Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Jun 1956

Vol. 158 No. 9

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.)

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Norton)

When the House adjourned last night, I was referring to the movement of the cost-of-living index figure. I mentioned that, so far as this country was concerned, it could not hope, with its resources, to insulate itself against economic shocks and convulsions which had made their impact on countries whose economic fabric was immensely stronger than ours, and that, if the cost-of-living index figure had moved upwards here, it had likewise moved upwards, and even to a greater extent upwards, in other countries with greater resources than ours.

I do not quote these figures as justification for the Government alone. I quote them as justification for the country as a whole and whatever good news the Opposition can get from them they are quite entitled to it, because some of these movements took place during their period of office.

Recently, a statistical table of world currencies was published. The table set out the loss of purchasing power for the various currency units between 1946 and 1955. It gives a list of 53 countries, showing their loss of purchasing power between 1946 and 1955. On that list, Ireland is thirteenth out of a total of 53 countries. We have lost purchasing power and that loss of purchasing power is measured by the cost-of-living index figures in the various countries concerned and not by any international standard. Behind us, suffering a greater loss of currency, were countries such as Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Persia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, New Zealand, Britain, Iceland, Mexico, Australia, Finland, Austria, Brazil, Greece, France, Japan, Israel, Indonesia, Chile and Bolivia. In that company, we have managed as a nation to hold our currency in a much more self-respecting way than that list of countries—and they are only some of the countries with which a comparison has been made in this statistical return. I think, therefore, that when people write articles referring to the imminent economic collapse in Ireland they might usefully devote some of their available time to examining the imminence of economic collapses in the countries in which they reside.

These figures do no indicate any economic collapse from the point of view of the stability or international self-respect of our currency. If they do, then other countries who are well down the list behind us are in much greater danger of economic collapse than we are, though they are pointed out to us as countries which are economically strong and whose currencies are managed with the requisite orthodox prudence.

When we move from that to look at the cost-of-living index figure, let us make a comparison again from the point of view of showing how we have moved vis-à-vis another country, Britain. In mid-February, 1954, the cost-of-living index figure here was 124. In Britain at that time, it was 140. In mid-May, 1956, our cost-of-living index figure was 134—ten points above mid-February, 1954—but the British cost-of-living index figure moved from 140 to 158, that is, 18 points above the mid-February figure of 1954. Therefore, with all the measures adopted by Britain, with her immense resources, her index figure had moved 18 points between mid-February, 1954, and mid-May, 1956, whereas our index figure moved ten points during the same period.

That, I think, is an indication of the extent to which we have been able to manage, in difficult circumstances, to control the cost of living within the limits of the resources available to us. If the index figure has moved upwards from the point of view of those who have got to earn their incomes, the figures show that they have been able to get compensation, which has had the effect of giving them more compensation than the amount they have lost by the upward movement of the cost-of-living index figure.

I take figures published by the Central Statistics Office on the index of industrial earnings. Taking 1938 as 100, we find that in the first quarter of 1954, the index of real industrial earnings was 107.9. In the fourth quarter of 1954, it had moved up to 110.8. In the first quarter of 1955 it had moved to 109.8 and in the last quarter of 1955, it had moved to 116.9. That is virtually a movement of ten points in the last quarter of 1955 as compared with the first quarter of 1954.

Mr. Lemass

Did the Minister say that that is based on 1938?

Mr. Norton

Yes.

Mr. Lemass

There must be something wrong.

Mr. Norton

I think the comparison is all right. The figures for the first quarter of 1956 are not yet available. These are the figures of earnings from which you subtract the increase in the cost of living and these figures show that our real earnings continue to rise above that cost of living. I venture to say that the index figure for the first quarter of 1956 will show a continued rise in real earnings.

We thus have a situation in which quite considerable compensation has been secured by the whole community of workers in every field of industrial endeavour. We have not attempted to impose any wage freeze or standstill Order on wages. A standstill Order or a wage freeze will be no part of the policy of this Government. A situation has now been reached in which, I think, it is reasonable to say to the employers, on the one hand, and to trade unions on the other hand, and to industry generally, that we have got to be careful as to where we are going. What we need now is a period of stability in which people will know what their money will buy, in which workers will know what their wages will buy, and in which everyone will endeavour to put his shoulder to the wheel for the purpose of helping the nation over the difficulties which at present beset us.

If we are to have further upward rises in prices and wages, they can have no other effect than to destroy and dislocate the whole economy of the country and I think it would be the workers and the wage earners who would suffer most in a situation of that kind. The Government have had talks with the provisional committee of both trade union congresses. These conferences have been full and well-informed. The congresses have approached the situation with a statesmanlike understanding of the difficulties and have shown an appreciation of the necessity for an orderly appraisal of the situation and a recognition of the difficulties involved. Discussions with those organisations and the employers' organisations will, I hope, be continued, and I hope that on both sides, the trade union side and the employers' side, there will be a voluntary recognition, in the interest of the bodies which they represent, of the necessity for a proper and frank exchange of views. I hope that that will instil in each of them a recognition of the desirability and imperative necessity of avoiding violent upward movements in prices and violent upward movements in wages or any type of industrial conflict which would weaken the economic fabric of the State, in view of the necessity for increased production on the part of every element in the State.

I did not say in my speech, as Deputy Lemass alleged, that the whole responsibility for the increase in prices was due to increases in imports. I mentioned that coal, which is a raw material of many of our industries, had increased abnormally and that freight charges had also increased. These are charges the control of which does not reside with us and, so far as we have to buy coal, then we have to pay the world prices for that coal and buy it from those who are in a position to sell it. As far as freight prices are concerned, a small country like this, with its mercantile marine still in the process of being built up, could never hope to set the pace in freight rates, or to keep down the freight rates that would be set by other countries.

An examination of the prices situation is interesting. In the period between February, 1955 and May, 1956 the consumer index figure showed an increase of 6.4 per cent. In terms of points, the increase has been 7.9. Let us get a break-down of that 7.9 and see what items in the consumer goods index have been affected and which contributed to that increase. Of that 7.9 increase recorded in the period between February, 1955 and May, 1956, the increase for food was 2.5; the increase for clothing was .25; the increase for fuel was .78; the increase for housing .3 and the increase for sundries was 4 points.

If you look at the food increase of 2.5, you will find that two items alone contributed to 1.1 of the increase. Tea was responsible for an increase of .7 out of the 2.5. We do not grow tea. As regards tea, we can do either of two things: we can either buy tea at the price at which we can get it or do without it. We could never hope to regulate the price of tea here. Another increase was in respect of milk. Here the increase was .44, almost .5. I understood that most parties in the country were anxious that the farmer should get more for his milk. Those who take that view cannot, therefore, lament at the same time if the price of milk goes up so long as the profits on the price of milk go back to the man who owns the cow.

All the other increases are trifling increases extending from tomatoes to pork sausages, oranges and biscuits. Out of the increase of 7.9 points only 2.5 is accounted for during that period by an increase in the price of food. An increase of 4.06 in the price of sundries is accounted for by an increase in the price of tobacco and cigarettes to the extent of 1.66; an increase in travel inside and outside the country of .73; an increase in drink of .40; an increase in newspapers of .52—so that the increase in newspapers alone was responsible for one-eighth of the increase in the sundry group. People who write articles in newspapers ought to remember that. Education is responsible for an increase of .11. Miscellaneous increases are expressed in the figure of .5.

These are the facts. When they are examined against the background of the movement in our food prices, it is not a record of which anybody ought to be ashamed that, in spite of considerable difficulties, the food position during that period, in an increase of 7.9 points in the consumer goods index, has been held down to an increase of 2.5.

I have already quoted the figures of the index of industrial earnings which show the percentage increase granted to workers whose wages are used for the purpose of ascertaining the index of real wages. They show that these workers have got more compensation in wages than the increase in the cost of living ordinarily would justify, but I take pride in the fact that, if we give people more wages and better wages, we give them a better standard of living, we give them a means of purchasing more goods from our producers, we create, by purchasing power in their hands, a bigger and wider market and we give those who produce agricultural goods or industrial goods an opportunity of selling them to customers who have money in their pockets to buy them.

I cannot see any farmer ever getting rich by hoping to sell agricultural produce to a man who has no money in his pocket. I cannot see any industrialist believing that his standard of production will increase or his standard of prosperity move upwards if he has the task of selling goods to people who have no wages, or little wages, or not sufficient wages to buy what the industrialist produces. So long as purchasing power is the passport to buying goods, whether from the farmer or the factory, or buying services in the offices or in the public utilities, then, so long as we can have an ordinary development of the nation's economic life, money in the man's pocket and money in the housewife's purse is still the best means and the only one that I know of to ensure prosperity for agriculture and industry.

The question of rural electrification and the E.S.B. programme generally was raised in the course of this debate. I do not like to see the E.S.B. a shuttlecock of Irish politics. I do not think that helps the E.S.B. I hope we will get away from this temporary eruption in what otherwise has been a kind of neutral approach to the problems of the E.S.B. and electrical development generally. So far as rural electrification is concerned, I gave the story at the outset. Judging by some of the speeches that have been made, what I said was either unread by Deputies or its significance unappreciated. In 1951-52, the number of areas in which rural electrification had been completed for that year was 49. In 1952-53, it was again 49; in 1953-54 it was 60; in 1954-55 it was 75 and in 1955-56 it was 99. Is that not clear evidence for anybody not politically blinded that rural electrification has been accelerated at a rate previously unknown?

So far as I have been concerned, I have told the E.S.B. to drive ahead on the rural electrification scheme. These figures show that in 1954-55 and 1955-56, that is, during the last two years, we have hit the highest targets ever—75 in 1954-55; 99 in 1955-56. I hope that, at least, that pace will be maintained. I should like to see it still further accelerated.

I mentioned earlier that the E.S.B. had now found that they were over-planted, that is, that with the plant in commission and in sight they had more plant than they would need up to 1960-61. I want to put this simple question to anybody in business, anybody engaged in agriculture, anybody who has even a modicum of common sense—is there any value to anybody in building a plant that you cannot work, that you cannot get value for? Is there any advantage in telling the E.S.B. to put up new power stations even though nobody will consume the current from these new power stations because the board have more capacity than they can sell from the other power stations already in existence? Is not it just a matter of plain common sense that the E.S.B. ought to adjust its plant requirements to its capacity to sell its current? The board have taken the view now, as I said in my opening speech, that it is over-planted, that is, that it has too much plant, and that it has been geared to a programme which the board, with its knowledge of electricity and with the technical advice which it can get—and that surely must be superior to anything we here can get—say they have more plant than they need, that is, that what is in commission and what is now operating is sufficient for their requirements for some years to come.

I put it this way in my speech:—

"The development programme of the E.S.B., as set out in the Appendix to the White Paper which was published in March, 1954, provided for an increase in installed capacity to 1,022.5 mw. by 31st March, 1961, to meet a demand for electricity estimated at 3,350,000,000 units during that year. The estimates of increased demand over the years were based on assumptions made in 1953 that the demand for electricity would double itself every five to five and a half years. The rate of growth in demand for electricity has, however, shown a tendency to decline. Between 1952-53 and 1953-54 the demand increased by 11.3 per cent., and in 1954-55 it increased by a further 12.8 per cent. over the preceding year. In 1955-56, however, the growth in demand was less than 8 per cent. despite the energetic sales campaign by the board and the considerable increase in the sales of its electrical appliances."

That is not just an E.S.B. experience. That is a world experience if anybody had taken the trouble to examine the world figures. The position, therefore, is that the board have passed a revised development programme which provides for a reduction to approximately 728 mw. in installed capacity in commission on the 31st March, 1961, to meet a demand which is now estimated at 2,430,000,000 units in that year instead of 3,350,000,000 units as contemplated in the White Paper.

The board go on to say that: "Notwithstanding this downward revision it is anticipated that the margin of spare capacity available at times of peak load will be considerable, varying between 22½ per cent. and 33? per cent. over the years 1956-57 to 1960-61". That is a surplus of actual generating capacity. It is not based at all on the theoretical generating capacity of the board. That excess of generating capacity is on the normal operation of the board from day to day—not its theoretical generating capacity which will have to be measured by the assumption that every plant was running at full blast for every minute of a 24-hour day.

This increase is over the day to day generating capacity. I think the statements made by Deputy Lemass indicated that he believed we were responsible for forcing the board to adopt this programme. That is not so. That is not true. The position is that, when the matter was discussed with the board, the board said to us that the figures in the White Paper of 1954 had proved to be unrealistic. The assumption then was that the consumption of electricity would double in from five to five and a half years.

Experience has shown that it is taking something over 11 years instead of the five to five and a half years to double the consumption of electricity and the net question the board asked themselves is: Are we going to install plant on the basis of an unrealistic belief that the demand for electricity will double itself in from five to five and a half years, which is a world record now, or are we going to adjust our plant requirement to the realities of the situation as we see it here and to our anticipations for the future?

I will quote this fact in furtherance of what I say. The fact that existing installed capacity is more than adequate to meet the demand is illustrated by the fact that in the year 1955-56, which was very dry and during which a very heavy demand might have been expected on the steam stations, the Pigeon House station produced only 95,000,000 units. In 1952-53, when comparable weather conditions were experienced, that station produced 417,000,000 units as compared with 368,000,000 units in 1951-52. The stand-by capacity is more than adequate to meet any emergencies and the coming into commission of more stations during the next few years will take care of any likely increased demand.

My information, obtained through an O.E.E.C. Report, on the electricity supply industry in Europe, published in January last, shows the rate of expansion for O.E.E.C. countries during 1954 and 1955 was approximately 9 per cent. That is the same percentage increase that the E.S.B. is experiencing, so that what the E.S.B. is doing is adjusting its plant requirements not only for the day but for the future, to its own ascertainment of what the demand for electricity will be.

When you come to testing its decisions against the realities of the electricity supply industry in Europe you find the E.S.B. anticipated production, judged by the O.E.E.C. Report, represents the average increase in electrical production in the various countries comprising the O.E.E.C. Is not that a test of reality? Is not that an indication that the E.S.B. in this matter has been proved right? Is anybody going to suggest that they ought to be asked to build up plant on the assumption that the demand would double itself in five to five and a half years when their own experience and the whole European experience is that it is now taking between 11 and 12 years to double the demand for electricity?

Mr. Derrig

The Minister should tell us what the power resources of all these countries are as compared with ours.

Mr. Norton

I am defending the Estimate of the Department of Industry and Commerce in Ireland and not in the world, Deputy. I think there is no doubt that the E.S.B. knew all the time that this White Paper was being forced upon them and that the targets were set impossibly high. I know the former Minister's view about the E.S.B. That is a matter between himself and the board and his assessment of the members of the board is not a matter of concern to me.

When this White Paper was being discussed with the board and when the board was being asked to accept certain estimates as the anticipated estimates of what would be required in this country, the board felt obliged to put on record to the Minister, in a letter dated 11th February, 1954, this statement:—

"The board has now sufficient plant to rule out fears of rationing. It has initiated an active sales policy and the rate of development of rural electrification has been considerably accelerated. The stimulation of consumption will continue to be constantly under review. The programme is related to the demand for electricity and this is difficult to foretell with certainty. On the basis of earlier estimates the demand in 1955-56 has been given in the appendix as 1,780 million units (generated) rising to 3,350 million units in 1960-61.

This assumption of growth was a very rapid one corresponding to a doubling of the demand in five and a half years. In fact, in the present year the output is now estimated not to exceed 1,300 million units as compared with a figure as high as 1,380 million units in the schedule. If a slower growth is experienced in the period in question this would, of course, affect the construction programme."

That was the board's view in February, 1954. Notwithstanding the board's view, the matter was pressed with the Department of Finance and Deputy MacEntee now, then the Minister for Finance, in a letter, dated 18th February, 1954, wrote to the Minister for Industry and Commerce saying:—

"In view of the reserve with which the E.S.B. put forward their estimates of demand and as recent indications are that these estimates may be unduly high, the memorandum should include a paragraph indicating the difficulty of forecasting demand and making it clear that the trend of demand will be carefully watched so that the construction programme can be adjusted downwards if growth of demand is slower than now anticipated."

So you have the E.S.B. and Deputy MacEntee taking the view that the sights were raised too high, that the targets were unattainable and that there might have to be careful watching of the construction programme, with a view to its downward revision. Notwithstanding this prudent advice from the board, which ought to be the Minister's technical adviser, and notwithstanding the views of the Minister for Finance at the time, who said: "Be careful where you are going; you may be pitching your target too high," the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass, goes to the Government and says: "It has got to be done. This is my view; this is my decision.""The board," he said, "are always inclined to underestimate the rate at which the demand for electricity will grow." So the Minister for Industry and Commerce at the time put his point of view against the viewpoint of the board and the viewpoint of his own colleague, the Minister for Finance.

Now we can look at the whole position and see who was right and who was wrong. It is as clear as daylight that Deputy Lemass was wrong. It is as clear as daylight that the sights were raised too high and that the E.S.B. and the Minister for Finance were more accurate in their appraisal of the position than the Deputy.

The board has now come to us to say: "This programme is out of gear. The reins have to be put on it. We are now being committed to stations which we cannot use. We have to revise the whole programme. It is in the light of this admission by the E.S.B.—that this whole matter is hopelessly out of hand and requires revision—that these alterations have to be made. I think the making of them is a realistic task and I think that the completion of the revision will be good for the E.S.B. and for the nation.

Instead of regarding this as an incident which is inevitable in an immense undertaking like the E.S.B., a revision which is necessary in any kind of job of the kind in any country in the world, efforts are being made here to make political capital out of the need for revision. The strange thing is that Deputy Lemass, who was responsible for creating the situation in which the E.S.B. were overplanted, gets up to lead the pack when it comes to attacking the E.S.B. for an intelligent re-appraisal of their programme. The board and Deputy MacEntee were proved to be right. The whole file shows that, when the E.S.B. decided that the programme was over-pitched, the decision taken by Deputy Lemass was: "It does not matter; they are never very accurate in estimating. Push this on." It was pushed on and proved to be wrong.

The new programme of the E.S.B. has not been forced on them by the Government. The E.S.B. said: "We have got too much plant; we want to revise the programme." We said: "You have been appointed directors of the E.S.B."—and they are the nominees of Deputy Lemass; they are not mine and they are not a new board—"and if that is your view, let us have the facts." They have now given us a revised programme which they say will keep them, with their present plant and plant in sight, fully ahead of requirements to 1960-1961. Doing that will necessitate some cutting back on their programme. It will mean, as I said yesterday, that the same quantities of turf will not now be required so speedily from some of the bogs on which Bord na Móna have been operating. Bord na Móna will, therefore, have to adjust its programme and to help it to adjust that programme, I have, with the consent of the Government, authorised it to put in one 100,000 turf-briquetting plant on one bog, and the right to put up a second one will be decided in the light of the board's experience, not of the operation of the first plant, but of how they get on in the matter of ordering and what are the delivery dates.

I think this is a good self-critical operation by the E.S.B. and Bord na Móna and I hope that these two organisations will in the future try to grow together, instead of trying to grow apart, and that each will know more about the other's future plans than has been apparent in the past.

Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll mentioned the desirability of setting up a bureau of standards for consumer goods.

Mr. Lemass

Before the Minister leaves the E.S.B., will he deal with the question of the increase in charges?

Mr. Norton

No; I will not do it now. I have asked the E.S.B. to go to the Prices Advisory Body.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister said last year that no increases in charges would be necessary.

Mr. Norton

I am not running the E.S.B. They say that an increase is necessary, and, instead of sanctioning it, I said: "All right; if that is your case, go to the Prices Advisory Body and make the case for it."

Mr. Lemass

Why did you change your mind about sending them to the Prices Advisory Body?

Mr. Norton

In the meantime, the board have to pay more money for coal and wages.

Mr. Lemass

Did the Minister not know that last year?

Mr. Norton

Let them make that case there. Then we will have a look at what the Prices Advisory Body says.

Mr. Lemass

What was the report for last year?

Mr. Norton

I have not seen it yet.

Mr. Lemass

How much was the deficit?

Mr. Norton

I cannot say; I have not seen the report yet.

Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll raised the desirability of setting up a bureau of standards for consumer goods and apparently expected that this bureau would be set up by now. The question was discussed on a motion by Deputy James Tully in November, 1955. The motion set out:—

"That the Dáil is of opinion that the Government should speedily examine the desirability of setting up a bureau of standards for the guidance of consumers...."

The Government was asked not to do it, but to examine the possibility of doing it, and, replying on the motion, I said I would take the motion for examination, but that we could not be committed, without a detailed examination, to the establishment of the bureau. The whole discussion on the subject, important though it was, occupied only about two and a half pages of the Parliamentary Reports.

The very fact that we now have had control of our own affairs for 34 years and that we have no such bureau is, in my view, an indication that either people were not terribly concerned with the matter, or that it was not frightfully easy to establish such a bureau. I took the matter seriously, however, when the Dáil passed the motion. I know that the establishment of such a bureau is a very complicated matter. I have had discussions with the Institute of Industrial Research and Standards and we have made inquiries as to the procedure for the protection of consumers in other countries. A good deal of information has been assembled by the Department but one thing is clear from the information we have got—that no effective system appears to exist in other countries.

Experience seems to indicate that there is considerable difficulty in a democratic concept of society in evolving an appropriate scheme. The matter is still the subject of examination and I hope within the next two months to be able to say whether it is within the bounds of practical politics or whether it is something to which, because of our particular social structure, it is not possible to give effect. However, in so far as the matter was raised by Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll by way of complaint, which appeared to be based on the erroneous assumption that nothing was being done in the matter, I want to say that a good deal has been done in endeavouring to get information in this respect and an earnest of our desire in that direction is proved by the inquiries which we have made with that object in view.

Deputy Lemass, in the course of his speech, said the increase in industrial production in this country in recent years was only 6 per cent. whereas, according to the figures furnished by O.E.E.C., the increase in other European countries was not less than 8 per cent. The Deputy obtained that result by making a particular use of the figures. I got the O.E.E.C. information on this subject and, taking industrial production indices of member and associate countries as 100 in 1952, I find it does not show that we occupy any discreditable position.

An examination of those figures shows that the index of all member countries is influenced by increases in a few countries as shown by the index figure for those countries for 1955. For example, the figure for Greece, where there is abundant scope for development because of the economic circumstances there, has jumped to 152 from 100. Germany, for an entirely different reason, because its economy is dynamic, has jumped to 142, and Austria liberated has jumped to 132. However, according to the O.E.E.C. indices, comparing 1952 with 1955, the following countries show exactly the same increase as this country, namely, Belgium, Denmark, France, Norway, the United Kingdom and even Sweden, which is frequently pointed to as a country well worthy of emulation in many respects, has reached a figure of 112, the 1952 figure being 100, while in the same period we have reached 117. Deputy Lemass is entitled to some congratulation because his Government was in office during the period, but there is no purpose in continually crying out "stinking fish" about the progress of our own country when, by comparison with other countries, we can take pride in some of the things we have been able to do in very difficult circumstances.

Mr. Derrig

Have any of these countries had a fall in production during the last year as we have had? The Minister for Finance has pointed out that our production has fallen.

Mr. Norton

That is not correct.

Mr. MacBride

In agriculture. Not in industry. May I interject to suggest that the comparison the Minister has just made is not a sound one by reason of the fact that he has been comparing the rate of increase in industrial output in countries with already highly developed industries with the rate of increase in comparatively undeveloped countries?

Mr. Norton

I took those figures because I had to compare them with what Deputy Lemass was quoting. In my opening speech, I gave the figures for net output and employment for industries and services. I will take a few of those figures now. In 1938, the net output was £35,000,000; the number employed was 166,000. In 1948, net output was £75,000,000; the number employed was 197,000. In 1953, the net output was £119,000,000; the number employed was 227,000. In 1954, the net output was £122,000,000; the number employed was 234,000. In 1955, the net output was £126,000,000 an increase of £4,000,000 on 1954; and the number employed was 235,000.

These figures show a continual upward rise in industrial production, a continued expansion in industrial employment, and these are figures which indicate that there is a healthy growth there. Let us all endeavour to accelerate the growth and to stimulate it in every way, for these figures indicate that there is life and vitality in our industries. It is not, therefore, correct, as Deputy Derrig tried to suggest, that the volume of industrial production has decreased. It has increased to an all-time high record and the number of persons industrially employed to-day is higher than it has been at any time since 1922. These are incontrovertible facts and we gain nothing by trying to misrepresent them.

Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll raised a matter which related to some parliamentary question which she asked previously. She asked whether the decision of the Prices Advisory Body and the recent application for an increase in the price of coal was unanimous. I told her that this report of the body was submitted to me and I did not think it desirable to disclose the figures by which the Prices Advisory Body reached its decision. I do not know what purpose Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll is trying to serve by pursuing this matter. I know she has had contact with members of the Prices Advisory Body, and it is not a difficult task for her to ask was the decision unanimous. I do not think it is right that every time the Prices Advisory Body makes a recommendation, a question should be put down asking how many were on one side and how many on the other side.

Mr. Lemass

Is that privilege extended to all Deputies, to ask the members of the Prices Advisory Body that question?

Mr. Norton

I am not stopping anybody from approaching them. I know that Mrs. O'Carroll spoke to members of the Prices Advisory Body because she appeared before them.

Mr. Lemass

Are they free to discuss their deliberations?

Mr. Norton

The Prices Advisory Body regulate their own procedure. I do not propose to interfere with them or to prescribe to whom they will speak. Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll gave evidence before this body and my advice to the Deputy would be to drop this matter. In so far as she hopes she will prove anything from what she is doing, let me say she is in the wrong street.

Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll also raised the question of coal deliveries and prices. I know—and my inspectors checked the figures and proved them correct—that a number of coal merchants in Dublin booked orders from their customers at the old price and while there was no authority to introduce the new price. An examination of their books shows that where they took the orders at the old price, they delivered the new coal at the old price even though they had to pay the new price for it. The facts are there in their books and customers know that where the order was accepted at the old price, delivery of the new coal was made at the old price. That was done by a number of customers. Coal merchants said that in the days immediately prior to the increase in the price of coal they had orders from regular customers three, four and five times as large as the usual orders. They, of course, were not going to give people three, four and five times their normal supply of coal at the old price, when they, the merchants, had in fact only a limited quantity of coal in their yards and would have to pay the new and higher price for further supplies.

Deputy MacBride raised the question of C.I.E. workshops and the desirability of doing in those workshops everything that can be done in them. I have never met the chairman of C.I.E. that I have not impressed upon him my desire that C.I.E. should make in the Inchicore workshops all the commodities they require for their own use. There is only one test I impose and that is that the manufacture of these commodities should be subject to an economic check. I do not want them to spend £100 making something which can be bought elsewhere for £20; I do not want them to set up machinery to turn out one or two components if that would have the effect of making the cost unrealistically high and in the knowledge that such components could be bought much more cheaply from a shop which already has the tools to do the job and is producing the components on a large-scale basis.

I know from experience that the board are anxious to produce in their works here all the commodities which they require, but they have, of course, to be sensible in this matter. It might well be that, if they decided to make certain commodities themselves, that might have the effect of disemploying certain people until such time as the commodities had been manufactured and, in the long run, the overall unemployment might be less in certain circumstances, if they bought the commodity elsewhere.

C.I.E., however, know that it is my desire that they should produce all they can for their own requirements. I even went so far as to suggest to them that, in order to keep their workers in employment and in order to help their financial position, they might ascertain from British Railways whether they could, on the equipment available at Inchicore, make parts for British Railways in order to have work for the Inchicore shops at a time when, presumably, large orders will be placed with firms in England and elsewhere, firms which will probably find it difficult to give early delivery, in connection with the reorganisation of British Railways. The board, without hesitation, decided that they would go after that, in the hope that they would get some of that business.

Deputy Cunningham raised the question of the G.N.R. I think the facts are pretty public. The Six-County Government, through the Minister of Commerce, decided that they would close, or move to close, three cross-Border railways and the Minister asked me to join with him in arranging for the closing of these lines. I felt that this was, to say the least of it, a non-progressive move and that I could not concur in the arrangement in that easy way. I suggested, therefore, that as far as I was concerned the matter would have to go to the chairmen of the tribunals provided for under the Act. These chairmen have met and I understand that they are at the moment preparing a report on the question of the closing of these three railways. Since the issue of the closing of these three lines was remitted to the chairmen for advice, the situation has changed somewhat, inasmuch as the Six-County Government have announced that they also propose to lop off other branches of the railway services in the Six Counties.

There are two lines running to Derry, one from Belfast around the coast and the other from Portadown via Omagh and Strabane; part of that line from Omagh to Derry is a cross-Border line and we will have to be consulted in relation to its closing. The Six-County Government could close the other line of their own volition, because it lies entirely within the Six Counties. I observe that the Six-County Government have now decided that they will not come to any definite decision as to which of the lines to Derry should be closed until such time as they receive the report of the joint chairmen who examined the question of the closing of the three cross-Border lines and presumably, therefore, both of these lines to Derry have had a temporary reprieve.

I am fully conscious of the chaotic situation which would result if the line from Portadown to Derry were closed, because such closing would starve counties like Tyrone and Fermanagh of rail transport services. Indeed, I think it would do nothing but seriously retard the industrial development of these counties. Such a step would, I believe, cause immense inconvenience to the population there and, so far as this Government is concerned, it will be no consenting party to the closing down of the Portadown-Derry line because of the immense repercussions that would have not only on Donegal, but on certain other counties as well. It might very well be that it would be made impossible to operate the line, should the Six-County Government take a particular stand,

We have taken the attitude that the G.N.R. ought to be given a chance to re-equip its railway stock and to introduce dieselisation, and it is only when dieselisation fails to achieve results, that we should contemplate the closing down of important branch lines which are of vital importance for the transport of people and goods in these areas.

Deputy Breslin raised the question of the operations of An Foras Tionscal in Donegal. He wanted to know how many projects had been helped there. The fact is that An Foras Tionscal have made grants to four industries in County Donegal; an industry for the manufacture of gloves at Falcarragh, an industry for the manufacture of carpets at Killybegs, a laundry and dry cleaning industry at Letterkenny and an industry for the production of ceramic tiles at Carrigans.

Deputy Breslin also raised the question of the spending of money on roads in proximity to the Gweedore generating station. He mentioned that the E.S.B. had offered 40/- per ton for turf for that station. So far as the price of turf is concerned, that is a matter for the E.S.B. It has the responsibility of getting the turf; it has the responsibility of fixing a price which will attract producers to supply the turf. The Deputy will, I am sure, appreciate that that is not a matter into which I can enter. A sum of £200,000 was made available for the improvement of roads in proximity to these small generating stations. Of that, some £18,000 has been allocated to Donegal County Council for repairs to county roads in the vicinity of the station. The county council have already got £8,000 of that and the balance will be issued to them during the current year. The board can decide itself in what areas it will spend this money so as to ensure that it is spent on roads over which turf will be carried rather than putting in roads in advance on the assumption that turf will be carried over them when, in fact, the carrying of turf on these roads might not materialise at all.

Deputy Derrig raised the question of the servicing of the purchase of the Viscounts. The position is that the Aer Lingus Viscounts have been purchased out of capital made available to the board and out of its own resources. These aircraft are being paid for by repayment of the capital advances to the board. That has been the position in the past and will be the position in respect of the three new Viscounts and the four new Fokker Friendship aircraft which have now been ordered by Aer Lingus in order to supplement its present fleet and to extend its activities.

Deputy Coogan raised the question of what type of vessel it is proposed to put on the Galway-Aran service. The type of vessel in this case is principally a matter for C.I.E., which is responsible for operating the service. I understand, however, from C.I.E. that plans have been prepared for the board in consultation with a native architect, who has visited the Aran Islands and has examined the conditions on the spot. I hope the board will be placing an order for this vessel in the near future and that its delivery might be expected in approximately 18 to 20 months after that date, provided no hitch occurs.

Deputy Lynch of Waterford raised the question that Irish Shipping Ltd., should acquire a fleet of coasters which could use the small ports. I think I should say at this stage that the primary object of Irish Shipping Ltd., is to provide deep sea tonnage to import essential commodities, especially in times of emergency. The company have, however, acquired two colliers of about 1,400 tons dead weight, a dry cargo vessel of about 2,000 tons dead weight and a coastal tanker of approximately 3,350 tons dead weight. The company also have on order two dry cargo vessels of about 2,000 tons dead weight each. One of these is due for delivery in the month of October and the other in the month of December. These small vessels can, of course, use quite a considerable number of the Irish ports.

The question of the nitrogenous fertiliser factory was referred to by Deputy Lemass. This, as the Deputy knows, is a very large project which will involve the expenditure of something in the vicinity of £7,000,000. There are a number of schools of thought on what is the best type of nitrogenous fertiliser to produce in this country. That is a matter which has been engaging the attention of the Department of Industry and Commerce and of the Department of Agriculture. The matter does not lie with my Department alone. It is important, however, with the changes and the discoveries in the fertiliser industry, to ensure that, if we are to spend £7,000,000 we have the right scheme and that we are not anchoring ourselves to a scheme which may be left behind by the other progressive countries in the world. We are getting all the technical information we can on that subject to see what looks to be the best scheme from the point of view of our requirements here, from the point of view of the price and from the point of view of utilising native resources. I am doing my best to push the matter ahead with the utmost expedition but I am sure the House will appreciate the need for caution in a scheme of this kind where a sum of £7,000,000 is involved.

Deputy Bartley raised the question of the new hire purchase regulations and their effect on the furniture trade. Let me say that, as far as the furniture trade is concerned, it was treated generously in the matter of the hire purchase regulations because of the fact that the deposit in that case was as low as 10 per cent. and many firms already charge 10 per cent. or even more. I know that in recent years, particularly since the introduction of certain types of shops here which generated intense competition in the matter of hire purchase, that competition has been pushed to the extent that a number of firms have been prepared to say: "We will give you furniture without any initial deposit," and I know that their financial resources in that respect have driven other people in the same line of business to compete with them on the basis of a no-deposit arrangement.

I do not think any person who is realistic will attempt to say that it is unfair to ask a person who wants to buy £10 of furniture to put down £1, or to ask a person who wants to buy £20 worth of furniture to put down £2 When the facts are put in that way, I do not think anybody would attempt to say that that is an unreasonable requirement. If they have not got the £1, they can at least save for a week or two until they accumulate it and then put it down. It is not unreasonable to get people to think before they decide to purchase anything on a hire purchase basis. Having to accumulate even a small deposit induces them to look at the price and the conditions of repayment twice. If they think of their liabilities even once, not twice, it is a good arrangement from the point of view of preventing people from being extravagant in their purchases.

Far from being in opposition to it, I personally am in favour of the principle of hire purchase. I think it is one way in which ordinary small people have been able to get around them some capital goods which they would never get if they had to put down the whole sum of money.

I know many working-class houses which have pianos and good furniture. I know many poor people, who started off their lives in poorness and poverty, but who by their industry have been able, with the advance of years and better conditions, to accumulate some quite decent articles of furniture, which are a source of joy and pride to them. They could never have bought these articles if they had to save up and put down the entire sum in one payment, because they have not got that propensity for saving. By means of hire purchase, properly regulated, they have been able to get around them capital goods which give them pleasure and happiness, and without a hire purchase arrangement they would never have been able to acquire them.

I think, therefore, that hire purchase itself is not undesirable, but for its successful operation it requires prudence and realism in the minds of those who engage in the practice.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister is aware, I am sure, that the scheme is being defeated by shops who are lending the money?

Mr. Norton

If there is any way of burning the fingers of these people, I will do my best to burn them. We made a Hire Purchase (Credit Sales) Order which means that anybody who does not comply with that Order or sells goods in contravention of that Order, by his action in doing so invalidates the contract, if there be any contract, and he cannot enforce the contract against the person who has got the goods. If anybody endeavours to get through the Order by doing something which is prohibited by the Order, I hope some of them will have their fingers burned by the receivers of the goods refusing to recognise the validity of the Order and refusing to pay the instalments under the Order.

Mr. James Tully

They are not paying instalments; they are repaying money they borrowed.

Mr. Norton

If the Deputy will let me have particulars of any such cases, I will see if the resources of the Legislature are such as will enable us to deal with the situation.

Deputy Bartley, for reasons I could not fathom, took a delight in wrapping the new cotton mill in Galway round himself and claimed that this was a Fianna Fáil project and that nobody had anything to do with it except Fianna Fáil. Of course, the Deputy is indebted to his imagination for hallucinations of that kind. The fact of the matter is — I put this on record in the hope that this corrective will prevent the Deputy from making a fool of himself on future occasions on the same subject — this project arose out of a visit from a delegation of the Industrial Development Authority to Sweden in March, 1955. The initial discussions took place with the Swedish firm on 25th March, 1955. In July, 1955, a representative of a British firm which had a financial interest in the Swedish firm became associated with the project and undertook its promotion. In August, 1955, we received a definite proposal on the subject. The Industrial Development Authority reported to me on the matter in September or October, 1955. In November, 1955, I ascertained that two other Irish companies had become associated with the project and that the arrangements for the erection of the new firm, Galway Textiles, Limited, were proceeding.

These are the historical facts relating to the establishment of this industry and Fianna Fáil had nothing to do with the establishment of it at all. Why Deputy Bartley leaves himself open to repudiation on a matter so simple as that I cannot say. Of course, it does not matter who started the factory; the important thing is that we are making goods that we previously imported and that we are going to give employment down there to people of all political views.

Deputy Derrig wanted to know — I take it this is what he meant — what was the position in regard to our fuel conservation arrangements. The position is that we have now made an arrangement with a firm of fuel consultants whereby they will carry out a survey of the methods of handling fuel, of boiler-house technique and steam distribution and utilisation in 45 selected Irish industrial undertakings. That contract has been signed with the consultants; the work is in hands and I hope that within the next few months we will have a report from the consultants as to the result of their survey of the whole matter.

Mr. Derrig

As a matter of information, would the Minister state whether this action was taken on the initiative of the Government or whether the industries concerned participated?

Mr. Norton

No, it is in accordance with a Government decision of December, 1950, and the moneys are being provided now by Government grant although it was originally thought it might come out of technical assistance money.

Deputy Brennan raised the question of employment in the hosiery industry and was anxious that it should be safeguarded. I would be most anxious, as the Deputy ought to know, to safeguard the hosiery industry, and particularly the Donegal aspect of the hosiery industry, because I know how vital it is to the economy of that part of the country. When the hosiery group of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers came to me from time to time and said: there was a danger of imports from Hong Kong or Japan or Far Eastern countries, I took energetic steps not only to put these imports off-side by adjustment of tariffs but also by warning potential importers here that, if they entered into commitments to buy this cheap stuff produced in the Far East and were subsequently caught in increased tariffs operated to protect Irish industry, they would get no sympathetic consideration from me and that any money they paid on the import of these goods designed to undersell Irish goods would have to be paid by them and no refund might be expected. That is still my attitude, but the examination of the hosiery industry, so far as I have been able to make it, does not indicate that there is anything more wrong in it than the seasonal laying-off.

In so far as one firm, whose name got into the newspapers in connection with the laying-off of staff is concerned, I have made inquiries and tried to ascertain what, in their view, is the difficulty which has led up to the laying-off of some staff. The director of the company concerned said that the sales of the firm's knit-wear goods have declined over the past two years in the cheaper categories and they attribute this decline to the large-scale introduction into this country of home-knitting machines. He has claimed that it is impossible for a genuine knit-wear factory to compete with these domestic operators who have no overheads and who can, therefore, undercut a genuine knit-wear factory in price.

If that is happening, of course, everybody will appreciate the impossibility of being able to deal with a situation in which people purchase knitting machines and engage in knitting at home in competition with the factories. I do not think there is anything we can do in that field and, indeed, I am inclined to doubt whether that in fact is the real problem with which the firms concerned are faced. At all events, I have received no representations from the hosiery group of the Federation of Irish Manufacturers which is normally a most alert group if there is anything wrong in the hosiery business. But if they have anything to say to me, or any suggestion whereby I can help, I shall be only too pleased to do so.

Deputy Tully raised the question of Irish tweed being affected by cloth of Japanese origin. No representations have been received by my Department that the industry is affected by the importation of cloth from Japan. In the past three weeks we have had a number of meetings with the woollen mills, and the woollen mills are never slow to tell you of any difficulty they experience or even remotely anticipate. Therefore, there would be reason to assume that if cloth was being imported from Japan to the detriment of the Irish woollen industry, the mills would have raised the matter, but so far we have had no complaint. If the Deputy has any information on the matter we should be glad to receive it and to investigate the position.

Deputy Derrig raised the question of increasing anthracite production. Last September I assembled the anthracite colliery proprietors and urged them to increase production to the fullest extent. I reminded them that I had received assurances from the coal merchants that they would take up the whole production of sized anthracite and I offered the colliery owners all the assistance in my power to enable them to overcome obstacles in the way of increased production including sympathetic consideration by me of applications from them for guarantees under the Trades Loans Guarantee Act. I told them I was most anxious to step up anthracite production.

The colliery owners mentioned that a big difficulty in the way of increasing production was the shortage of houses which could be occupied by persons brought in the capacity of miners to operate in these collieries. I then took the matter up through the Minister for Local Government with the local authorities concerned and I am glad to say that a number of these local authorities have co-operated to the extent that they are erecting new houses in two of these colliery areas where this special difficulty existed. I may say the colliery owners assured me that they would make every possible effort to increase production and I think that the figures so far in that respect are quite encouraging. The production for the first five months of the present year was 17 per cent. in excess of the production for the corresponding period last year. I hope that increase will be maintained and, if possible, multiplied.

Deputy O'Malley raised the question of the export of copper concentrates and inquired whether there was any possibility of having the copper smelted here. This is a highly technical process and a decision on it could not be arrived at by wishing the thing to happen, by desiring that a certain thing would happen. The question of the erection of a copper smelter here is a matter of cold economics. The question is, can you get from Irish copper mines and from imports from other countries sufficient copper to make the setting up of a smelter here an economical proposition? It would cost a very large sum of money, running into millions of dollars, and we must be sure, before we consider the purchase of such equipment, whether we can get from our own mines and from abroad sufficient copper to enable us to run the smelter economically. It may be that because of the shortage of smelter facilities in other countries, we could, if we had extensive copper mines here, manage to erect a smelter which could be worked economically. I have discussed it with the Canadian mining group and the position is now being examined.

The question of my visit to America was raised by some Deputies. I went to America not of my own willing but arising out of the Government's desire that the possibility of inducing Americans to participate in Irish industrial enterprise should be examined on the spot, that the advantages of it should be disseminated over a large number of people potentially interested, and that, at the same time, we should use the opportunity of the visit to promote tourism in Ireland and explore the possibility of selling more Irish goods in America.

We import from America approximately £14,000,000 worth of goods in a year. We export to America about £2,000,000 worth. We are clearly in physical inbalance with the U.S. in so far as our imports and exports are concerned, and I believe there are immense possibilities in the U.S., with its 165,000,000 people, of improving our business, particularly when you remember there are 20,000,000 people of Irish birth or Irish extraction in the U.S. As I said there, if you could get these 20,000,000 people of Irish birth or Irish extraction to spend one pound on one day each year, say St. Patrick's Day, in buying an Irish-made product, our exports to America would amount to £20,000,000 a year instead of £2,000,000. Anybody who has experience of the American way of life will know that one pound is little more than a good tip in their whole financial structure.

I think there are immense possibilities there. I went on this trip for the purpose, therefore, of endeavouring to induce American industrialists to come to Ireland to participate in our industrial development. I tried, in the course of a visit which covered 10,000 miles in a matter of five weeks, to get to the widest possible audience. I endeavoured to encourage American investment in Ireland, to encourage Irish people in America to buy more and more Irish goods, to encourage the 20,000,000 people of Irish birth and extraction to give themselves one holiday in every ten years in Ireland.

If they did that it would have an electrifying effect on our economy here. I did not spare myself, as I think our diplomatic mission in the U.S. will confirm. I worked from Monday to the following Monday of every week. Saturdays and Sundays were indistinguishable from Mondays or Tuesdays. You can well imagine, if you travelled as I did by plane, what 10,000 miles in the U.S. are like. I had three meetings a day. I had a Press Conference every day. I had one, two or three television or radio talks a day. I saw people from breakfast one morning until a short time before breakfast the next morning. That is the experience of anybody who goes to America with a well filled programme.

I do not mind about the yappings, the whinings and the yelpings about the purpose of my mission or about the time I spent there. I do know that a half-baked Communist body in Dublin met solemnly on a few occasions while I was away, and passed a resolution that all their members should write to a certain newspaper, not giving their names but noms de plume, giving the impression that they were very annoyed with my visit. I know all the members of the half-baked Communist body were invited by one particular newspaper, which would print almost anything about anybody, to avail of the services of this newspaper to write articles criticising my visit to the United States because they thought it was one of the best ways of harming the Labour Party which this body detests even more than it detests the Fianna Fáil Party or, for that matter, any other Party in this country. Its chief enemy is the Labour Party because it is the best bulwark against the progress of a Communist Party in this country. This body decided it would yelp and whinge about my visit. I am not worried about that.

I think, in the aggregate, very substantial benefits will flow from the visit. One impression more than another that I got from the visit is that we cannot overestimate the value of closer connections with the United States. No matter what Government is in office, my support will always be found for the idea of sending a regular Government or conjoint Government and Opposition delegation to the United States in order to interpret Ireland to the people in America. It is amazing the abysmally ignorant questions you get from the people in that vast Continent about Ireland even under 1956 standards. Anybody who heard these questions would understand that the necessity for regular visits was outstanding. That was the impression borne in on me.

I would hope that this Government would devise a programme whereby there would be regular visits of Government and Opposition speakers to that vast Continent in order to enable us to interpret Ireland to a population of 165,000,000 people, all of whom, in the main, want to be friendly with us. There is a country with which we have an immense standing, immense influence and prestige if we could only capitalise on it by regular contacts at Government and parliamentary level.

Deputy Lemass said a new approach should be made to our national difficulties by all Parties and sections. I could not agree more enthusiastically with anything that has been said during the course of this debate. I think our political discussions are both infantile and immature if we cannot, on some matters of wide national policy, get some measure of common agreement. I am convinced two things should be taken out of politics. One is agriculture and the other is industry.

I think there ought to be recognition by both sides of the House that we ought to have some industrial policy, for which I am temporarily responsible, which will enable manufacturers to know the direction in which we are travelling and to know, as well, that that direction will not be changed by any change in Government. I do not think it is impossible to do that; I do not believe that all the things that an Opposition say are wrong; and I do not believe that a Government is so inoculated with original sin that everything it does is wrong. Between these two daft extremes of point of view, there must be a section of sober and intelligent thought. Is it possible then to get some body of agreement with that body of sober goodwill and to get us to agree on what road we are going to travel?

There is one question I should like to see discussed in this House. That is a question of the Control of Manufactures Act. I think it has outlived its usefulness in the way it is now framed and that it bears no relation to the situation of to-day. I should like to amend it to bring it into line with what we think to-day and not into line with what we thought we were thinking 21 or 22 years ago, but I do not want to take a measure of that kind into this House because all the speeches that would be made on it and all the acrimony that would be created by the discussion would be ten times more harmful than any possible advantages that would accrue from bringing in a Bill of that nature.

It ought not to be impossible between the Government and the Opposition on a matter of that kind to set a policy for a long time and to get agreement. I ask those people on the Opposition if there is any aspect of our industrial activities here, or any aspect of our national activities on which the Opposition are concerned to know what the Government plan is, if it is possible to get a true measure of agreement with the Government plan. If there is, I shall be only too pleased to discuss that with the Opposition. The whole objective should be to get the greatest possible measure of agreement on any plans or proposals designed to serve the best interests of the Irish people.

Deputy Lemass, however, says that there should be a new approach to national difficulties by all the Parties and every section of the people. I answer that by saying: "All right; I will accept that view without question," and if the Deputy or his Party will now say in what way they feel they can make a contribution, by collaboration with the Government, in that field of endeavour in the present circumstances, I for one will be happy to see what we can do in that direction, for the purpose of endeavouring to use our collective wisdom for the solution of the problems which can be turned up by us.

Our biggest problem, of course, is the problem of the balance of payments. At all costs, that must be put right and we have to be vigorous and rigorous in opposing any attempt to run down our external assets for the importation of non-essential goods. I agree with Deputy MacBride that to run down our external assets for the purchase of capital goods here is a policy with everything to commend it. So long as our external assets are invested in other countries, subject to control by other countries, one can wake up the following morning and find that that country has devalued its currency by 20 or 25 per cent. That means that your assets in their money have likewise been devalued by 20 or 25 per cent.

Mr. Allen

Have you spent them already?

Mr. Norton

The Deputy should try to look intelligent one day in the year. That should not be unreasonable to ask.

Mr. Allen

There is not much use talking about them now.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy had three days on which to talk on the Estimate, but he kept a deliberate silence and can do nothing but interrupt. As I said, the most urgent problem is the problem of the balance of payments. They must be righted, no matter what is the cost, and the best way to do it is by cutting back vigorously and rigorously on unnecessary imports. If we fail to do this, it is a reflection on ourselves.

We must endeavour to export in every field in which it is possible to find an export market. Every new industry here which produces goods which we now import can make a substantial contribution to remedying the balance of payments position. Every £1 which we export similarly makes a contribution to our export trade, and at the same time helps in its own way to bring about some rectification in the balance of payments. Further, everybody who buys Irish, in preference to imported, goods will also make a substantial contribution to the balance of payments difficulties. So quite clearly the aim must be to establish more and more industries to produce the goods we must now import and to stimulate industrial and agricultural production in every way we can and to encourage our people, especially, in the present situation, to buy Irish goods in preference to imported commodities.

On the question of the establishment of new industries, both Governments have vied with one another in their efforts to do so and I pay my tribute to the last Government for its efforts to establish industries in this country and to every other Government which, in its own time and in its own way, has tried to do the same thing. If we are to stop the export of our young men and women, it can best be done by having employment available for them here, and, no matter what political differences there may be in one field or another, it ought not to be impossible to get the unity which is so essential in the matter of creating industries in this country.

When we do establish industries, faced as we are with the problem of the balance of trade, we must find export markets and we must do something to remove the inertia of those who feel they are doing well enough in the home market, without troubling about the export market. We must direct our attention to exports in the many directions in which, with energy, we can export. We must do what we can to encourage the export of more goods. Exports are essential to us, and, so far as I am concerned, I do not believe that we can continue to do in 1956 the same things as we did in 1926, merely because we did all those things in that period.

I would try now, and in the future, to increase exports and so far as I am personally concerned, I would do that, if necessary, by making attractive offers on taxation level to those who will develop the export market from to-day and will seek to extend their exports in future. The fact that some firms can do it so magnificently, while others cannot be induced to export, is an indication that export markets can be got, if our industrialists will go out and get them. I think here again no matter what differences there are all Parties in the House can recognise and say candidly to industrialists and agriculturists that they must export in order to pay for what we import. If we fail to do that, then it is inevitable that there will be a lowering of the standard of living for all our people.

I want, on the whole, to thank the House for the way in which the Estimate has been discussed. I will conclude by saying that if Deputy Lemass's statement that a new approach should be made to the national difficulties by all Parties and sections of the people, so far as I am concerned and I believe so far as the Government is concerned if that means an offer of co-operation, if that means an offer to fix a broad national policy which will not be disturbed by changes of Government, I for one will support that to its utmost limits.

Question —"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration"—put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 60.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• de Valera, Eamon.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Flynn, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gogan, Richard.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Moher, John W.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Malley, Donough.
• Ormonde, John.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Thomas.

Níl

• Barry, Anthony.
• Barry, Richard.
• Beirne, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Burke, James J.
• Byrne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Thomas.
• Carew, John.
• Casey, Seán.
• Coburn, George.
• Collins, Seán.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Crowe, Patrick.
• Deering, Mark.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Glynn, Brendan M.
• Hession, James M.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lindsay, Patrick J.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Morrissey, Dan.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Carroll, Maureen.
• O'Connor, Kathleen.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donovan, John.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Pattison, James P.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tully, James.
• Tully, John.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Mrs. O'Carroll.

Question declared lost.

Vote put and agreed to.