind a number of towns in my own constituency and I would say that ours is about the only county in Ireland that has no industry. In County Roscommon there is not a single industry of importance. That is why I feel very annoyed at times. I have made several attempts to get people of all political shades to sink their political feelings in the interests of these towns and surrounding localities and I must say I got very little response in some of these towns. I think the livelihood of the young people in these towns and the surrounding areas should not be left to chance. It should not be left to the whims of the few people who have money to invest and are not prepared to invest it here. It is the duty of the Government to step in and start industries in the rural areas. If they do not do that I see no hope of solving the problems of unemployment and emigration in the West of Ireland.
I would ask the Minister to insist on decentralisation of industry. A number of industries were established throughout the length and breadth of the country under the auspices of his predecessor. We all know that a problem has arisen in relation to Dublin City. Dublin City has become top-heavy from the population point of view, and that in turn has created problems of housing and transport. These would not arise if industry was decentralised. The Minister should insist in future on decentralisation. It has been done very successfully in the Six Counties. Driving through the heart of the country there one comes across factories, some large and some small, situated in very isolated areas. Industrialists here should be encouraged to establish factories in the rural areas and any further expansion in industry should be discouraged in the City of Dublin. I think it is agreed that new industries should be concentrated where there are large populations, particularly in the congested areas. These areas since the Minister and his colleagues took office have got a very raw deal. One of their main industries has been taken away from them.
To my amazement, whatever little part of the turf industry was left in County Mayo has been completely wiped out, even from limited production under the semi-automatic schemes. I would like to know why that is so. We have a problem of unemployment and emigration in the West of Ireland. Time and again it has been stated that the congested areas should get preferential treatment. One would have thought that the present Government would have continued the one industry that was practically on the people's doorstep in an effort to solve the problem of unemployment and emigration. The hand-won turf industry has been completely wiped out, so has even limited production under the semi-automatic schemes. The latter scheme has started in other counties, but we find that the largest county of all has been omitted. I do not know how the Minister can justify that. In the first year the Minister was in office 5,000 people emigrated from County Mayo.
Where did the Deputy get that figure?
The figures are in the reports of this House and the Minister can look them up.
Would the Deputy be kind enough to give me the reference?
The Minister knows quite well that the figure I have given was supplied by his own Department and appears on the records of this House in reply to a question by Deputy Derrig. It is significant to note that prior to the Minister's advent to office there were approximately 5,000 people employed, directly and indirectly, by Mayo County Council on the production of turf. Under the county council's scheme, £200,000 was coming in to County Mayo and that figure does not take into account at all the results of private enterprise. All that has gone. I want to know why the semi-automatic scheme in operation in other counties does not apply to County Mayo.
Because the Mayo people would not burn the turf that was produced.
Is it because the Fine Gael Party have no representation in County Mayo?
The Deputy asked a question. Will he allow me to answer it?
The Minister will have plenty of time to answer questions later on. I would invite the Minister to County Mayo to make his excuses down there. The unfortunate people who are starving as a result of the Minister's policy will give him a warm reception.
Surely they do not eat turf down there.
They do not even burn it.
Why is that scheme being continued in other counties but not in County Mayo? We have some of the finest bogs in Ireland in Mayo. Erris bog was surveyed by Bord na Móna with the intention of starting a turf-burning station there. If my information is correct, that station would have absorbed approximately 150,000 tons per year. The experts considered that bog suitable for that purpose. Why was that scheme not proceeded with?
Which scheme?
The scheme for the erection of a turf-burning station in Erris bog. That bog was surveyed. I challenge the Minister to give us the details.
There was no such scheme.
I challenge the Minister to give us the report of the Bord na Móna experts who examined that particular bog.
There was no such scheme at any time.
It was examined for the purpose of establishing a turf-burning station there.
The purpose of this, of course, is to gull the Mayo people through the local papers.
That is not the purpose. Deputy Browne, the Minister's own colleague, was very loquacious about this turf-burning station at Erris. Why has Mayo been left in the lurch? Why have all the schemes been closed down? There is a high incidence of unemployment in that county. It is quite obvious that preference has been given to those areas in which Fine Gael has a high representation. It is good enough for the people of Mayo that they are compelled to emigrate. They have swallowed for long enough the Minister's official stool-pigeon, the Commission on Emigration. They were going to do something to stop emigration. A favourite expression of the Minister's colleagues used to be that they were going to stop "this running sore of emigration". It has now become a gangrenous mass since the Minister's colleagues took over. There never has been more emigration from the West, since the time of the famine, for the past two years. They are going out at the rate of 5,000 a year and they are not coming back. We hear nothing now about emigration. As a matter of fact, there is a rumour that the Commission on Emigration, itself has emigrated.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce is not responsible for the Commission on Emigration.
The lack of industry in the West, particularly in regard to turf, is responsible for the large emigration figures at present. I do not suppose that there is now any use in appealing to the Minister, in view of his callous attitude towards turf production in County Mayo, to reopen the schemes there. Appeals have been made by all Parties and by his own colleagues publicly in County Mayo to have these schemes continued. Evidently the Minister has made up his mind and, no matter what the position in the West may be, he is not prepared to alter his attitude, and evidently he intends eventually to close down for all time the production of the one commodity the people can produce and produce cheaply and well in County Mayo, the production of turf. It is a very serious matter for the people there. They will remember the Minister's reign for long and many a year, and they will remember the Minister as the man who deprived them of the greatest industry the West has ever seen.
In connection with tourism, about which there was so much talk some years ago, I am glad to see that we all seem to be converted to the idea of encouraging tourists to come here. It is well that we no longer hear in this House, as we heard over a number of years from these benches from the Deputies who are now sitting on the opposite side of the House, about the tourists who are coming in and taking the bit out of the mouths of the Irish people and eating up everything we have here. It is now the accepted policy by everybody in this House that they should be encouraged to come here, and, at all events, that is an advance.
There is a small matter in connection with tourism which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. I was informed a few weeks ago of two American tourists who came to this country on the Queen Mary and who had their luggage forwarded from Southampton to this country. It took approximately between three and four weeks to have the luggage released here. It may be all right for these people — they were staying longer than that — but in the case of ordinary tourists from America who would have only a short time in this country it would be an extraordinary thing if they were not able to get their luggage cleared in a much shorter time.
Would the Deputy give particulars of that case?
I shall give the particulars. I do not want to mention the names of these people here.
I shall be glad to have the particulars so as to have the matter cleared up.
I think it is particularly important that people coming to this country from the United States who would have what we would call a normal holiday — approximately ten days or two weeks — would not find themselves in the position that they could not get their luggage cleared almost until they would be going back.
I have heard some people talking here about Aer Lingus and of how it is doing now. I do not know whether it was Deputy Rooney, or some other Deputy, who stated that if we still had the Constellation aircraft the country and the particular company involved would be robbed. I wonder if Deputies even now realise the fatal mistake of the present Government in stopping the Constellation flights to the United States? Should the position not be clear and apparent to everybody in this country? Now that the Americans are threatening to by-pass Shannon, what would our position be if we had our own air line operating to the United States? We are now in the position that we have no bargaining power with these people. They can make their demands now.
There is nothing about Constellations in this Estimate nor has there been for the past two years.
There was an awful lot of talk about Constellations a couple of years ago.
Exactly.
The Minister does not want to hear about them now because he sees how fatal was the policy of stopping the Constellation flights to the United States.
On a point of order. I do not mind if the Chair gives this irresponsible Deputy, who does not seem to care what he says, a certain liberty, but surely his remarks ought to have some relevancy to the Estimate? I shall talk about Constellations, if the Chair will allow me to do so, when I am replying, but it is not in order.
Is the Minister dictating to the Chair?
I am speaking on a point of order.
The Minister is speaking on a point of order and he is entitled to do so. If there is nothing about Constellations in this Estimate I am afraid I cannot allow the Deputy to continue talking on the matter.
This irresponsible Minister, who seems to shirk responsibility any time it is put on him, can ill-afford to adopt that attitude towards me in this House.
I shall always be glad to shirk away from the Deputy — always — as far as I possibly can.
The Minister is, I hope, going to take responsibility or admit responsibility, at least, for Córas Iompair Éireann. We heard a long speech from Deputy Larkin to-day which was full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. He apologised, in effect, for the participation of the Labour Party in the Coalition Government. However, if Deputy Larkin tried to put over one thing he tried to put over the fact that he is staking his claim, as far as the workers are concerned, for an increase in wages. One of the main bodies concerned and of which it is freely rumoured that we shall be faced with a strike any day by the workers in it is Córas Iompair Éireann. The Minister is responsible. He is, in effect, the employer of Córas Iompair Éireann. He is the man who will be responsible to this House and to the country for anything that may occur there.
No.
I make the Minister a present of the difference that he has a new board there which he himself very carefully selected. He went to the trouble of getting one of the best Fine Gael supporters in County Mayo — Mr. Murphy, of Ballina — and planking him on that board. I am quite aware of that. But the Minister must also be aware of the question which everybody in the country is asking at the moment and that is, what is going to be the position if the Córas Iompair Éireann workers suddenly decide to paralyse the country by a transport strike? The Minister has given no information so far. He has sat dumb, as far as the Government's policy in that matter is concerned. The wage agreements have been terminated.
They have not.
Notice has been served by these people that they are going to be terminated. We know quite well what that signifies. It means that the workers are dissatisfied and, to judge by the case made by Deputy Larkin to-day, it is very obvious that they are dissatisfied because of an increase in the cost of living which, the Minister and his colleagues promised to reduce. They are justifying their claim for increased wages because of the increase in the cost of living.
It is true that the cost of living has increased, irrespective of how the official index figure may cloak the increase. The housewife knows that the cost of all household goods has gone up in price. Some Deputy mentioned to-day that we no longer have a black market in this country. Since the advent of this Government and of the Minister we have had a Government black market in tea, sugar, butter, flour and bread, so that for the first time a black market has become legitimate Government policy. If you have money you can buy what you want at the Government's price. That does not get over the fact that in the lower wage groups people are not able to afford to pay the Government black market prices. Consequently they have to stint themselves and their families in the purchase of essential commodities.
We have unrest in industry. The unions are threatening to terminate wage agreements. They are demanding a rise in their wages following on a rise in the cost of living. The most important group in that respect is the Córas Iompair Éireann group, because it is one that affects practically everyone in the country — the farmer, the shopkeeper, the business-man and the industrialist. The Minister is the man who has responsibility in regard to that. We heard Deputy Larkin make a case for these workers to-day. The Minister has been very careful not to give any indication of Government policy on this question or of what he intends to do. Would it not be much better for the Minister and the Government to face up to the issue now and give a lead to the country and the public as to what the position is going to be, so far as these workers are concerned, than have the transport system of the country dislocated with all the hardship which that would inflict on the general public?
What about 1947?
If these men go on strike, what is going to happen? If the Minister refuses to accept the responsibility which is his, it will be much more difficult to settle the matter. If it is not settled, the community will suffer. I am warning the Minister that this unrest in the Labour movement and amongst the unions, and particularly amongst the workers concerned, is not going to be fixed as a recent strike was fixed, by pensioning off a couple of men. You cannot pension off all the people employed by Córas Iompair Éireann.
Will the Deputy tell me what I should do?
The Minister is being paid over £2,000 a year by this State for the benefit of his wonderful brain.
I am badly paid at that.
The Minister should exercise his brain by telling the House and the country what the Government policy is going to be so far as those people are concerned — that is if they are driven, due to the high cost of living, to go out on strike and so dislocate industry and business all over the State. I think the Minister, when replying, should take the opportunity of giving some indication of Government policy so far as those people are concerned, and so ease the state of tension and unrest that prevails amongst the workers.
Would the Deputy like me to revive the Fianna Fáil Bill of 1947 to deal with it?
If the Minister had continued more of the Fianna Fáil schemes this country would not be in the state of unrest it is in to-day.
That is one of the Fianna Fáil schemes that I am not going to continue. I will tell you more about it.
The Minister may try to sell that to me. He will not succeed. I know he is an expert salesman, but he is not selling that to me. I know him too well.
I hope the Minister will be careful about his would be purchasers.
The Minister acted in some very great sales in his time, including the sale of the Irish Labour Party in 1931.
The Deputy is certainly asking for it.
There is a strong rumour that the Electricity Supply Board are going to increase their charges for electricity. I hope the rumour is untrue, because any such increase would stall the spread of rural electrification. As regards the latter, the Electricity Supply Board charges are too high as it is. I think that, instead of an increase, we should be expecting a reduction in Electricity Supply Board charges. Apart from their stations, which are powered by water, they have. I understand, some coal-burning stations. I presume they import coal, just as the Dublin Gas Company does, for their coal-burning stations. In the case of the gas company, it has given two reductions in the price of gas within the last year or 18 months.
Three.
I thought I heard the Deputy say that the price of everything had gone up.
I presume that the Electricity Supply Board get their imported coal at the same price as the gas company. In view of that, it seems strange that their charges should be so high. I do not think the country would tolerate any increase in Electricity Supply Board charges. If they were to do that, it would frighten off hundreds of small farmers who would like to avail of the rural electrification scheme. I know that the small farmers in the part of the country I come from would not consider it economic to use electricity if the charges were increased. The Electricity Supply Board has a monopoly of the whole country, and instead of increasing it should be able to reduce the charges for its product. The demand for electricity is increasing from day to day and from year to year, and so the board should be able to reduce its charges.
There is another branch of industry that I want to refer to. The Minister, I imagine, will disclaim responsibility, but I think we have here an opportunity of developing various industries through the cattle trade, but that opportunity has been sadly missed by the Minister and his colleagues. When the Minister and the Government took over two years ago he had the opportunity — it is possibly the only opportunity this country will ever get in this matter — of breaking the Birkenhead interests. This country is near enough to Britain to process the cattle here and send the beef across. That has been done by other countries which are at far greater distances from Britain. When the people on the other side were crying out for our product the Minister had a chance then — he may never get it again — of having the cattle processed here and of sending the beef to England. That would be better for the country than sending the cattle out on the hoof.
The same as Fianna Fáil processed the calves.
The Minister's colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, wants to send pigs out on the hoof. It is rather significant that, due to the policy of the Minister's colleague, one of the oldest bacon factories in this country has been put up for sale during the past week. There will be more for sale if that policy is allowed to continue. I want to suggest to the Minister that the question of the processing of cattle in this country has never been fully gone into. We are near enough to the market at the other side to process our cattle. If that were done we all know how it would benefit both industry and employment. If our policy is to send out cattle on the hoof, and close down Irish industry, I presume the Minister is going to stand over that.
I want to protest against the reduction of £300,000 in so far as that £300,000 went for the turf industry. I see there is no hope now for the West of Ireland except to get rid of the Minister and his colleagues, because until the people do that there is no future except the emigrant ship. The Minister has been keeping emigration going, as an industry, at its peak since he took office as Minister for Industry and Commerce.
I hope the Deputy will do me the favour of remaining here while I am speaking.
I have had to listen to worse than the Minister.
I hope my humble contribution will not be tainted with any of the acrimony which habitually seems to emanate from certain quarters of this House in relation to other political Parties who disagree with the sentiments of the speaker who indulged in these unnecessary and futile disruptive comments on something on which he should be constructive. To the ordinary man it is quite immaterial whether one is dealing with a Vote which came from the last Administration or the present one. In essence the result is the same. I think it is not untrue to state that no matter what Party or combination of Parties may be in power it is not the Minister who counts, but the Department, which eventually controls the Minister.
This House and this country must give credit to Deputy Lemass for the work which he did during the last emergency. It would be unjust not to pay him the tribute which he deserves and to appreciate the undertakings which he took on his shoulders. I remember at the beginning of the emergency reading a speech of his in this House when he said practically what he said the other day, that he had been let down in regard to tea supplies. Somewhat later, in midsummer, he broadcast from Radio Éireann and uttered sentiments which certainly brought hope to many people when he stated that he hoped — in fact, he would ensure — that in future if this country ever found itself in an emergency it would not depend on any other country for its fuel supplies. I wonder whether the Department of Industry and Commerce is encouraging sufficiently the project of which Deputy Lemass then spoke and is utilising our resources for the purpose of ensuring that, even if a European conflict does break out again, we shall not have to depend on another country for our fuel resources. I rather think they have forgotten that. If we look at the construction of houses at the present day we find that these buildings are being constructed with arrangements for heating by coal. It is quite obvious that we as a country could not supply our people with coal, and it does seem rather an oversight that in the construction of modern houses our architects do not concern themselves with designing ones which will give our people an opportunity to use the fuel which God has given us in abundance.
During the last emergency the Department had a team of inspectors whose duty it was to supervise the racketeering of unprincipled traders. Now many people believe that the Department has too little control of profiteering by equally disreputable sections of certain distributive industrial trades. The general public is very much concerned with the fact that, however the Department may juggle with figures, the cost of the essentials of life is increasing. It is necessary to be quite blunt in stating certain facts which should be faced by the Department. I do not know whether the Department has any supervision over the profits and the racketeering which has been and is taking place in certain circles of industrial activity. Can any one justify, for instance, the present cost of clothes? A decent suit costs from 16 to 20 guineas. I personally believe that no suit produced in this country could cost that, allowing for a reasonable profit to the producer. True, an inferior type of suit is available to the ordinary individual, but it is of such an inferior quality that instead of being a saving, it is an incubus to him. I am perfectly satisfied that the Department has not been sufficiently critical of this tendency towards a rise in price not only in the region of clothes but in other commodities which affect the ordinary man. Last week, for instance, the price of bacon went up by 2d. a lb; a few days later, without any reason, it went up another 3d. The price of a chop is 2/-; vegetables which are sold in the market for 3d. a head are sold the same afternoon for 9d. a head. As for timber, it does not matter where you buy it, whether in the most up-to-date shops in Dublin or in the back lanes of Dún Laoghaire, the cost is the same. Surely the reason is the existence of a ring, and I suggest it is the Minister's duty to break down these forces which operate so severely against the ordinary person and to take immediate steps to ensure that the ordinary man will get a break.
It is very easy for the Minister to say that the cost of living has not risen. It has in these commodities which are the essentials of life. I believe that there is a likelihood that paper will now be increased in price — I do not know whether it has increased or not in the last few days — but in one thing after another, one day after another, one finds an increase in the cost of the ordinary things that matter to the ordinary people. I think it is only right that the Minister should be told bluntly that if he or his successor or anybody who occupies his position fails in his duty sooner or later — and sooner if necessary — the people will assert their opinions in such a way as will wipe out those who fail to honour the trust committed to them.
In addition to the burden of this continued and continuous rise in the graph of prices, the ordinary man is faced with the problem of how to live. Very few people can buy bacon; very few can buy meat; very few can buy vegetables every day in the week, and I would like to know how long this suffering public is to wait for deliverance from the forces which are depriving it of its normal natural rights. There is no suggestion that, because the price of bacon has gone up by 4d. a lb. in one week, rates of wages have increased, and why not? I am afraid that, while we all dread the sound of the word "inflation", there are signs that inflation is attempting to assert itself. I suggest that the Minister should at once take steps to mollify the very serious grievances from which the people suffer.
The day before yesterday I got 50 odd letters asking me what I was going to do about the addition to the price of bacon. I cannot do very much but I do assure the Minister and anyone else that if I thought for a moment that the Department was neglecting its duty to the public or to the people whom I represent I would not hesitate as to what I would do in recording my vote in this chamber.
Another matter which concerns my constituency is the transport system run by Córas Iompair Éireann. While the Minister may have no direct control over the management of Córas Iompair Éireann, he has undertaken — and he got support in this House because he has undertaken — that, by the remodelling of that company, the public would be supplied with services which would meet their requirements. I do not know how far the Minister's responsibility lay in that respect, but if he did guarantee to this House that he would supply an organisation which would meet the demands of the people then he should honour his bond.
The Deputy appreciates of course that it is only to-day that the undertaking comes under State control?
I did not know that, to be quite candid, but the origin of the undertaking surely took place in the Minister's Department.
Quite true.
We got some kind of guarantee that the services would be so organised as to meet the requirements of the people.
I think they have been very substantially improved.
If they have been improved I would like to know where. A very plausible gentleman came out to Dún Laoghaire a fortnight ago to discuss this very question with the traders of Dún Laoghaire, who rely on the Minister to secure to them the rights to which they are entitled. It was in relation to some traffic order, and this plausible gentleman, who was characterised by his attempts at puerile satire, calmly told the traders that his company was now carrying many more passengers than were carried by the Dublin Tramways Company. He wanted to supply not only a three-minute but a two-minute service to Dalkey. I have never seen a three-minute service to Dalkey and certainly have never seen a two-minute service. I have rarely seen a ten-minute service. Yesterday, at five minutes to one, I joined a queue for a bus in Dún Laoghaire. People in the queue told me they had been waiting ten minutes and the bus arrived at seven minutes past one. I hope the Minister will now ensure that the public, people who have to rely on transport of that kind, will be secured and that the service which this gentleman said he wanted will be given. If not, he or the Minister or somebody else is making fools of the people of Dún Laoghaire.
I certainly am not trying to make fools of the people of Dún Laoghaire. In the existing circumstances, the people of Dún Laoghaire and of that side of the city have a better transport service than any other part of the State. I am not saying that it is as good as they should have, but it certainly is a better service than that which other parts of the State have.
It is no argument, I know, to argue from the particular to the general, but I use the buses entirely and can say without any hesitation whatever that, taking it all round, I have never seen a bus service of under 12 or 15 minutes. Possibly I may be one of the unfortunate ones, but I am giving the House my experience and I am sure the House will believe me.
Another matter referred to by Deputy Larkin was the matter of Electricity Supply Board charges. Listening to Deputy Larkin's speech, I felt rather downcast because he seemed to infer that, because the Electricity Supply Board had decided on a certain policy, that policy must prevail. He instanced the case of workers' houses in close proximity, one section of them being on the city side and another section on the county side, which were assessed for different rates, those on the city side being charged 6/- and those on the county side, 13/-. Why is that? Is the worker not to have the privileges which the House intended to give when the Electricity Supply Board was set up to secure for all the people of Ireland a plentiful supply of light and heat at reasonable prices?
Deputy Larkin also referred to conditions which prevail in Dalkey in respect of houses in the same block which have different valuations, by reason of which the Electricity Supply Board charges in one case 6/- and 13/- where the valuations are higher. In all equity, it is not because the valuations of the houses are higher that the prices must be raised. It does not follow that because I have £1,000 a year, I must be charged more than the person with £200 a year, and yet, in respect of people living in the same conditions, faced with the same circumstances and provided with the same supplies, for no other reason than that the valuation was increased after the tenant went in, the Electricity Supply Board more than doubles the price. Surely the Minister must protect these people. If he is not going to do so, will he say so, because, if he is not, I will not support him or his Government, or any Government which fails in its duty to the ordinary man in the street.
Deputy Kissane referred yesterday to harbour development, and he was particularly interested in the harbour at Fenit in Kerry. I am also interested in that harbour and in all harbours, but I am particularly interested in the harbour which lies at my own doorstep in Dún Laoghaire, a harbour which is completely neglected and which might be utilised by the Department for purposes which would add to the national income. It seems disgraceful that this magnificent harbour should be left useless, doing nothing but receiving a few letters in the morning and a few visitors from England, when it could be utilised tomorrow for purposes which would bring a large increase in national revenue. When something goes wrong in the harbour, such as a few stones becoming loose, and when people interested ask their representatives in the Dáil to try to get these broken sections repaired, they have to go from one Department to another and back to the corporation, and eventually the matter becomes nobody's business. Surely there ought to be some co-ordination between Government Departments whereby valuable assets such as Dún Laoghaire harbour will be preserved.
I think it was Deputy Larkin also who referred to the inspection of factories. I do not know whether there is any reason to think that these factories, and especially factories in which workers are engaged in dangerous occupations, are not properly inspected. I have in mind a particular factory where, to my own knowledge, a certain number of young people, after a few years, got into ill-health, developed consumption and died. I have also a case in mind, in that particular factory, of a man on whom I had to hold an inquest. The inspection of factories is not what it used to be. Could I at any time, suggest as a preventative to official lack of supervision, that any death which occurred as a result of this lack of supervision should be attributed to the Minister?
As I said at the beginning, it seems to be a matter of indifference what Minister controls this Department. The Department is at the mercy of the permanent officials. It was a well-known fact that the Secretary of the Department at one time could not be seen by anybody for months ahead. I do not know whether that prevails now or not but I am afraid there is a tendency amongst all Governments that, after experiencing the sweets of power, Ministers are inclined to segregate themselves behind glass cases and to look upon themselves as some form of superior being.
That is not true, certainly, of the present Government, and I think the Deputy knows that. So far as some of us are concerned, we are accessible at all times of the day and night. I think it is very unfair to say that.
I did not say that it now existed, but I am cognisant that there is a danger that it might exist. If I can in any way correct any misconception which might have arisen from my words, I would say this, that I have never received such consideration from anyone as I have from the Ministers who comprise the present Government but I do not think the Minister must conclude from that that I do not see dangers. I do.
Perhaps the Deputy would allow me for a moment. I am quite sure the Deputy does not want to be unfair. I accept that fully and, in so far as I am personally concerned, I can speak in the House for myself and put my point to the Deputy. The Deputy did make a reflection on the head of my Department, who is not in a position to answer for himself, and may I suggest to the Deputy that it is hardly fair to do that in the circumstances?
I did not catch the last part of the Minister's statement.
I made a point in connection with the head of the Department of Industry and Commerce. Deputy Dr. Brennan did make a reflection on that officer. That officer is not in a position to defend himself or to answer that in the House in the same way as I can. From what I know of Deputy Dr. Brennan, I do not for a moment believe that he would wish to be unfair or unjust to anybody and, on reflection, perhaps the Deputy would consider that he was not entirely fair.
I hope that anything I said was not a reflection. I did not intend it to be a reflection. What I did say was this — that in certain Government Departments Ministers and the officials sometimes hide themselves behind glass cases and consider themselves to be some superior type of human being. That is what I said.
I was not referring to that. The Deputy did make a specific reference by name to the Secretary of the Department of Industry and Commerce.
By name?
When I say "by name" I mean the Deputy said "the Secretary of the Department".
I say "officials", then.
The Deputy also understands that the Minister is responsible here for all the administration of his Department and it is towards the Minister that all criticism should be directed.
Yes. If by any chance any word of mine were a reflection on anybody, I wish unreservedly to express my regrets but, at the same time, I cannot divest myself of the fears which I have and in that respect I was relying on the past experience of others. The Minister, I hope, will take what I have said as being what I think. I am going to say what I have to say, either in public or in private.
I think that the matters to which I have referred deserve serious consideration. They certainly do, from the viewpoint of the ordinary man in the street, the ordinary worker, who has to raise a family in difficult circumstances. I am not unmindful of the wonderful strides which the Minister's Department and other Departments are making. I am not dwelling on that at all because I think that has been already admitted. I do hope that the Minister will take into consideration the difficulties under which people live and that he will take steps, such as were taken during the war, to secure that the public will not be saddled with these enormous prices which, as far as can be judged, are unjustified and unjustifiable.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-day.