Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Jun 1950

Vol. 121 No. 10

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.—(Deputy Lemass).

Mr. Blaney

In addition to the two arguments put forward by the Minister in his reasons why he cannot have rural electrification extended to County Donegal, two other points were raised at that time. We were given to understand that as Donegal would not be an economic area, it would not be a business proposition for the Electricity Supply Board to extend the scheme to the county. It is strange that, in this country, there are, I think, 61 recognised private plants and of these 61 private plants, 25 are located in County Donegal. Surely that in itself is an indication that the demands for electricity in the county are fairly substantial and, taking these figures for what they are worth, it would seem as if the demand is greater there than in most other places. As well as that, we are told that this scheme would cost the Exchequer too much despite the fact that at the moment the scheme is being extended in other counties—to name but one, in County Galway, where the capital estimated cost per dwelling on pre-war costings amounted to £44 per dwelling and the estimated capital cost per dwelling for County Donegal is much less than that, £38.7. How can the Minister reconcile these two figures? How can he justify the statement that this county scheme for Donegal would cost too much when, in fact, the scheme is being extended in Galway County, where the capital cost is quite a bit higher? The extension of the rural electrification scheme to any county and particularly to the counties where we have congestion and lack of employment, where we have got very little industry of any kind, would be of great assistance to the county involved in regard to the giving of employment by the expansion and decentralisation of industry. It is difficult to understand and impossible to implement the promise of the decentralisation of industry when it is considered that the power costs in a county where electricity is not available are very much greater than they are in some of the more fortunate counties. You cannot possibly expect industrialists or moneyed people to invest their capital in industries in counties such as County Donegal where power at an economic cost is not available. Therefore, from every point of view, there are good arguments in favour of the extension of the scheme to County Donegal. In the first place, the only benefit, seemingly, that we are going to get from this scheme at the moment is that we have the privilege of being in the position that our county stands to lose, in addition to what we are contributing to the normal running of the scheme, about £1,500 annually as a result of the fact that the property and lands of the Electricity Supply Board are, under the Act, not subject to taxation or local rates. I hope the Minister, in his reply, will indicate definitely the reasons why this scheme is not being extended to County Donegal.

Will he tell us that it is because it is costing too much or, as he told us earlier, that it is because he is precluded by this House from voting sufficient money, a statement which I questioned at the time and which I now challenge again, or will he tell us that the cost per dwelling is too great, or again will he tell us, as he did a fortnight ago, that there is not sufficient current for the county? He must eventually get around to standing on one leg or the other. He has succeeded during the last four months in standing at one time on the left foot and then on the right. Sometimes one scarcely knew whether he was standing on any foot at all. I suggest that he is standing on a very weak structure in the arguments he has put forward up to this in denying rural electrification in the County Donegal. That was a right which was given under the 1945 Act to every county in the State. That was indicated by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass, when introducing the Bill, that the scheme was for every part of the country. At no time did he say that there would be economic or uneconomic areas brought into the question. He gave all and sundry to understand that the scheme was to be taken as one national unit. It was not a case of giving it to areas where it would prove profitable and of curtailing it in areas where it would not. At no time has a survey been carried out in the County Donegal to indicate that from the point of view of the consumption of current in the county, the scheme would be uneconomic. Since no survey has been carried out no one can say whether or not it would be economic.

An industry in our county which could be well developed during the years ahead is the tourist industry. It means a great deal to our county. The granting of an extension of rural electrification to the county would help that industry immensely. It would mean that better facilities could be provided in our hotels and in that way it would be of great assistance. Apart from that aspect of the question, there is one disturbing feature in connection with the tourist business at the moment. The Irish Tourist Association, since its foundation, has been regarded as the official advertiser of this country abroad for the purpose of bringing tourists here this year. We were given to understand last week that the grant made in former years to the association by the Irish Tourist Board has now been discontinued. It was drastically reduced last year when a comparison is made with the amount that was paid during the years when Fianna Fáil was in office. Even at the figure of about £5,000 last year, that, at least, was a recognition by the Government and the Department that the Tourist Association was doing a good job. I think everyone would agree with that, and that there is ample work in the future for this body to do.

Despite the fact that the present Minister for Industry and Commerce and other members of the Cabinet have from time to time in this House and elsewhere lauded the tourist industry and the great benefit it was to the country as well as the amount of dollars we might earn through it, it would appear that all their talk was empty talk, and that, in fact, they are pursuing the ideas which they had about this industry when Fianna Fáil was putting the tourist industry on its feet. At that time they opposed any move that would give us an increased influx of visitors. Despite all their talk, that this great industry means so much to us, they will not, as a Government or a Department, do anything to help the industry if they can avoid it. I would appeal to the Minister to use his office to see that not only last year's grant but that an increased grant over last year should be paid to the Tourist Association. They are the people who will give us publicity abroad, and it is only by that means that we can attract more visitors. If we do not have publicity we cannot expect any increase in the number of visitors. Indeed, we may very well have a decrease in the number of American visitors. It would be also well worth while increasing the grant from the point of view of the dollar position.

There is another question that I want to refer to briefly and that is the question of shops on the Border. Under an emergency powers Order, shops were not allowed to open and carry on business within a three mile limit of the Border. That Order was very much needed during the emergency. Several years have passed now since the end of the war. The question of supplies is not of such grave importance as it was during the war years. Surely, the time has come when the Order prohibiting the opening of shops within the three mile limit should be revoked. My principal grievance in connection with the Order is that, if the Order has to be there, then there should be some kind of uniformity in the granting of permits by the Minister. There were a number of cases which I had to take up with the Department during the past year or so. On each occasion the application was turned down in cases which were really deserving ones. The applicants were people who were above board in every way. They never had any connection with smuggling and there was no reason to believe that if granted a permit within the three mile limit, they would carry on any illegal traffic. I took it that was a general ruling by the Minister in these particular cases and that it applied all round until I found that very different circumstances existed in regard to other parts and to other applicants.

I shall refer to a few cases in particular. I have in mind one particular case of an ex-Army man who gave full service during the emergency and who wanted to start a business with his gratuity. There was nothing whatever against that man and no reason why he should not be allowed to open a shop. Yet he was refused. About the same time and in the same area another shop was opened and a permit was granted to a person who I have since learned was a member of the "B" Specials, from the Six Counties. He has been granted a permit to operate a shop in County Donegal within a quarter of a mile of the Border.

Another most extraordinary case I have come across is that at the Moy Bridge border there are two shops for which permits have been granted by the Department within the last 12 to 18 months.

An Ceann Comhairle

Might I remind the Deputy that there will be only 20 minutes left for two other speakers, in case they get in? I am calling on the Minister at 4.40. I do not want to control the length of any speech but I just want to remind the Deputy, if he wishes to let his colleagues speak.

Mr. Blaney

I shall deal with this particular case at any rate. There were many other things that I wished to refer to but, for the convenience of someone or other, we have to curtail the debate, despite the fact that the members supporting the Government did not think fit to do so before lunch. At the same time, I will try to be as brief as possible in order to give other Deputies an opportunity of speaking in the remaining 20 minutes. In the case I referred to, on the Monaghan side of the Twenty-Six County Border post, there is a shop that has had a permit for the last 18 months while other people were refused permits because they were regarded as being within the three-mile distance. They were in fact two and three-quarter miles from the Border but the technicality of the three mile limit was raised to their disadvantage. After you have checked in at the customs post and are proceeding towards the Six Counties Border post, there is a shop that has a permit granted by the Department. That is situated between the two posts and is in fact in no man's land. It is impossible for customs officers in the Twenty-Six County customs post to exercise any supervision over that shop because, as there is usually only one man on duty and he is engaged with people passing through, he cannot go down the road 100 yards to intercept those who come from the Six Counties and who buy goods which are rationed here and take them back into the North, without any let or hindrance. I would like the Minister to tell me why that particular shop can exist while genuine applicants are turned down and why a "B" Special from the Six Counties has a permit to operate a shop in Donegal when an ex-Army man of the Irish Army is refused the same facilities. The Minister may talk himself out of that if he can. He may also tell us why we in Donegal are not going to get rural electrification.

Mr. Kitt

In view of the time limit imposed upon us, my remarks will have to be brief. I will confine myself solely to matters that affect my own constituency. We heard from Deputy O'Leary and others that Fianna Fáil could not get workers to work on the bogs. My trouble is that in my constituency they have, by the action of the Minister in charge of this Department, under this Government, been put off the bogs. On 9th March, 1950, I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce—column 1566:—

"if he will state the number of schemes under the semi-automatic machine-won turf schemes operated in County Galway by Bord na Móna in the season 1949, the total production and number of persons employed in each scheme and whether, in view of the Government's announcement that these schemes are to be discontinued, he will state what arrangements have been made to find alternative employment for the workers and where; and, further, the total cost of the machinery employed in the operation of these schemes, and what arrangements have been made to dispose of this machinery."

The Minister gave me the required information in the form of a tabular statement. The number of schemes in County Galway on which semi-automatic machines were worked in 1949 was ten. The total quantity of turf produced was 17,165 tons; 405 men were employed and the cost of the machinery used was £16,250. In addition, a further 25 men were employed in the harvesting of turf left over from the 1948 season. By the stopping of this scheme these 405 men were thrown out of employment. I asked what alternative employment was available to them and I was told that they could get employment in the board's permanent machine bogs in Counties Kildare, Offaly and Galway, at which hostel accommodation is provided. I was further informed that the question of the disposal of the machinery used on these schemes was under consideration.

The difficulty is that if these men, some of whom are married men living on small farms, some of them labourers living beside these particular bogs, had to go to Kildare, their homes would be broken up. They are still unemployed and I consider that a grave hardship was imposed on them.

I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter. The turf that was produced by these machines was quite good and he has opened up the bogs in some parts of Ireland. I would ask him that, as far as Gunnode, Kiladerry and Derryfadda are concerned, the bogs in my constituency, to reconsider reopening them and re-employing these men who have been thrown out of employment.

Another question of local importance for my constituency is the extension of rural electrification to the Caltra-Castleblakeney - Mount Bellew - Moylough area. I put down a question with regard to that on several occasions. I am on the local committee. I did my best to canvass the area. The latest reply I got from the Minister, on 9th March, was:

"I am informed by the Electricity Supply Board that the area referred to by the Deputy has been approved by the board for development under the rural electrification scheme subject to the satisfactory completion of negotiations at present proceeding for the acquisition by the board of the local privately-owned electricity undertaking at Mountbellew."

There is only one question I would ask about that because I understand there is another Deputy to speak after me before the Minister concludes. I consider that the offer made by the board for this local plant was entirely inadequate and that there should be some rule laid down besides a bargaining rule. The plant referred to is the local Mountbellew mill. Electricity is supplied by water and turbines. The shareholders concerned—I have no vested interest; I am not one of them —say that the only thing on which they make money is in supplying light to the town. That is their principal source of revenue. They have informed me, I think correctly, that where there was an engine supplying light in another area the people concerned did not make nearly as much as they were making but were offered twice as much by the board. The offer made in this case is only £600. It amounts almost to confiscation, if it were to be taken over at that figure. Now that the principle of giving market value as far as land is concerned has been recognised, there should be adequate compensation in the case of any other property that is taken over by the Government. There should be some other system of arriving at a price than simply making a bargain as you would at a fair. The shareholders are looking for £2,000. Their price, probably, is too high. The system of bargaining until they arrive at a price will hold up the matter. I hope the board will make them an offer and hurry up the matter.

I wish finally to refer to decentralisation of industry. I thoroughly agree that we should have more rural industries. In my constituency we have only one factory and there has been so much said about that factory that I will not refer any more to it. Due to the stopping of the turf industries, we have quite a lot of unemployed. There is a big rural population and, with the extension of rural electrification, there are opportunities for the development of more industries in rural areas. In my county there are a number of small towns such as Ballygar, Glenamaddy, Mount Bellew, Dunmore and Headfort, and some effort should be made to develop industries in those areas. We have vocational schools where young people could be trained if factories were set up in these places. I urge the Minister to put the claims of these places for rural industries before the Industrial Development Authority.

Mr. J.J. Collins

My intervention in this debate is due largely to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I got to a question I addressed to the Minister to-day. The matter is of such importance and urgency in my part of the country that I am glad to have this opportunity to bring the whole position under the notice of the Minister. I have the feeling that he is not fully acquainted with the facts as regards the removal of sand from the foreshore at Ballybunion. This is the question that I addressed to the Minister to-day:

"To ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he is aware that, owing to a recent reconsideration of the restrictions imposed on the removal of sand from the foreshore at Ballybunion, County Kerry, the farmers of the parishes of Glin, Ballyhahill, Carrickerry, Abbeyfeale, Templeglantine, Tournafulla and Mountcollins in West Limerick, have been deprived of any right of access whatever to that foreshore, and whether, in view of the fact that the farmers of these parishes have always used the sand in question as a particularly suitable and cheap fertiliser for their land, he will take steps to give them the same facilities in this matter as have been given to the farmers of North Kerry."

In reply to that question, the Minister said "he was sorry he could not accede to the Deputy's request."

The parishes that I mention in that question are all on the Limerick side of the Limerick-Kerry border and from time immemorial the people in the mountainy parishes had free, unfettered rights to remove sand from the foreshore at Ballybunion. Under the 1932 Foreshore Act a certain mark was laid down and the people were compelled to take sand from beyond that point. I understand that within the last 12 months a local improvements committee in Ballybunion made representations to the Minister to put into operation that part of the 1932 Act that dealt with cliff-bound coasts, such as we have in Ballybunion. He acceded to their request and in January, 1950, he issued instructions to the farmers concerned. I would hardly have time to read these instructions in full. We on the Limerick side of the border were fairly satisfied because these instructions issued in January, 1950, allowed the people to remove sand for eight months of the year.

The only objection that I see in the instructions was that they somewhat restricted the liberty of the people. We were entitled to remove 35 tons of sand in the eight months, but as we passed through Ballybunion we had to report to the Civic Guard station and tell them that we had so much sand on the lorry or cart or whatever vehicle was employed. That was resented very deeply by the farmers in Limerick and North Kerry. They considered there was too much of the cat and mouse act about reporting to the Garda.

This sand is very useful as a manure. The people there never appreciated it properly until the war came on and then because of the scarcity of artificial and other manures, the people in the mountainy areas began to realise the value of the sand. They use it for tillage and the dressing of pastures. It would be as well to remind the Minister that we got that sand tested, the sand from the foreshore at Ballybunion, and it was found to contain 65 per cent. of lime. There is a manure in abundance, coming in tide after tide, and now because certain people asked the Minister to interfere we have been denied the rights we possessed for years.

Things went very well under the regulations issued by the Minister in 1950 until a number of farmers quite recently were prosecuted for failing to comply with one of the regulations. There were 41 farmers fined £1,100 for not complying with the Minister's regulation about reporting their movements to the Garda. An agitation started. There was an organised boycott instituted and things became very critical, so to speak, for all concerned. The Minister was inclined to be absolutely unyielding in his attitude despite the representations of the local T.D.s

However, Deputy Flanagan went to North Kerry and he threatened to use the big stick. The feeling among all sections of the farming community down there is that when he threatened to use the big stick, rather than suffer a defeat of the Government, the Minister yielded. The Minister had a certain responsibility in changing or rearranging the regulation, but I understand that the local improvements committee in Ballybunion had a lot to say.

What I want the Minister to consider is that in the stretch of land from the point of the Shannon at Glin to a point on the Cork border and to adjoining parishes we have an area of 200 square miles. It is poor, mountainy land and sea sand is a suitable manure. Apart from the manurial value, its physical value is of great importance.

I would like the Minister carefully to look into this matter, notwithstanding the recent arrangement he made which excludes the parishes I mentioned. If we are to go in for increased production, such as is advocated, why deny us the right to get a fertiliser that is highly suitable for the land in question? I have the feeling—I may be wrong—that the Minister has not gone deeply into this matter. The threat is there, the sandstorm has arisen and the people are seriously involved. There were threats and a pistol, as it were, was put up to the heads of the Taoiseach and the Minister and they were told: "If you do not give way, if you do not give the farmers of North Kerry a free and unfettered right to take the sand, we will withdraw our support from the Government."

I am rather surprised that Deputy Madden, who professes to be interested in the welfare of the farmers of West Limerick, has not intervened in this matter. It is a matter that he should understand and he should appreciate the value of this sand as a manure for the farmer. I hope it is not too late and that the Minister will give serious consideration to the points I have made and the position in the parishes I have mentioned. The people living there are small, hard-working farmers. They realise the value of the sand and it would be unfair for the Minister to exclude them from exercising the right the people there have had from time immemorial to use the sand to improve their holdings.

Mr. Morrissey

I think the House has set an all-time record for this Estimate. The debate has ranged over two or three weeks and we have had no fewer than 63 speakers, who occupied no less than 32 hours. Therefore, it will be appreciated that it is not possible for me, in the short time I have at my disposal, to reply in as detailed a fashion to the debate as I would wish. I must say having regard to the nature of the debate, to the number of speakers who took part in it, to the range of it from nylons to Constellations, that there were very few constructive suggestions or very few suggestions made which were of a practical nature. It would be, I think, impossible, as I say, in the time left to me to cover all the points—really there were not so many —particularly coming from the Opposition because it was simply, from the time Deputy Lemass finished his speech in opening the debate, just a repetition of one thing after another— the cost of living, turf, coal, rationing, two prices. That just went on as if it were the same old record being played over all the time.

Mr. Briscoe

Do not forget the butchers.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy does not allow me. We had, as I say, a repetition of speeches on the same subjects, the cost of living, wages, rationing, the double price, turf, coal, emigration. These were actually the main points. I was rather interested in Deputy Lemass's line. We had a typical speech from him, rather longer than usual, occupying an hour and three-quarters. I think I am not being unfair when I suggest that it could, quite easily and usefully, have been condensed into 20 minutes. There was not very much that was constructive in it. It was the usual superficial speech with a desire running through it, that was quite evident, to do the maximum amount of damage.

The Deputy deliberately opened on the wages question and the Trade Union Congress decision to give notice with regard to the agreement entered into two years ago. The Deputy made a damaging speech, a dangerous speech and it would not be unfair to describe it as going as near as he possibly could to an incitement to workers to go ahead with their demands and to go on strike if they are not conceded. The Deputy told them that unless the cost of living was reduced they would be justified in going ahead with their demands. I was rather interested and pleased to note that the only members of the Opposition who found themselves on that level with Deputy Lemass—and perhaps it will indicate to him the level on which he travelled—were Deputy Moran, Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Aiken.

The Deputy challenged me to give to the House my views on the action of the Trade Union Congress and to proclaim my policy in relation to wages, profits and prices. The Deputy asserted that I had a duty to do it, that I should not run away from it, that I should face up to it. The Deputy conveyed to the House by the tone of his speech, if not by the actual words, that this was a problem that should be grappled with and that, if it were grappled with, it would be an easy problem to solve. If that statement were made by any members of this House other than Deputy Lemass one could understand it. One could say: "After all, this particular Deputy does not realise the problem that is there and has no previous knowledge of it." Deputy Lemass found himself faced with a much more critical problem of the same nature in 1947 when the cost of living had increased within 12 months by no fewer than 31 points. I shall come back to that later.

The Deputy proceeded to deal with the matter and had certain conversations with the congresses and he initiated, but later for certain reasons abandoned, conversations with the Federated Union of Employers. He did not make very much progress with the congresses. Then the Deputy decided to use the jackboot methods. Let me assure him that, whatever policy I may have in relation to wages and conditions, I shall not, while I am Minister, adopt the methods which the Deputy was prepared to adopt and which he was going to adopt if the general election had not intervened. The Deputy actually drafted a Bill freezing wages as at the 15th October, 1947. The Deputy was providing in that Bill that the protection of the Trade Disputes Act would be removed from any union or unions which would countenance, support or recognise any strike which would take place in contravention of the terms of that Bill and the Deputy provided a penalty of no less than £500 for any employer who would give an increase in wages except in accordance with the terms of that Bill.

Captain Cowan

Is the Minister serious?

Mr. Morrissey

I am perfectly serious and I am speaking here with a draft of the Bill before me.

Mr. Lemass

Why not publish the whole text of that Bill?

Mr. Morrissey

I have it here in front of me and I challenge Deputy Lemass or any other Deputy to challenge the accuracy of one statement I have made in connection with it.

Mr. Lemass

We also reduced the cost of living.

Mr. Morrissey

I shall deal with that when I come to it. These are the gentlemen, from Deputy Lemass down, who have been for the past three weeks lecturing us on their concern for the working man and on their desire for industrial peace. These are the people who, for the past three weeks, have been challenging me, and the members of those Parties who support us, as to our attitude towards the workers and as to the hardships which we were inflicting on them. These are the people who have been talking of strikes, unofficial strikes and other strikes. Fianna Fáil ought to give up talking about their concern for the workers and the trade unionists of this country. They never had any concern for them.

Mr. O'Rourke

That is not true, anyway.

Mr. Morrissey

I assert now from this side of the House what I asserted on many occasions from the opposite side of the House, that the split that was brought about in the trade union movement of this country and towards the ending of which the first step has now happily been taken, can be laid to the credit or discredit of Deputy Lemass more than to that of any other man in this country.

Mr. Lemass

Get any member of the Trade Union Congress to agree with that statement.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy is more responsible for that than any other man. The Deputy's way of dealing with the trade unionists of this country was to split them and divide them.

Mr. Lemass

That is a lie.

Mr. Morrissey

I am asserting it and I often asserted it from the other side.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That expression must be withdrawn.

Mr. Lemass

The expression is withdrawn but the statement is untrue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will have to withdraw it without any qualifications.

Mr. Lemass

I withdrew the expression because you rule it out of order, but the statement by the Minister is untrue and I cannot withdraw that.

Captain Cowan

Publish the terms of that Bill. If they are such as described by the Minister they would be a negation of all liberty.

Mr. Lemass

Publish the agreement of the Trade Union Congress to the proposal I made.

Mr. Morrissey

The agreement of the Trade Union Congress to that Bill?

Mr. Lemass

No. The Bill was never introduced because they agreed to the proposal I made.

Mr. Morrissey

The Bill was never introduced because of the intervention of the election. Deputy Lemass himself abandoned his efforts in connection with the Bill and the negotiations——

Mr. Lemass

I got agreement in consultation.

Mr. Morrissey

Sit down and listen to me. I had to listen to the Deputy for an hour and three-quarters and he will have to listen to me now for a few minutes. I have little time at my disposal and Deputy Lemass knows that. Deputy Lemass is first-class at giving it out but he is a poor hand at taking it.

Mr. Lemass

I told the truth.

Mr. Morrissey

If the Deputy told the truth it would not be necessary for me to speak as I have spoken. I am disclosing the truth. The Deputy told me in this House that when he proposed to abandon the Wages Standstill Order, the trade union leaders told him he was removing it too soon and that he should not do it. I challenge the Deputy to give us the names of these trade union leaders. I challenge him now to repeat that because there is no record of it. That speech was made and it was followed by the speeches of two other ex-Ministers for the sole purpose of creating trouble and disorder. I want to make it clear that so far as I am concerned, either on this side of the House or on the other side my views as regards the rights of the workers are well known. I assert with pride that no Government that ever governed or misgoverned this country has accorded a fuller or clearer recognition to the rights of the workers than has the present Government.

Mr. O'Rourke

What about the bog workers?

Mr. Morrissey

I will deal with them, too, if the Deputy will have patience. I regret that I shall not have time to reply to all the points made.

Mr. Davin

The teachers.

Mr. Morrissey

This Government recognises the rights of the workers, but it also recognises their responsibilities and their duties; and the Government recognises the rights of every other section of the community as well as the workers. I have no hesitation in stating plainly and bluntly what I think of the decision of the Trades' Union Council in denouncing the present wages' agreement. I regret that decision. I think it is mistaken. I think that if it leads to a further increase in wages it will not benefit the workers in the long run because inevitably it will be followed by an increase in prices. I assert that the workers to-day are better off than they were two or two and a half years ago. I can prove that, if necessary, from figures and charts that are before me here. Even though I am a Minister, I am not removed from contact with the workers and with the poor of this country. Every time I go home to meet the members of my family I walk into the homes of ordinary working men working for their week's wages. I am meeting colleagues with whom I started the trade union movement. I assert, without fear of challenge from either Labour or Fianna Fáil, that the standard of living and the standard of life of the workers to-day is higher than it ever was at any period in our history.

Mr. Lemass

So is the cost of living.

Mr. Morrissey

That is not true and I will demonstrate that it is not true. I assert again that there is no person who has any closer contact—I do not know about the gentlemen over there——

Mr. O'Rourke

They do not count.

Mr. Morrissey

I know some of the men on the Opposition Benches have not as close or as intimate contact with the poor and the ordinary workers as I have. I am proud that those people are to-day, not merely in the City of Dublin but also down the country, enjoying a better standard of life than our people have ever enjoyed at any period of the country's history.

Mr. McGrath

Deputy Larkin does not agree with you.

Mr. Morrissey

I do not care who agrees with me. I am asserting what is my belief. I can prove my words. Up to 1948 the earnings' index of the workers was always lagging behind the cost-of-living index. In 1948 the two lines not merely crossed but the earnings' index for the first time, so far as I know, since the indices were first compiled exceeded the cost-of-living index. There is not a trade union member or leader who can controvert my statement when I say that that is the first time that has ever happened since the index was first established.

With regard to the cost of living, I am not asserting that a cost-of-living index has ever been conceived that covers every single item which is purchased in the ordinary household. In so far as it is there, it is there exactly as we got it from our predecessors. The facts are compiled in the same way. Neither by suggestion, implication nor direction has it ever been intimated to those in charge of the Statistics Bureau that they should in any way alter or change their method of compiling that index. Every item which my predecessor left in that index is still there and carries the same weight in the compilation of the index as it originally did.

Mr. Lemass

That is not correct.

Mr. Morrissey

It is correct.

Mr. Lemass

The average prices of the unrationed foods are not included.

Mr. Morrissey

I give my word to Dáil Éireann that neither by implication nor suggestion have I or any member of the Government interfered in any way with the compilation of that index.

Mr. O'Rourke

Might I ask a question to elicit some information? Is the extra cost of tea, sugar, butter and flour outside the ration included?

Mr. Morrissey

I do not know.

Mr. Lemass

They are not.

Mr. Morrissey

I do not know because I have been so anxious to be entirely scrupulous and above suspicion in this matter that I have never, either directly or indirectly, asked a question of the Director of Statistics as to what he is taking into account or what he is not taking into account, in case it might ever be suggested by anybody that I was trying in any way to influence him. Let Deputies be realists in this matter. I claim no credit for it, but it is almost miraculous that we have been able to keep the cost-of-living index static for two and a half years.

Mr. Lemass

You promised to reduce it.

Mr. Morrissey

Do not be so petty.

Mr. Lemass

It was one of the ten points.

Mr. C. Lehane

On a point of order, as the Minister is limited in time—and his time has already been curtailed—I think it is most unfair that he should be interrupted now.

Mr. O'Rourke

You are wasting it now.

Mr. Morrissey

I could easily answer Deputy Lemass by saying that if conditions had remained over the past two and a half years as they were when that promise was made, then certainly there would have been a very substantial reduction. I think that is a fair answer. I want Deputies to realise that practically every item produced on the land and from the land has increased in price. Some of them have increased considerably. Every one of these items weighs heavily in the cost-of-living index.

Mr. O'Rourke

That is due to the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Morrissey

I do not care who gets either the credit or the thanks. I am satisfied with the result. Agricultural produce is about the only article in consumption here that I cannot control. That is the first point. Secondly, this country is to-day enjoying the greatest and widest measure of protection for its industries than was ever afforded to them in the past. I have given protection in greater measure to some industries that already had it. I have given new protection to other industries. I have reduced quotas. In some cases I have guaranteed almost the entire market to some of our principal industries, for example, the footwear industry. I reduced that quota from 1,250,000 pairs to 40,000 pairs.

I want to assert here—and again it will be accepted by Deputies if they are going to be honest, and there is no use in beating about the bush and in trying to deceive ourselves, much less the people —that in most cases, I do not say all cases, the increasing of protection leads to some extent, to a great extent or to a small extent, to an increase in the cost of the protected article. There is no question about it. I am making no apology for it. That accounts for two of the factors. I come now to the third factor and, again, I am not trying to hide it. Of course, we have been hit to some extent and probably, as Deputy Lemass said, we are not yet feeling the full effect of it, by devaluation. That is particularly true in relation to many things. Of course the clothing trade has been affected by the enormous increase in the price of wool. As against that, it is true to say that every farmer in this country, big, little or small, who is rearing and has been rearing sheep, is benefiting enormously. I am not just making a point about this. It will not be contested that the farmers are to-day in this country getting more in cash for the fleece taken from the sheep than they got for the whole sheep a few years ago.

Mr. O'Rourke

That is not right.

Mr. Morrissey

I have not much time but I would say that any man who lives in Roscommon will understand the position about sheep.

Mr. O'Rourke

That is not true, I am sorry to say.

Mr. Morrissey

I should be glad if the Deputy would talk to some of his friends on that matter. I do not say that every sheep will yield that much.

It might be no harm to mention that in the same period—and I doubt if the British cost of living index is any truer a reflection of the real cost of living index than ours is—I have been talking about, the past two and a half years, the cost of living index while it remained static here, while it did not fall a point in the same period, increased by about 13 or 14 per cent.— not points—in Great Britain. There was an awful lot of talk about Government blackmarketing and I was told that I was the biggest grocer in the country.

There was an awful lot of humbug talked about that by everybody—and nobody knows it better than the Deputies opposite. The Deputies opposite talked about rationing. Not one of them adverted to the difference between rationing to-day and rationing as it was when they were in office. I remember a time when we had a ration of one and a half ounces of tea per week. I am not blaming the Deputies opposite for that because it was due to circumstances over which they had no control as far as tea was concerned. I remember a time when our ration was only two ounces of butter a week. I would blame the Deputies opposite for that because that was something over which they had some control. I remember a time when you had to go behind the office door and be a pal of the shopkeeper in order to get an extra rasher of bacon a week. Deputies opposite seem to forget that it was only for the last three months—less than three months—that they were in office that the price of sugar, flour, tea and bread came to the figure at which it is to-day. Deputies have forgotten that, of course. Would the Deputies like to be reminded, too, of what the prices were during all these years? To-day there is a ration of butter four times what it was at one period under Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Traynor

And it could be much higher.

Mr. Morrissey

I shall deal with that also. I wish I had time to go into everything. Outside the City of Dublin and perhaps, to a lesser extent the City of Cork—there may be very special individual cases—neither the ordinary average family nor anybody else has been short of butter in the last two or three years. To-day, in order to enable us to give to the poorer people of this country—the people, generally, if you like—the ration which we are giving at the price at which we are giving it, we are making it available over and above that ration at the economic price, or, in one or two cases, at something slightly in excess of it. There is nothing wrong about that. Have I to remind the Deputies opposite that during their period of office a black market was operating and that certain people in this country grew fat and rich on it? Have I to remind them that a price as high as 35/- and £2 was paid for tea.

Mr. Lemass

And when those who sold it were put into jail, you were the first to let them out again.

Mr. Morrissey

No. The people who pursued the small hucksters at the crossroads and in the Coombe for charging a halfpenny extra should not have pursued these people but should have pursued the people who made thousands on sugar and tea. They were the people who should have gone to jail. It is unnecessary for me to remind Deputies on the other side of the House of the black market in sugar.

Mr. O'Rourke

That was an illegal black market.

Mr. Morrissey

Where did they get the sugar and the tea? It is unnecessary for me to remind even Deputies from rural Ireland that anything from 5/- to 7/6 a lb. was paid for butter.

Mr. Coburn

Ten shillings.

Mr. Lemass

And do you remember all the howling there used to be when I was trying to enforce rationing—every Fine Gael Deputy protesting against the prosecution of these people?

Mr. Morrissey

It is a great pity that the Deputy is not so tough when he is listening as he is when he is speaking. Much mention was made of turf and coal. Of all the hypocrisy that was ever poured out in this House it has been poured out about turf. There was not an honest speech made about the question of turf by any Deputy on the far side of the House. Let me give the House a little of the history of it. Fortunately, none of the Deputies opposite can accuse me of being antagonistic in regard to turf. I was dealing with it and pushing the sale of it when coal was being landed on the quays of Dublin at 18/- a ton. I brought turf from Moynasta, in West Clare, to my own town to sell it in competition with coal and I bought the briquettes in Kildare the first year they were manufactured there—and it was not popular at that time to be trying to push the sale of turf. Let us get the history of this. Deputies will remember the winter of 1946 and the spring of 1947. It was the hardest winter and spring in living memory. Deputies from Dublin, particularly, will remember the plight of the people, not merely the poor but the rich also, who had no adequate stocks of fuel laid in. Deputy Aiken said to-day that we were never reduced to the point of burning furniture to keep ourselves warm. He may not have been reduced to that point but hundreds of families in Dublin city in the winter of 1946 and the spring of 1947 were reduced to that point. What provision had been made? Where were the stocks then in the Park or anywhere else?

Mr. Lemass

They were on the bog and could not be got out.

Mr. Morrissey

There were no reserves there. At one time there were nearly 200,000 tons of firewood but they had been dissipated and were not replaced.

Mr. Lemass

Do not say that we did not replace them. You people are constantly complaining that we put too much back.

Mr. Morrissey

Let me tell the story. I hope on this occasion to debunk once and for all this question of turf and the abolition of the hand-won turf scheme. In any case, there we were. Deputy Lemass—and here I am in agreement with him—finding himself in that predicament, went through the highways and the byways—as they used to say long ago, at home and abroad—trying to procure anything that would burn. All during the late spring and summer and autumn of 1947, and right up to the day of the change of Government, he was procuring coal from any corner of the world in which he could procure it, irrespective of quality. Turf, irrespective of quality, size or price was being produced at home, and on top of that timber was being laid waste. Trees were being knocked all over the country. Timber was pouring into this city by thousands of tons per week—not by hundreds of tons. But, mind you, his efforts did not stop there. He had got such a fright and a shock in the spring of 1947 that he was importuning the gentleman whom he denounced and coupled with me in his capacity as Dáil Reporter in last Wednesday's Irish Press—the British Minister for Fuel—the only complaint in regard to him was that he would not give him coal soon enough and give him enough of it.

May I remind Deputies who talk about the killing of the hand-won turf scheme that Deputy Lemass was the one man who negotiated with the British for the allocation of 1,600,000 tons of coal for this country, on top of the 500,000 tons of coal in the Park and in other dumps, and on top of the fact, as he said himself in his speech on the first day that he sat on that bench opposite—on 18th February, 1948—that he had at the then rate of consumption a ten years' supply of firewood in the Park and at the then rate of consumption a five years' supply of turf. If we had 500,000 tons of American and South African coal, if we had earmarked from the British 1,600,000 tons of coal——

Mr. Lemass

We had not.

Mr. Morrissey

You had—and if we had a five years' supply at the then rate of consumption of turf in the dumps, and a ten years' supply of timber at the then rate of consumption in the dumps, the position was that on 18th February, 1948, we still had timber pouring in at the rate of 10,000 tons per week, every ton of which carried a subsidy of £4. In view of that, how were you going to produce any more hand-won turf, if I am to accept it that there is any honesty at all in Fianna Fáil Deputies who are interested in turf and who are now learning for the first time the real story?

Mr. R. Walsh

We are not learning it for the first time. We knew it always.

Mr. Morrissey

Then I withdraw what I said about honesty. I still have 340,000 tons of American and African coal.

Mr. Davin

Slack.

Mr. Morrissey

It does not matter.

Mr. Lemass

Six weeks' reserve.

Mr. Morrissey

Would the Deputy allow me as I have a lot more to say in the quarter hour that is left to me?

Mr. Lemass

It is only a six weeks' reserve.

Mr. Morrissey

Let me remind the House also, that on the 12th February, 1948, just six days before the change of Government——

Mr. Davin

D day.

Mr. Morrissey

——Deputy Lemass, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, had a departmental conference across the road in Kildare Street, and at that conference it was decided to discontinue the production of hand-won turf in Kildare and in the camps.

Mr. Lemass

Yes, the camps.

Mr. Morrissey

On that same day, and at that same meeting, a question was put to the Minister as to whether they were to continue the hand-won turf throughout the country. I ask Deputies to mark the date—12th February, 1948. The Minister deferred a decision on that question. Why? If it was decided and he was clear in his mind—if all his colleagues told him that he was to go ahead and produce hand-won turf—why did he defer his decision? Is it not true to say, as it has already been said that in 1947 Deputy MacEntee, who was then Minister for Local Government, sent out a circular to the county councils, and that that was the first step in the abandonment of the hand-won turf scheme?

That is the story, and I think any reasonable or fair-minded Deputy will see what the picture is. In the light of that situation, Deputy Lemass had been informed by Bord na Móna that there was no place in the dumps for any further turf, that if there was any further hand-won turf produced and saved in that year that it would have to be stacked along the sides of the main roads throughout the country when brought out from the bogs. I still have some of that in Dublin and some of it in Cork. Some of it, unfortunately, is now in the condition that it is not valuable enough even for anyone to go to the trouble and expense of removing it, if offered it free.

Let me come now to all the talk about emigration and about the closing down of turf works. Deputy Kissane, the other day told the House that I was the monster who was responsible for emigration, that I was the person who was driving the boys out of County Kerry because I had closed down turf schemes there. Deputy Moran talked about Mayo, the Galway Deputies talked about Galway. All I can say is that those Deputies are either completely ignorant of what is happening in their own constituencies or they are just downright dishonest when they come in here. At the very moment Deputy Kissane was talking and denouncing me for destroying the bogs and destroying employment in Kerry, a notice was handed to me from Bord na Móna informing me that they would have to close down four bogs which I had given them authority to operate three weeks ago. Why? Because, in regard to these four bogs—two bogs in Kerry and two in Limerick, and I am sorry Deputy J. J. Collins is not here— they could only get one man for every three they required. That did not mean bringing them to Kildare or anywhere else; but uneconomic and all as it would have been to produce the turf if we had been able to get the number of men we required, it would be hopelessly uneconomic with only one-third of the men, because we could then only operate, under difficulties, one-third of the machines that it would be required to operate in order to make the work some way economic.

Let me tell Deputies also that of the 44 so-called unemployed signing on at the labour exchange who were notified of this work, three out of the 44 reported. Let me mention, in passing, that we have 18,000 tons of machine turf in Kerry that we cannot sell, even at a reduced price. Let me tell Deputy Moran, who was shedding crocodile tears about the plight of the people in Mayo, that even last year we could not get within 120 or 130 of the number of men we required in Mayo. We could not get them in Galway.

Let me remind Deputies that, last year, when we wanted men, not for England or anywhere else, but for work on the Erne scheme, 450 men were notified of the work, under express instructions from here that no married man was to be asked to take up that work and that no single man over 45 was to be asked to take up that work. When those 450 single men under 45 years of age were notified of work at what I then asserted, and still assert, were good wages and good conditions, 31 reported for the work. There is not a Deputy in this House but knows these things as well as I know them. I heard some talk to-day from a young gentleman from Donegal about brass necks and wooden necks. In the light of these facts, it takes a pretty tough neck to get up here and make some of the statements that have been made during the course of this debate.

I heard some amazing statements made about emigration. I have a whole lot of information. I am sorry I have not time to give Deputy Killilea the true facts about the Gentex factory. I have a pile of information which I hope I will get an opportunity of using at another time.

We heard an awful lot of talk about emigration. Every speaker who got up there, one after another, talked about people being driven out of this country because they could not get work here, to take up employment in the coal mines of England. Is work in the bowels of the earth in a foreign country preferable to work in God's fresh air in their own country, on a bog? We heard a lot of nonsense talked here about emigration. I was told that people were pouring out at the greatest rate ever seen from this country to Great Britain. That is untrue, and I am very glad to be able to say it. I can give Deputies opposite the figures for emigration last year of both males and females to Great Britain and the corresponding figures for a year that they were in office. In 1947, the number of travel permits and passports issued for Great Britain was 10,576 for males and 17,604 for females. The figures last year for Great Britain were 8,522 males and 9,694 females. There are the figures. There is the answer to all the blather and all the talk.

Mr. Briscoe

Did any go to America?

Mr. Morrissey

Yes.

Mr. Briscoe

What are the figures?

Mr. Lemass

Have you the figures?

Mr. Morrissey

I have, certainly. The Deputy will appreciate, of course, that America was not open during his period.

Mr. Briscoe

What are the figures for America?

Mr. Morrissey

I will give them to the Deputy. I am not denying any of them. I will give them if the Deputy will allow me. I will give the total figures of emigration to everywhere for the two years and then the figures for America separately. In 1947, the total number of males who emigrated was 12,511 and the total number of females was 18,727.

Mr. Briscoe

That was 1947?

Mr. Morrissey

1947. That was the total number that went out of the country to everywhere.

Mr. Briscoe

What about 1949?

Mr. Morrissey

I will give you the figures for 1949 also. In 1949: males, 12,499; females, 12,992. In 1947, to countries other than Great Britain— that would include America and everywhere else—males, 1,935; females, 1,123. In 1949, 3,977 males; females, 3,298. I should say that the figures for 1949 include persons going abroad to take up permanent residence. That completely debunks all this nonsense.

Mr. Colley

Will the Minister give us the figures for those who came back?

Mr. Morrissey

I will tell the Deputy, and I am sure he will be delighted to hear it, that for the building trade alone no fewer than 3,000 of them have come back. I am very sorry indeed that I have not more time. The information I have will be useful for another occasion.

Before I sit down, I want to reply to a reference made by Deputy Lemass in the course of his speech to petrol, petrol rationing, and so on and I want to refer to the issue of the Irish Press of May 31st and to an article which appears in that, written by Deputy Lemass.

Mr. Lemass

That is what you say. Most of your statements are based on the same reliable knowledge of the facts.

Mr. Morrissey

Has Deputy Lemass left the position of Dáil Reporter?

Mr. Lemass

Yes—never had it.

Mr. Morrissey

The article starts off:—

"The unpleasant position in which Mr. Morrissey finds himself over petrol is a direct result of his assenting to retain—at the request of the British Minister for Fuel and Power —the formality of rationing, ..."

May I ask Deputy Lemass where he got that information?

Mr. Lemass

It was the only intelligent explanation of what you did.

Mr. Morrissey

That is a very definite statement. It is not a guess. The Chair would not allow me to brand that statement in the only way in which it could be branded. It is entirely in keeping with Deputy Lemass's code, either speaking or writing.

Mr. Lemass

Why is petrol rationed?

Mr. Morrissey

I told you before that if you would not allow yourself to become so cheap, people might think you were the man that you might be.

Mr. Lemass

Why is petrol rationed?

Mr. Morrissey

He talked about the British Minister for Fuel in that. The Deputy, apparently, is learning a little clever journalese, whether it is due to the tuition that he got from the other side of the water or not I do not know, but he leaves it to be inferred that in the coal deal which he was responsible for putting through with the Minister for Fuel and Power —incidentally I may remind him that Mr. Gaitskell is not now Minister of Fuel and Power—it was my eye that was wiped instead of his own that they wiped. The Deputy should be ashamed of writing an article like that. There is not a scintilla of truth in it from the first word to the last full stop.

Mr. Lemass

Why is petrol rationed?

Mr. Morrissey

I am asking the Deputy where he got the statement which he puts there so definitely that I agreed to retain rationing at the request of the British Minister for Fuel and Power? That statement is untrue, wholly without foundation, and I want to tell the Deputy that every time I get a chance of exposing that sort of barefaced falsehood, I will certainly do it.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must put the question now.

Mr. Morrissey

Very well. I have to bottle up the rest.

Mr. Lemass

When will petrol be derationed?

Mr. Morrissey

If you will allow me, Sir, I will abolish petrol rationing and do any other act which falls to me to do as Minister for Industry and Commerce in my own good time and not at the request of a British Minister or Deputy Lemass.

Mr. Lemass

That is a very lucid statement.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 56; Níl, 69.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• De Valera, Vivion.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Friel, John.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• Lynch, John.
• McCann, John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Maguire, Patrick J.
• Moran, Michael.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Walsh, Thomas.

Níl

• Beirne, John.
• Belton, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Davin, William.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Fitzpatrick, Michael.
• Flynn, John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hickey, James.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Keane, Seán.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kinane, Patrick.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, James.
• Lehane, Con.
• Lehane, Patrick D.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• Coburn, James.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Collins, Seán.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Óg.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• McQuillan, John.
• Madden, David J.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Norton, William.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.(Jun.).
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Spring, Daniel.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Timoney, John J.
• Tully, John.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Kissane and Ó Briain; Níl: Deputies P. S. Doyle and Kyne.

Question declared negatived.

Vote put and agreed to.