Deputy Ormonde has given notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Questions Nos. 7 and 8 on yesterday's Order Paper.
Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Portlaw Tannery.
I should like the Minister to appreciate that, in raising this matter on the Adjournment, I was not influenced by any desire to make Party or political propaganda, or to score any petty point against the Government. I am well aware and ready to admit that this situation which has arisen in Portlaw tannery was not created by any action of this Government or the previous Government and that, although these workers were put on part-time about the time of the incoming of the Coalition Government, the critical situation which began then and which has now reached a climax had been developing for some time prior to the advent of the Coalition Government.
I am mainly concerned to endeavour to create a situation which will ensure the continuation in employment of some 300 workers of Irish Tanners, Limited, and to put an end to the anxiety and worry of some 1,000 dependents, women and children, who see staring them in the face, if not hunger, complete separation from their menfolk who will have to seek the emigrant ship in an endeavour to make provision for them in another country.
The questions I put down for answer yesterday and my question of a fortnight ago were actuated by a desire to focus the attention of the Dáil on this matter and to urge the Minister to immediate action. In reply to my questions yesterday, the Minister was not able to add anything to his reply of a fortnight ago, except a nebulous statement in regard to the limitation of the quantities of substitute soling materials which will be admitted under duty-free licences.
I must confess that I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister's reply. It is apparent that if he is not completely indifferent to the situation there, he certainly lacks an appreciation of the truly critical and serious nature of the position of this tannery. I have no doubt that representations have been made to the Minister long before now from other quarters in regard to the situation there and that he must or should have satisfied himself that the position there is exactly as I have represented it. Why, then, he has taken no action, and not only has taken no action but has sanctioned the establishment of an industry in another southern town, thereby killing all hope of recovery for the Portlaw concern, is inexplicable.
I want the Minister, in view of the very serious and urgent situation prevailing there, to state in his reply to-night what steps, if any, he is taking or proposes to take to keep this industry going. We would welcome also his view on the importation of these substitute materials which are being imported in such large quantities and crippling and killing the Irish leather trade. If the Minister approves of the importation of these materials in such quantities as to put a one-time flourishing home industry completely out of action, he should say so and give his reasons therefor, and he should be further prepared to arrange for the utilisation of part of the premises, the plant and equipment, and the employees of Irish Tanners, Limited, in the production of these imported materials which are being brought in in such large quantities by our boot factories, the majority of which are under the control of English directors and English managers.
In reply to a supplementary of mine yesterday, the Minister stated that the Portlaw tannery has a 12 months supply of leather in stock, without making any additional leather. That is so, but is it not a fact that the Portlaw tannery was required to undertake to supply the home market with leather before exporting any of their products; that there was no reciprocal arrangement or undertaking by the boot manufacturers to take the leather from the Portlaw tannery; and that, when there was a turn over to rubber, the boot manufacturers refused to take the leather from Portlaw? That is the reason why these stocks are on hands now. They were not able to get a foreign market for them.
I have no doubt that the directors and management of Irish Tanners, Limited, have sought the co-operation of the Government in an endeavour to get rid of these surplus stocks and in an endeavour to keep the industry going. Are we to assume then that this threatened complete close down of the factory, following so closely on the closing down last November of the hide federation known as Associated Tanners, Limited, involving the dismissal of, I think, 34 workers, 32 of whom were married men who have since left the country, means that that co-operation was not forthcoming?
Since the closing down of that hide federation and the dismissal of these 34 employees, there has been a constant stream of dismissals from this factory in recent weeks. Many of these workers, seeing no prospect of work at home, have left for England and more of them have made arrangements to leave for England leaving their wives and families after them. It was brought to my notice last week that some of the wives who were left behind in the straitened circumstances in which they find themselves are unable to pay the rent of their houses and have returned to their parents' homes seeking shelter and food until such time as their menfolk can make provision for them.
The Minister and his colleagues have been somewhat boastful about what they claim to be the downward trend in unemployment, and, while taking credit for that, they assert that there is yet no reason for complacency with regard to the position. I say that there is complacency on the part of the Government, that there is actual indifference in regard to the threatened disemployment of some 300 workers in this part of my constituency. The Minister can, by taking definite action, put an end to the situation prevailing there and can ensure that, in this part of the country at any rate, employment will be maintained. We expect definite action from the Minister and will hold him responsible, if there are any further dismissals from this factory.
Although the present Government, or the preceding Government, for that matter, are in no way responsible for the position in the Portlaw tannery, it will be forever held against the Minister if this industry which took so much time and effort to build up, is allowed to collapse and disappear.
One would expect more concern, more sympathy, from a Labour Minister for Industry and Commerce in a matter which affects the employment and the livelihood of such a large body of workers and their dependents than the Minister has so far displayed. One would expect immediate preventive action—something more than the curtailment of the importation of these synthetic materials. I have no doubt and I have no hesitation in expressing the conviction that, in similar circumstances, the Minister's predecessor would have taken immediate and effective steps to safeguard this important industry and to ensure a continuation of the employment, the cessation of which will sound the death knell of a whole town and a wide countryside.
I do not wish to prolong the arguments on this matter, but I conclude by pointing out to the Minister that every household in this town of 1,000 inhabitants and every individual in every small cottage and dwelling in a wide surrounding area is entirely dependent on this tannery for an existence. If the Minister succeeds in securing to them this employment and safeguarding it for them, he will have the undying gratitude of those people and the deep appreciation of the people of the whole constituency of Waterford. On the other hand, if he fails to succour them in their time of need he will incur and merit their odium. All I ask is the right for those people to live their lives in freedom from want and hunger and the right to secure and safeguard the employment that is there for them.
I do not think the difficulties of this situation will be solved by the exaggerations of Deputy Ormonde or by the simple rules which he has suggested of trying to put the responsibility upon shoulders to which that responsibility does not belong. The plain fact of the matter is—and the local employment exchange statistics prove it—that the workers at Portlaw tannery have been on halftime since April of last year, and the Fianna Fáil Government was in office in April of last year. Does Deputy Ormonde deny that?
The position is that the tannery at Portlaw is overstocked with material which it cannot clear. Let me give the Deputy these figures. The demand for the products of the tanneries, that is, the Portlaw tannery and the subsidiary tannery at New Ross, has fallen from 24,000 bends a month to an average of about 14,000 bends a month. The stock of bend leather is sufficient to supply the requirements of the home market on the reduced demand for leather for the next 12 months and that 12 months supply in advance has been accumulated in the two tanneries.
These two tanneries formerly did a considerable export trade, but the position to-day is that they have no export trade. They have lost it for a number of reasons. The first thing is hides. The price of hides on the British market has fallen considerably. Britain, which imported hides, is not now able to absorb all the hides which she produces herself. America is now exporting a considerable number of hides and hides now are not available on the home market at the artificially low price at which they were available previously. Who is responsible if Portlaw cannot sell leather in Britain? Is any Government here responsible?
The position is that anybody who competes on an extern market takes all the risks of that market. The Portlaw tannery and the New Ross tannery have found that they cannot now find a market in Britain for leather and for the same reasons that they cannot find a market in Britain they cannot find a market here for heavy sole leather. There has been a considerable increase in the use of synthetic soling materials. A British publication described as The Shoe and Leather News stated recently that the consumption of leather in England for soling footwear was 86 per cent. in 1942 and that was down to 63 per cent. in 1953, while the non-leather soling increased from a user of 14 per cent. in 1942 to 37 per cent. in 1953. The figures of the users of synthetic soling materials are much higher to-day in Britain and Ireland than they were in 1953.
It has been stated by people qualified to express an opinion that in America the over-all percentage of non-leather material used in the soling of boots and shoes is as high as 50 per cent. One Irish footwear manufacturer with an intimate knowledge of the American market stated that in his view not more than 37 per cent. of the soling material used in America was of leather.
That is a situation which has been growing. Any tanner who could read or see must have been aware of these developments because all the facts and figures are there to prove that the situation was developing for a considerable time. The difficulties of the tanneries have been caused by an increased use of synthetic soling material, by the use of crepe, particularly for children's footwear and sports footwear and by the increased use of rubber and rubber-soled footwear.
Let me tell the Deputy that in Ireland alone the production of rubber footwear and rubber-soled footwear is six and a half times greater than it was nine years ago. The tanners could see these figures every year rising, pointing out at the same time that there was danger and a red light for the leather production industry. These two factories at New Ross and Portlaw have lost their entire export trade and on top of that they have got competition now from another Irish tannery which is still producing leather, still selling leather and still keeping workers in employment. It may well be——
In heavy sole leather?
Yes, heavy sole leather? The Deputy ought to pay a visit to Limerick this week.
Where are they selling it?
In the Irish market. One of these factories which was burned out has come back into the market and is now producing and selling leather. This type of leather was formerly produced and sold by the Portlaw tannery. The Deputy ought to inquire into the facts fully so that he will know what they are.
An examination of the statistics will show that in the period 1950 to 1953 the annual user of synthetic materials for soling was in the neighbourhood of 4,000 cwts. That had increased to 8,000 cwts. in 1954. Again, the tanners could easily have seen that development. These are not problems peculiar to Ireland. Trade publications show that even in Germany sole leather production declined from 34,000 tons in 1950 to 25,000 tons in 1954. What did the German tanners do when they found themselves in a situation of that kind? They set out to meet the problem by trying to find other uses for the heavy bend leather which they previously made. They were able to find these other uses by splitting the hide and making a light flexible leather for which they found a considerable demand in Germany. I think as good a demand could be found here if our tanners had approached the problem of trying to find alternative uses for the heavy bend leather which they previously produced and sold and for which they now find it difficult to get a market because of the demand for synthetic soling materials.
In Great Britain, the Leather Institute decided there to combat the fall in the demand for heavy leather by undertaking a propaganda campaign with a view to boosting the uses of leather and promoting its sale. Two schemes were recently announced by the Leather Institute, Department of Education. They have indicated that they will make available in Britain to 6,500 schools the services of lecturers, films, film strips, wall charts, teachers' notes, museum exhibits and other teaching aids in order to try to convince the consumer that leather has uses and that it is a commodity which can be bought with advantage. It has even planned mobile exhibitions to boost the sale of leather for soling and to boost the sale of leather-manufactured goods.
Have the tanners here attempted to do anything like that? They have not. Why have they not done so? If it pays the German to do it and if it pays the British tanner to do it, why would it not pay the Irish tanner to attempt to do something similar? Even now the tanner ought to endeavour to dispose of the stored-up stock and get down to making leather on the basis of the adjusted demand for heavy sole leather on the Irish market. Above all, the tanners ought to get down to recognising that there is a change in public taste and to seeing now whether they can use leather for other purposes besides soling boots and shoes or whether they cannot produce a different type of light flexible leather for which, I think, there is as good a market here as can be found in other countries.
Irish Tanners, Portlaw, appear to have sold about 6,750,000 lb. of sole leather in 1950-51. That fell to less than 5,000,000 lb. in 1953-54, and sales for the calendar year 1954 were little more than 3,500,000 lb. Even these falls were masked to some extent by the fact that they were doing a substantial export trade which has now completely disappeared. That trade has disappeared for two reasons mainly. There was at one stage a ready market for sole leather in Britain. That has gone and the British themselves are not now putting the quantity of hides which they previously put into the manufacture of leather. They have deliberately cut down the intake of hides into the tannery industry because they know there is not a market for all the hides which were previously tanned. Our people now have to compete in Britain against two considerable difficulties: first, the fact that the British do not want heavy sole leather; secondly, the fact that the British themselves are not using all the hides they could use; and, thirdly, the fact that the price of hides in the British market has fallen while the price of hides in the home market has risen.
These are all difficulties which I do not think any Government could surmount. Is it suggested, for example, that we should stop entirely the use of synthetic soling material here? Is that what Deputy Ormonde suggests? Does Deputy Ormonde suggest that if the public want to use synthetic soling material, which is good value to the public—have no doubt about that—has a considerable durability and, in the long run, is a much cheaper sole, does Deputy Ormonde suggest the public should be denied access to the substitute soling materials?
May I ask the Minister who said the public wants the synthetic soling material? Is it not the boot manufacturers?
Let me reply to that and, at the same time, correct a misstatement by Deputy Ormonde. In October, 1952, and it will not be denied that the Fianna Fáil Government was in office in that month——
Let us forget that now. We are dealing with the Portlaw tannery and its future.
Quite. In October, 1952, Dunlop's factory here was supplied with a list of imported materials, synthetic materials, and told by the Fianna Fáil Government that they should try to manufacture those commodities here. For what? I suggest only for use. Deputy Ormonde says that I sanctioned the establishment of an industry in another town to do harm to Portlaw. What I am going to say now will be embarrassing to Deputy Ormonde but let the Deputy not forget to tell the truth when he is next in Portlaw and when he is there let him not forget to tell the people, especially those who voted for him, that on the 16th January, 1953, a manufacturing licence was issued to Dunlops authorising that firm to manufacture rubber sheeting, including rubber soling, and that new manufacture licence to make rubber soling was issued to Dunlops in 1953 by the Fianna Fáil Government. Now does Deputy Ormonde know who helped to establish this new competitive industry against Portlaw? Whatever else the Deputy may forget of this speech of mine let him not forget when he is next in Portlaw to tell the people there that Fianna Fáil gave another firm in this country a new manufacture licence to produce synthetic soling material which the public are now using since they are buying it. It is in the shops with leather goods. The public can buy what it likes. The public likes to buy this. Does anyone imagine we can prevent the public following the same line as the public has always followed elsewhere?
Surely it is not the public who are selecting the material. It is the boot manufacturers.
I wish Deputy Aiken was here on the Front Bench to-night and not Deputy Derrig because I would want Deputy Aiken to tell us what is the view of the boot factories in Dundalk and Drogheda in relation to this proposition. Suppose I was to say tomorrow to the boot manufacturers: "You will get no duty free licence" and suppose the boot manufacturers then decided they would pay the duty on the imported synthetic rubber material, what would happen? They would pay the duty. They would put the imported synthetic material on the boots and shoes. That would be no good to Portlaw because Portlaw has got 12 months' supply in stock. In any case the demand for these synthetic soled boots and shoes is here and in my view will stay and tanners ought to take their heads out of the sand if they imagine it is going to vanish overnight.
Why not prohibit the importation?
The Deputy ought to look up the Trade Agreement of 1938 which his Government negotiated with Britain and see what prohibition can be done under that and then come back here and tell us what his view is of that agreement after he has read it. If these people are required to pay the duty on the imported synthetic material they will pay it. They will put the material on the boots and shoes. The Exchequer, and only the Exchequer, will get the revenue; but the boot manufacturers will charge more for the boots and shoes soled with this synthetic material and the retailers who buy the boots and shoes soled with imported synthetic material, on which duty has been paid, will then charge a higher price to the consumers; and then Deputy Ormonde would come in here and say that since this Government came into office the price of boots and shoes has gone up. The Deputy must do some thinking about this matter. Talking about it is no solution.
I think there are solutions for the tanners' difficulties. They may be painful solutions from the point of view of the tanners, but nevertheless there are solutions. The tanners must think about a way of getting out of their difficulties. I do not think they are insurmountable and so far as I am concerned, in a specially difficult set of circumstances, I am willing to do anything I can to help the tanners and help retain in employment every employee it is possible to retain in Portlaw in the altered circumstances.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 29th March, 1955.