Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 12 Jun 1958

Vol. 168 No. 12

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:

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

Mr. Crotty

I was speaking last night about cross-Channel container traffic. I believe it is one of the most important matters mentioned in connection with this Estimate this year. We are seeking efficiency in industry and efficient marketing conditions and I think that the utilisation of container traffic would help to a great extent to increase efficiency in the transport of agricultural and industrial goods. It is a matter which has a bearing on our whole economy. It would be a great advantage if industrialists here could pack their goods into these containers on their own premises and send the goods direct, without any rehandling, to their customers in Britain or elsewhere, instead of having to pack them in separate containers as they had to do, up to the present.

I should like to bring to the Minister's notice evidence given at the recent inquiry into freight rates by Mr. D.D. Lovell, Joint Managing Director of the Bristol Steam Navigation Company, Limited. He said that his company had had special containers made for traffic for Britain and had used them until 1956 when the Dublin dockers refused to handle them. The company had suffered a loss of £10,000 net on freight as a result of container traffic going by other routes. Some of the lost cargo went by the Preston-Larne ferry service and then by road to Dublin and some went by air. He believed that in the long run the introduction of containers would enable them to recover the business they had lost to ports in the Six Counties and elsewhere, and would lead to increased employment in Dublin.

When new systems are introduced into industry, naturally enough the workers feel these may create unemployment and that many workers will be let off straight away. They do not appreciate that, if these new methods are not brought in, industry is bound to decline. That is what is happening at the present time in regard to cross-Channel traffic when container traffic is not being used in the port of Dublin. Industrialists both on this side and the other side will send their goods by other routes using containers, so that in the end, the port of Dublin and dockers in Dublin will be the greatest losers.

Other cuttings I should like to quote refer to the same inquiry on the 22nd May. One states:—

"When the inquiry into the cross-Channel freight rates was resumed in Dublin to-day, Dr. Louis P. Smith, economic adviser to the National Farmers' Association, said discussions between the National Farmers' Association and the trade unions about the use of containers for turkey exports from Dublin Port had borne little fruit. Turkeys had arrived in Smithfield market in bad condition. Irish turkeys made from 6d. to 10d. per 1b. less than English ones did. This cost Irish turkey producers between £200,000 and £300,000 in the 1956 season, he said. Some turkeys from the Twenty-Six Counties were sent to England through Northern Ireland and they made prices very close to the English prices... In meeting international competition Irish farmers must seek every opportunity of increasing efficiency."

I believe that is the real case for container traffic and I do not think the Minister is doing his duty by just handing this matter over to the Labour Court. The Minister has a strong Government and a big majority here and it is up to him to deal with the unions and tell them we must have container traffic and have it immediately. Our agriculturists and industrialists want to market goods in proper condition and it is up to the Minister to take action. If my words this morning are a help to him he is welcome to them. He should be in a position to tell the unions: "We want this matter closed up and regulated." We cannot let it carry on. The dockers concerned are taking a very short view. If they took the long view they would see that instead of reducing employment, employment would be increased.

I wonder if the same position still holds in regard to men who describe themselves as dockers and who are paid by a shipping company to remain at home rather than have them on the boats. They are being paid to remain at home. These men exact a charge of anything up to 10/- per head on any beast exported to Germany from this country. I do not see why a small group should hold the trade of our country up to ransom so that their demands may be met. If they were a little far-seeing they would realise how unwise that is. I am sure some of the sensible men in the unions have made that point already but apparently other people have not agreed to it and are not willing to take a long-sighted view when there is the immediate prospect of extra money to be gained. It is up to the Minister to insist that they will take the long-sighted view. He has powers behind him and he should use them.

I am very glad we are having a survey of the Leinster coalfields—arrangements which were made by the Minister's predecessor. Three years seem to be a very long time for that survey. I live fairly close to one of the principal producing parts of the coalfield. People there have the idea that this survey can, to a large extent, be carried out in the area within the coming six months and that immediate results would flow from it.

It was stated that £45,000 worth of anthracite coal has been brought into this country in the past few years. If the survey were carried out and if people were fairly well assured of the amount of the deposit which they could develop they could go ahead with the work. It is not easy for an ordinary private concern to go into the coal-mining business. It is very risky. There may be a seam in one place but it could disappear. Therefore, it is very risky for an ordinary person to go into that business.

I saw a report recently that Cement, Limited, were making excavations in Cork and intended to spend something like £75,000 with a view to developing and producing coal for their own factory at Limerick. That would be a great advantage to the country. It would save a big importation of fuel oil for that industry. A company such as that ought to be congratulated on its enterprise. I know people who burned their fingers badly in the coal-mining business. It is very hard for any individual firm to go into that business unless assured, through a complete survey, that very good deposits are close at hand. I am sure we should all like these mines developed as soon as possible. As the Minister said yesterday, several other mines on which much money was spent —I will not mention their names— closed down during the past 12 months.

I congratulate the Minister on making an advance of about £1,250,000 to St. Patrick's copper mines. That will give them an opportunity of finishing the job they started with a lot of foreign capital. It would be a pity to have to step down when about three-quarters of the job has been done. It is a large sum of money, but I think it is money well spent.

Tourism comes under the Minister's Department. We are told that, according to statistics, it is our most important industry, next to the cattle trade. We are told it is bringing in £30,000,000 a year and that it is being developed. I am sure many of the tourists who come here each year are emigrants coming back from England. However, I am glad to see that something extra is being given towards the development of that industry.

I am glad to note that grants will be made available to hotels for the provision of extra bedrooms. I join with Deputy Brennan in asking the Minister to see to it that these grants will be given as from the 1st January of this year. It would be very hard luck now on an enterprising hotelier who started such work two months ago inasmuch as he cannot avail of the grants which are now being made. Such building would probably not yet be completed. It should be very easy to check up on the matter.

The Minister also mentioned guaranteed loans to hotels. I had some experience of that. With further regard to the grants for hotels for extra bedrooms, I hope the people will not be told: "You started building before your plans were sanctioned", and so on. I know of cases where people spent a year to two years trying to get this money from the board. The tourist inspector said they ought to make the extension. The people concerned thought that was enough for them and they went ahead with the work. Then, afterwards, when they applied they were told their application was not in order as they had started building before making the application.

Another difficulty that arises is that sometimes such people are told: "You have enough reserves without having to get a guaranteed loan to do the work." People may have reserves but they may not be prepared to use them up to the last penny. They may like to have some reserve, which is a very good thing. I hope they will be treated with a little leniency and properly advised when to apply if they intend to do the job rather than be told that they had laid the foundation stone before they had got sanction.

I did not hear the Minister make any reference to the Dún Laoghaire-Holyhead ferry service. That is a most important service. It is being held up by the unions. If it were allowed into this country it would help to bring in the better class tourist and the motorist. The ordinary tourist coming in here is all right for Dublin, Bray and Dún Laoghaire and other places around Dublin. They will spend their time and their money here. The ordinary tourist on a fortnight's holidays here does not go down the country. If you encourage the motoring tourist he will spend a night here and there throughout the country and various places throughout the country will benefit. Possibly the Minister is on the way towards settling that matter: I do not know.

I understand that a special ramp was built for the ferry service and that, just when everything was in order, they were clamped down on and were not allowed to go ahead. That is a big loss. People going to the Continent get every facility to bring their cars there. If we are not prepared to give the same facilities to people coming to our country as are offered to them when going to the Continent they will not come here but will, instead, go to the Continent. These people would be ideal tourists throughout the country and would help slightly to decentralise tourism.

The Minister made a passing reference to guaranteed trade loans. I feel that the point in relation to these guaranteed trade loans should be brought home to people more fully. People should be given more information about them. Some people get the idea that they will start some project and get a guaranteed trade loan. They think there will be no trouble in getting such a loan. Again, an industry may run out of money and the people concerned may think they can get the money from the Government. Such people are very foolish. They do not know the trouble involved.

It is only right that applications should be scrutinised very carefully as public money is involved. However, I fear the procedure is too long drawn out. A full officer's report is required as well as various other things. Then the application has to go before a committee. I realise that the people on the committee give their services free. They are good businessmen but they are inclined to play safe and we cannot blame them. Many applications come from people who, through bad business methods, lost their money in their business and hope to get a renewed source of wealth through a guaranteed trade loan. Frequently, people are held in suspense for months and months on the matter of these loans.

If a person goes to a bank for an overdraft to carry on or to extend his business he gets word from the bank in the course of two or three days as to whether or not they are prepared to give it to him. I know one could not expect the same speed in a Government Department. The bank is already aware of the type of business that a person has been in during the years previous to his making an application for a loan, and knows the type of individual with whom it is dealing. The advisory body to which the Minister refers applications does not know these things, but, despite that, I believe that the advisory body's investigations should be completed within at least a fortnight or three weeks. Applicants should be asked to supply whatever particulars are required straight away, and the whole process should be completed within a fortnight or three weeks. The applicant should be told at the end of that time whether his application has been sanctioned or refused.

As far as I can see, it is very hard to get a trade loan. If a person is credit-worthy, he will not get a loan because he will be told that he can raise the money through a bank, or that he can buy whatever new machine he wants on the hire purchase system. If a person is not credit-worthy, he will not get a loan because he cannot raise the necessary security. I believe that the only chance of securing a loan is when the applicant or company applying is starting business and they apply in the original way. It would be a good thing if people knew the difficulties which face them when applying for such loans because they are deluding themselves down the country in thinking that they will get trade loans without any trouble. Some system should be devised to clear up this business.

I thought the Minister would have announced that we would have increased development during the coming year in the E.S.B. programme, especially in the rural electrification programme. Last year, when unemployment was very high, was a particularly bad time to cut down on that programme. I remember hearing the Taoiseach mention that if we had something productive, we would put our money into it. What could be more productive than the extension of rural electrification? People on farms want to use electric pumping machines, milking machines and such equipment which they can get from the E.S.B. Deputy Brennan brought out the same point last night and when one of the Minister's supporters brings this point before him, I think it deserves the Minister's attention. When employment was very scarce, and when the house building programme was practically closed down last year, that was the time for the Government to step in and create more employment. Instead of that, the Government cut down on rural electrification. Perhaps I was mistaken last night when I took a note from the Minister's speech that 80 areas were developed last year. Maybe I did not hear the Minister correctly. How many areas did the Minister say were developed last year?

Mr. S. Lemass

Eighty, yes.

Mr. Crotty

I would have liked the Minister to have increased that. He should give rural electrification a better chance.

There is one point regarding the special E.S.B. charges that I should like to bring to the Minister's notice. I have very happy memories of the Minister, when he was in opposition, stating that he would abolish these charges. I felt last night when he mentioned that he was restoring the subsidy to the E.S.B. for rural electrification, he would have made it a condition that the special charges would be abolished. If it is his intention to give them a subsidy again, that is the one condition which should be imposed. When the Minister was attempting to justify a motion seeking the abolition of these special charges, he gave a promise in Dáil Éireann that he would abolish them immediately he was returned to office.

This is the second Estimate which the Minister has introduced since returning to office. I did not expect last year that the Minister would have abolished the special charges straight away, but I thought even then he would have made some reference to them. This year, he has not made a reference to them either. I know the Minister has been very busy during the year, but he should have thought of justifying the manner in which he sought to bolster up a motion in this House on this subject. Speaking on 8th February, 1956, on a motion relating to rural electrification, he said: "There is no justification for it. As far as I am concerned, I will give an undertaking that if ever again I become Minister for Industry and Commerce"—and here Deputy McGilligan interjected "That is easy"—"I will abolish it forthwith as unjustifiable and immoral." What more could anyone say than that?

At a later stage in that debate the Minister asked: "How much would it cost? Is it not a mere bagatelle in relation to the charges you put on the E.S.B. last year by abolishing the subsidy?" Is it not less than a mere bagatelle now when the Government are restoring the subsidy to the E.S.B.? Further on in the course of the debate, the Minister stated: "I say that the only reason why the Parliamentary Secretary will not name the amount is because he is ashamed to do so. The amount is so small, in relation to the charges they put on the E.S.B., that he would not humiliate his Government by mentioning them. The accountant"—that is the E.S.B. accountant for rural electrification—"could hardly work it down to a percentage so that the Parliamentary Secretary could understand what the difference would be in total revenue. Have a bit of common sense, and get rid of it. It is the last remnant of the original rural electrification scheme." Could any statement be more positive than that one made by the Minister in 1956? I honestly believed at that time that he was sincere in what he said. I knew we could not expect him to carry out his intentions when he introduced his first Estimate last year, but I do think he should have done something about it this year.

If a person applies for rural electrification and a few poles have to be erected to bring the current to his house, he has to pay 10/- for ever and amen. A new subscriber to the telephone service may be a mile away from the main line but, no matter if 100 or 150 poles are erected to link him with the main line, he has to meet no extra charge whatever. Look at the difference between the two types. A farmer who feels he must have a telephone installed in order to be in touch with markets and various businesses gets the installation service at no extra charge, but a man living in a cottage, or a small or large farmer, who wants power for his machinery, for milking machines possibly, for bringing water to his house, or for light, which is more essential than anything else, has to pay an extra charge and his children and his children's children have to pay it also.

What have we in this House only our word? I would ask the Minister, when he is concluding this debate, to honour the bond which he has given as a responsible man. That bond was not given during an election campaign. It was given in the calm atmosphere of this House when he stood up and made a deliberate statement that, if ever he were returned to power, the first thing he would do would be to abolish these charges. It is up to the Minister to honour his bond and I hope he will do so when he is concluding this debate.

I was glad that the Minister introduced a scheme for technical assistance for industry. We are all anxious to increase efficiency in industry in order to develop exports. We are very pleased that industrialists are anxious to employ consultants. I have known cases where workers at first resented consultants being brought into their industry, but were delighted afterwards because of the greater efficiency and increased pay packets thereby effected. I am glad that the Government are prepared to provide additional sums to supplement the Grant Counterpart Fund.

The Minister did not mention, however, that during the past year he reduced the contribution given by his predecessor. He said that they were giving one-third of the total cost, but did not refer to the fact that his predecessor gave 50 per cent. of the total cost. I would ask the Minister to step up the contribution at least to the amount given by his predecessor. As I have said, we are all anxious to secure increased efficiency in view of the European Free Trade plan and, if industrialists are prepared to pay their share for consultants in order to improve production methods, the Minister should be prepared to do his part. The total cost has increased because of the number of applicants, but the Government should be only too anxious to facilitate such people and to give them at least as much as his predecessor gave them. If we ask people to improve efficiency and if they respond to that appeal it is pointless to inform them then that the grants will be reduced.

I would again ask the Minister if he has thought at all of the people down the country. Has he thought about the unemployed? Has he thought about the small business people and the big business people? Every business person in the country has felt the terrible draught during the past 12 months. Has he given any consideration to that matter? The Minister referred to grounds for confidence. On 12th March last, a question was asked in the House about the number of people employed in industry compared with the number employed 12 months before. The reply indicated that there were 24,000 fewer employed between agriculture and industry, 14,000 fewer in industry and 10,000 fewer in agriculture. Is that not enough to shake up the Minister and the Government? Is that not enough to indicate to them that they should not cut down on rural electrification and other projects?

Before he returned to office, the Minister had a £100,000,000 plan. There have been two Estimates introduced in the meantime, not one of which mentioned whether that plan is in the blue print stage or is being developed in the Department. We have not heard one word about it. The Minister said that he was anxious to provide 25,000 jobs each year. Apparently, 15,000 to 20,000 jobs would be required each year in order to provide work for the young men coming on the labour market for the first time. There were 24,000 fewer people in employment according to the figure given in March last. That means that there must be 50,000 people who could work and who are emigrating.

I would ask the Minister to get down to the job or, if he is not prepared to do that, to admit failure and to say: "We thought, during the election campaign, that we could do it; we were honest enough, but now we admit that we cannot do it." The people down the country, workers, businessmen, shopkeepers, industrialists, anxiously awaited the introduction of this Estimate. They felt that this was the Estimate which would affect them very closely. I would ask the Minister, therefore, to give some idea, when he is concluding the debate, of what the Government propose to do.

With regard to the £2,000,000 derived from levies and transferred to revenue, I thought that the least that would have been done was that that money would have been put into industry to encourage industrialists to come here; that they would be told that, if they brought in one-quarter of the necessary finance, the Government would give them the rest in order to create employment. There are no large projects envisaged at the moment, such as the oil refinery, which should be a great boon to Cork and the surrounding area when it is started. The Minister has not produced anything of that calibre since he came into office. I would ask him to get down to work and to give some idea as to his intentions for the coming year.

Mr. Booth

I was greatly encouraged by the way in which the Estimate was introduced by the Minister last night. The whole tone of his speech was full of optimism tempered with realistic caution. During the past year, the Minister has been dealing with the slump, the recession, whatever you like to call it, during which this Government took office. As a businessman, I know how easy it is to start a slump. The slightest loss of confidence breeds further loss of confidence. There is a chain reaction and very rapidly a complete recession sets in. It is easy to start but very difficult to rectify such a situation.

When we took office, we found that not only was there a very serious trade recession, not only was there a very serious drop in industrial production, agricultural production and employment, but, most serious of all, a complete loss of confidence in ourselves, a spirit of defeatism everywhere. Such a situation does not call for panic measures. Such a situation has to be faced coolly and quietly. A long-term view must be taken in order to restore morale, to restore confidence in industry and agriculture and get people working on long-term investment.

The Minister has dealt with that situation with realism and courage and has produced results. The figures which he gave us last night do not give any cause for us to sit back in a spirit of complacency. Even if all we had been able to do during the year were to stop the rot, we would have achieved a great deal. In actual fact, not only has the rot been stopped, but a move has been made in the right direction towards recovery. At the same time, the Minister did not delude us that all was now well. He made it perfectly clear in his speech, and I was glad that he did so, that further very serious efforts would have to be made before there could be any relaxation.

In his own Department, the Minister has made very considerable economies on the administrative side. I am delighted that he has been able to do that because it is becoming increasingly recognised that in any administrative machine there is always a tendency for officials to attract more officials until the whole organisation becomes top-heavy. Sub-head A.— Salaries, Wages and Allowances— shows a decrease for the current year of practically £21,000. That is not an enormous reduction but at least it is a move in the right direction.

One of the main difficulties with which this Government was faced on taking office was the question of the food subsidies. When the painful decision had to be taken to remove the food subsidies, we were warned by the Opposition that this would result in large-scale wage demands and a complete upset of the wage structure. Some of the speakers, in fact, practically threatened that this would take place, as if they were going to incite the trade unions to make increasing and unreasonable demands. All of us felt that such a situation was more than possible and here again the Minister has acted with clear-headedness and courage. He approached the Provisional United Trade Union Organisation and the Federated Union of Employers and each organisation had their own ideas as to what the Minister should do.

The employers obviously felt that this was a time for no increases in wages at all. The unions, equally obviously, felt that the increased cost of living would have to be compensated for in some way by a considerable increase in wages. Each side expected, or at least hoped, that the Minister would support them. Each side was disappointed, which shows that the Minister acted fairly in the matter. The Minister faced them squarely with the whole economic position and he brought them together and left them together.

I do not believe that any other Government, and certainly no other Minister for Industry and Commerce, could have achieved the magnificent results which have been achieved through the co-operation of the trade unions and the employers. The trade unions might very well have run riot, but, instead, they took the long-term view. The employers could have been frightened or greedy, or both, but instead, they also took the long-term view, and a provisional agreement was reached on a 10/- increase per week, on the understanding by the trade unions that they would not make any additional calls for reduced hours of work, and on the undertaking by the employers that they would try to continue production without any increase in price.

The latest returns show that this has been achieved, that increases in prices have not resulted from the increase in wages, and that, by more efficient working and by the help and advice of consultants and so on, production per head has gone up, earnings have gone up and prices have remained stable.

In view of the enormous possibilities of disaster which there were at that time, I think the Minister was understating it when he said in his introduction that we could take pride in the results. The main credit goes to him for a singularly courageous decision and the singularly able way in which he approached both the employers and the trade unions and achieved such excellent results.

It is gratifying that an additional amount is being made available for technical assistance. I know from my own experience that the assistance which can be given by industrial consultants is of tremendous value. I am only sorry, in a way, that, in my own instance, we employed technical assistance before there was any grant available from Government funds, but I can say that the employment of industrial consultants has a positively amazing effect on economies in production. It has been stated that we have had to reduce the amount of the grants for industrial consultants, but, at the same time, it is obvious that if this trend became more widespread, and if more and more people wished to take advantage of it, it was a better investment of Government funds to make a smaller amount available to each of a larger number of firms. When there is a limited amount of money available, we can do nothing more, but at least more money is being made available under this head.

The Minister also referred to trade agreements and this is a matter which has given rise to tremendous comment and anxiety recently. It is disappointing to find, with a country like Germany, that we are importing very much more than we are exporting. I feel we are not doing ourselves justice in these barter agreements. Why should we continue to allow German products in here under the same rate of duty as the British products, when our balance of trade with Britain is much more favourable than it is with Germany? That is the trouble with Germany in the European Payments Union. It is becoming more and more a creditor country and when one country becomes a substantial creditor country, other countries must become debtors and this means that a considerable amount of credit is tied up which is not for the good of anyone.

I hope that our barter agreements will be negotiated with greater toughness than they have been up to date. A number of them seem to be renewed more or less automatically, but I feel that our balance of payments is still far from satisfactory and that in those circumstances, we should do as France did with us, that is, simply stop importing produce from countries who are not taking our produce—either stop it altogether, as France did in respect of our mutton and lamb trade, or reduce it very considerably under a quota. I think it is only when we barter much more strictly that we will have any chance of reaching a balance in our external payments.

I was glad that Deputy Cosgrave referred to the pending discussions on the better trade with Great Britain and we all wish the Minister, and the Minister for Agriculture, well as they leave to take part in these discussions to-morrow. We also hope they will drive a hard bargain just as Deputy Cosgrave said, in view of the fact that subsidisation of butter exports was largely a New Zealand idea.

The Minister referred to the new factory which is being set up in Dundalk, in the old railway works. When the factory became redundant, so far as railway work was concerned, it was a courageous decision to try to set it up as an independent engineering concern. The proposal that at the outset some work should be undertaken on the assembly of the Heinkel car appears to be a very good idea, but it does not appear to be an idea which will give constant employment for any length of time, unless there is considerable development. It is obvious that the factory must engage in a considerably wider scope of work than simply the assembly of one type of car.

I believe the factory is being equipped with modern engineering machinery and plant of all sorts. I would hope that care would be taken by the management to see that the work which they will undertaken will be as far as possible only the type of work which cannot be handled by existing factories in Ireland. It would be no help to anyone if one firm were put out of business in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway or any place else simply to help the Dundalk employment problem. I hope the management of the new Dundalk Engineering Company will seek business which will be new business altogether. The business community are rather nervous that public funds will be made available to what is virtually a private company to enter into competition with them. I do not think that is the Minister's intention for one moment and I hope he will keep it constantly under review.

Deputy Cosgrave referred to the fact that the balance of payments position was still unsatisfactory and that we were in considerable danger yet, as the Minister stated, too, in his opening speech. He referred under that heading to the levies which had been imposed by the Government, of which he was a member, to deal with the same problem. If there is to be any future balance of payments crisis, which, I think is unlikely, I hope that in no circumstances will we ever go back to temporary import levies because they cause the maximum amount of dislocation to trade, industry and employment.

The very fact that these levies were so consistently referred to as temporary levies made them worse again. I know that from my own business. Quite obviously, if you put a temporary levy on motor vehicles, nobody will buy a motor vehicle until the temporary levy comes off. The result was that when the temporary levies were put on, the motor industry virtually closed down. The assembly of vehicles did close down in most factories. Very many skilled and semi-skilled men had to leave the country because there was no knowing when those factories would reopen.

Having put on these levies, there were very few cases where they could ever possibly be taken off again. Obviously, business did not close down altogether. We in the motor trade were carrying smaller stocks than usual. We were obviously carrying stocks on which the levy had been paid. Some of these stocks were of unassembled parts and some of complete vehicles. In each case, the import levy had been paid. If that import levy had been lifted, every motor assembler in the country would have been subject to an enormous loss. Quite obviously everyone wishing to buy a motor vehicle would say: "I will not buy one on which the levy has been paid. I will wait a few weeks until you can get me one on which no levy has been paid." The result would have been that all prices would have had to fall immediately and the entire amount of the levy paid on stock would have been irrecoverable. In one year following a slump, to have that additional loss would have been an intolerable burden.

In those circumstances, the Government had no alternative but to make those temporary levies permanent duties. In spite of that additional taxation the motor industry was able to recover again, but that recovery has been achieved only by tremendously hard work on the part of all concerned in the industry. If there is any question of balance of payments difficulties, the matter can be dealt with far more easily, as most other countries deal with it, by putting imports on quota; but to introduce rationing by price is entirely unjustifiable from a social point of view and causes the maximum dislocation to trade and industry all over the country.

Reference has been made to the new industries which have already been set up in the last year and other industries which are anticipated. I must confess I am rather disappointed that there has been so little sign of really big industry being set up. I do not share the Minister's distrust of branch factories because I believe no big firm setting up a fairly big branch factory here would do so, unless it intended to go into production and stay in production. Even if in a time of temporary slump a branch factory were the first to close down, it would have to open up again. No one wants an empty factory on his hands. I feel that the new industries which have been set up have not yet made any significant impact on the unemployment situation. Any impact which has been made has been much more the re-employment of men who were temporarily disemployed. I would hope that further effort will be made to attract new large-scale industry to this country.

In that connection, I think it was the Minister who made reference to the various agencies dealing with industrial development—the Industrial Development Authority, Córas Tráchtála and An Foras Tionscal. I was glad he felt that the multiplicity of organisations needed some review, because to any industrialist trying to find out exactly where he stands, it is confusing to find that originally one may approach the Department, and may then be referred to the Industrial Development Authority or An Foras Tionscal. You may have been introduced by Córas Tráchtála and you do not quite know whether they are finished with you, having got you on to the negotiation stage. There is apt to be overlapping, confusion and delay.

Some streamlining of the agencies for industrial development would result in greater efficiency and certainly would make industrial investment in Ireland much more attractive. There was an article in the current periodical Development, contributed by the present American Ambassador, in which he stressed the need, as far as attracting American industrialists is concerned, for producing a very detailed plan of industrial development for any new investor. I feel that his comments were very well justified and I would hope that, with the streamlining of our own agencies, we might be able more readily to produce possible schemes in which foreign industrialists might profitably invest.

I have the impression myself—and here again I may be quite wrong—that Córas Tráchtála in particular is possibly staffed by people who are too professional rather than business people. It is obviously difficult to staff an agency such as Córas Tráchtála. I am delighted to see that there is an increase of £10,000 as a grant-in-aid, but I would hope that the staff would be recruited more from experts in industry rather than from people who are just well-educated civil servants, who are good on administration but who may have a very limited knowledge of industrial development itself, or of the day-to-day workings of industry and commerce.

It is good that we should be developing our airports, particularly in view of the excellent trading results from the duty-free area at Shannon. We have come under criticism for that expenditure, but, if the matter is regarded properly, it will be seen that that criticism is without justification. This is a long-term investment. Unless we have an airport at Shannon which is able to take the most modern type of aircraft, that airport will be by-passed. There will be a tendency to fly over especially on the west to east flight, and we must try to counteract that. If we do not counteract it, all the capital spent on the development of that airport will be wasted.

For that reason, it is a very reasonable proposition that we should continue to develop that airport, to put down new runways and to meet whatever other expenses may arise so that there may be no excuse for aircraft flying over and every attraction for them to land and either leave passengers there or pick them up, or to use Shannon as a terminus for feeding both passengers and trade on to other European airlines. The duty-free shop there has done a marvellous job, not only in the selling line, but in the publicity line as well. In that connection, I hope the Minister will look with favour on the proposal which will be submitted to him shortly by the Shannon Estuary Development Company; if that does even half as well as the Shannon Airport shop has done, it will be a really worthwhile step forward towards the development of the south-west.

Mention has been made of the desirability of a ferry service, but I cannot quite see how the Minister can help in that regard, except by asking and persuading, but it is good that negotiations are continuing so far as the container traffic is concerned. That is obviously a matter which could result in a tremendous increase in trade, especially through Dublin. It should, I think, be possible to satisfy the trade unions that redundancy will not occur. I would hope that a long-term view would be taken by the unions and I hope, too, that the Labour Court in its present deliberations will be able to achieve a satisfactory solution.

Speaking of the Labour Court, the expenditure there has been well worthwhile. While neither side in a dispute scarcely ever feels they have won, at the same time, the Labour Court has provided a very useful buffer between employers and trade unions when they become temporarily estranged. Each side can go to the Labour Court without loss of face and the conciliation machinery there has, in particular, been very well built up, with the result that a large number of possible industrial crises have been avoided.

If we compare the expenditure on the Labour Court with the expenditure so far on the Fair Trade Commission, the Fair Trade Commission comes off very much worse. The Minister referred in his opening speech to his decision to review the work of the Fair Trade Commission and the operation of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. I was delighted to hear him make that statement. Considering that this commission has been working now for over five years, the mountain has been in labour for a very long time and has produced a very small mouse indeed. At the same time, a tremendous amount of dislocation has been caused and there has been a waste of time and energy. Here, again, I speak with personal experience.

The Minister referred to the fact that Fair Trading Orders have been made in respect of the wireless trade, building materials and the motor industry. In five years, the Fair Trade Commission recommended to the Minister, and the Minister agreed to make, three Orders. I do not think anybody can notice any improvement so far as the consumer is concerned in the radio trade. The building industry has fallen on such evil times that nobody can see that the Fair Trade Commission has helped the builder, the builders' supplier or the consumer. So far as the motor industry is concerned, the Fair Trade Commission has produced complete confusion in the industry which has resulted in a number of smaller motor traders being put out of business. That is the fantastic result of some of the work of the Fair Trade Commission. It has not, in fact, protected the small man against the big man, but it has penalised the small man and left the big man to take the profits.

One of the matters affected by the Fair Trade Order is that the retail selling prices of cars could not be maintained; the producer of a vehicle cannot stipulate the retail price at which it should be sold and cannot compel the dealer to sell it at that price, and no less. The result has been, contrary to what Deputy Dr. Browne said a few weeks ago, not that there is a price ring in the motor industry, but that traders are cutting one another's throats. In one case of which I have personal experience, through our own motor traders' association, a local motor dealer tried to sell to a local co-operative society three new cars. He found himself in competition with other dealers all round the county and, in some instances, outside the country. He secured the order by taking a gross profit of £3 per car. Prices have been so cut that the smaller man has gone out of business and it is only the large motor traders who have been able to stand the strain of the cut-price war. The Fair Trade Commission have now agreed that their Order requires amendment. Unfortunately, the personnel of that commission are at the moment engaged on the inquiry into cross-Channel freights, and nothing can be done.

As far as the three Orders are concerned, two do not appear to have had any great effect, one way or the other. The remaining Order has produced the maximum dislocation, unemployment and the closure of businesses, without any advantage to the customer whatsoever, and the Order now requires complete amendment. The Minister was recommended to make an Order in relation to the chemists but he has refused to do so. That means that that inquiry was completely abortive. So far as the grocery trade is concerned, substantial amendment is also required.

When we find that expenditure on the Fair Trade Commission on wages, salaries and expenses, quite apart from the overhead expenses of premises and so forth, is something in the region of £20,000 per annum, it is more than gratifying to find the Minister now prepared to review the work of this commission. It has not really dealt with any trade monopoly at all. It has, in fact, shied off one of the biggest monopolies in the country, namely, the petrol companies. The petrol companies very wisely agreed to the production of fair trading rules under which they are bound to supply any person who cares to order petrol from them for retail sale but these rules have never been kept.

The petrol companies, as far as I can see, simply produced these rules as a cover for their activities. I know to my own cost that a major petrol company will not supply anyone unless he signs an agreement which virtually mortgages the entire future of his company to the petrol company concerned. It has only been after years of negotiation that I have been able to persuade one of the major petrol companies to supply me in my business. All the major petrol companies so far have refused to do so unless I ceased supplying any other brand of petrol.

We have tried to have the matter reviewed by the Fair Trade Commission but they say: "We have no statutory power to enforce this fair trading rule. It was voluntarily accepted by the petrol company and if they break it that is their worry, not ours." The fact remains that the petrol companies are getting complete control of the retail sale of petrol in this country. Anyone who signs an agreement with a petrol company to accept their petrol only, even though it is for a period of three to five years, will find, as some people have found, that on the expiration of that agreement, if it is not renewed, no company whatever will supply him and they will put him out of business.

If that is not the sort of activity which the Fair Trade Commission was set up to end, I am very much mistaken. It is very odd that that very sinister monopoly has never been tackled by the Fair Trade Commission, and it is time that it was. Other countries had to do so. In America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, in particular, where the control of the petrol companies had become an absolute menace, they had to introduce legislation to stop it and to make sure that the petrol companies would not engage in the retail trade or in the control of retail sales outlets. Unless the Fair Trade Commission does its work properly and tackles the really tough jobs it is wasting its time.

At the moment I believe the Fair Trade Commission is wasting its time and causing a tremendous amount of dislocation in business. The whole method of its operation is most objectionable. I had one case referred to me where an importer was told that he would have to supply a certain co-operative purchasing organisation. The importer who had registered offices and premises in Dublin stated he was not prepared to supply this organisation because he had his own distribution outlets for the whole country with whom he had worked for many years, and if he supplied this co-operative organisation he would be cutting across his ordinary distribution system. He was told that an Order was being made that would compel him to supply this organisation, and he point-blank refused. He pointed out to the Fair Trade Commission that if he was interfered with any further he would move to Belfast from where he could do his business just as well. At that stage he was told they would reconsider the matter.

After further reconsideration over a period of months, the Fair Trade Commission recalled him and asked him whether he would try to give the impression that he was conforming with the Order without necessarily doing so. He asked whether this meant that the Fair Trade Commission agreed that their Order was unfair and he was informed that they did agree that it required amendment. He asked them whether they would amend it and the reply was: "No, we can hardly amend it now because we made it only a few months ago. In due course, we shall amend it and in the meantime will you try to give the impression that you are complying with it?" Very correctly he said: "I refuse to comply with it and I shall not cover you. You have made a bad Order and you will either amend it or take the consequences."

That is the kind of activity which is being carried on by the Fair Trade Commission instead of the activities for which it was originally set up. For that reason I am delighted the Minister has agreed to review the whole set-up and I hope he will do so ruthlessly. There is obviously a need for something like a Fair Trade Commission. Whether it sits permanently or only as required is a matter which can be decided when the question is being reviewed. There is a need for some organisation which can deal with trade monopolies, price rings, and so on, but the actual danger of that in Ireland at the moment is very limited. I do not ask for the whole commission to be wound up but it should be put on a much more realistic basis.

In general we have had an optimistic and promising report from the Minister. It is typical of him that he has dealt with every matter to which he has referred in a realistic way. We can be confident that there will be no sudden burst of employment, that there will be no sudden boom. Anything like that would be basically unsound. However, during the coming year, if our efforts are blessed with success, I believe there will be steady progress. Steady progress is what creates confidence. It can restore our national morale and have some effect in reducing unemployment and emigration in a permanent way. Anything spasmodic would only be scratching the surface of the problem. For that reason I believe the Minister is dealing with the matter in a basically sound way which should achieve substantial success in the coming year, and I hope that the Minister and his Department will have all the success for which they hope.

Mr. Carew

This Estimate gives us in various parts of the country an opportunity every year to put our views before the Minister and to give him our impressions of how industry is faring in different areas. I should like to confine my remarks to the constituency I represent. There is not much use in going over the whole country because each representative is in the best position to state the position for his own area.

In the City of Limerick we are in need of new industries for the simple reason that ours is a growing city and that some of our older industries, for various reasons, have not been able to absorb more people or to maintain employment at the same level as previously. The city has been built on the progress of the industries in it and on the success of the agricultural industries around it. We are fortunate in Limerick in having a very substantial agricultural area, milk producing principally, and in the adjoining counties mixed farming and grain growing. Nevertheless time does make big changes. When we were at school and were asked to name the old industries of Limerick, we could name them one after another; bacon curing, tanning, tobacco manufacture, and so on.

Time has really caused an upset in many of our industries. One I will name is the tanning industry with which my family have had connections over a very long number of years. We had, and still have, a famous tannery in Limerick, the firm of Messrs O'Callaghan and Son, but unfortunately, due to a disastrous fire some years ago, that tannery has not yet got back the trade it lost at that time. During the war years, our tanning industry in Limerick and the tanning industry in Portlaw were responsible for keeping this country supplied with leather for all purposes. They did a very splendid job of work and no one could say that the war caused any great hardship on our people in regard to their footwear needs. Those two tanneries, Portlaw and Limerick, did such an excellent job that the Department and the Minister at that time must have felt very proud of their achievement.

It is rather strange that those two tanneries which had done so much have now fallen on lean times. The employment in both places is only a fraction of what it was. I think I can safely say that the employment in Limerick is only one-third of what it was at that time and the employment in Portlaw is much the same. That is due to a fact which I want to point out now. People in this country are over anxious very often to start new industries—that is, when we see an industry thriving we are inclined to start one of the same kind in our own town or area. That is what has happened in the tanning industry. That is what happened to Irish Tanners in Portlaw and O'Callaghan's Tannery in Limerick.

In wartime, we were not able to get the substitutes for leather and crepe that have been introduced into the boot trade and, as a result, there is not nearly as much demand for leather. Yet we have four tanneries now catering for the smaller trade. I feel that the Department would be acting very wisely in discouraging over-production in any industry. I am not saying they should reserve any particular trade for any particular section of people. It is a well-known fact that if you want to produce goods in a factory at an economic price and if you want to have efficiency, there must be continuous work for the employees. By having that continuous work, they will take a greater interest. I say that of the Limerick tannery, because leather tanning is a tradition in some families there. They were able to get employment at it all down the years and it became an interest and a tradition, so much so that it was not unusual to hear men call it their own tannery.

I cannot blame the Minister or the Department, but this is a matter which might be considered when licences are being granted for industrial projects. A survey should be made to avoid the danger of too many people plunging into an industry, capital being wasted and those who were encouraged to invest the capital becoming disappointed and despondent and then becoming hostile to Irish industry. I think that has happened in our tanning industry. We hope the industry will survive, but I feel that, with the present trend of things, boot manufacturers in this country and outside it are not inclined nowadays to fashion footwear with the kind of leather we manufacture.

Leather is a natural industry here, because we have the hide, which is the raw product; we have the labour; and we have the old tradition which has come down with families. I sincerely hope that what has happened in the tanning industry will not be allowed to happen in other industries. We have in Limerick a growing population and we would like to see our old industries revived. I believe the tanning will be, because it is built on very sound lines and the management of that industry have given life service to it. They still retain some of those old employees and I believe that as time goes on they will be able to survive the many difficulties which beset them at present.

There is another industry in Limerick about which I wish to speak, that is, the tobacco industry. We have two tobacco factories, but unfortunately one of those factories is now being transferred to Dublin. That is a matter about which we in Limerick are very concerned. We came to the Department and the Parliamentary Secretary received us and our views were put to the Minister and I know he gave due consideration to our position, but the fact of the matter is that one factory is leaving Limerick.

The factory which is leaving, Spillane's is the factory which produced the famous "Garryowen" plug tobacco; and in the past, some 14 or 15 years ago, allied to the manufacture of that tobacco was the manufacture of cigarettes, "Craven A" cigarettes. Unfortunately, the owners of that industry decided they would sell to new people, Carreras, Limited, and Carreras, Limited next announced they were leaving Limerick to establish a factory in Dublin. I am in this position in Limerick, with the other representatives for Limerick, that the people have become somewhat disappointed and are asking the question: "Is it the policy of the Government to decentralise or not?" That is a question we must try to answer, no matter what reasons can be given by manufacturers as to why they are leaving our city.

On the other hand, the manufacturers say they want to go to the area where the big population is to be found; they say that ours is not a modern factory and they want to build a modern one. Is it not rather strange that they bought our factory to transfer it? It is rather strange and the people are asking that question. We would like to be able to answer that, as to why an industry such as Carreras, Limited can come to Limerick, buy an industry and then immediately transfer it to Dublin. I do not deny the right of any individual to sell to the highest bidder, to sell to whomever he thinks fit; but we must think of the people —and the young people, in particular —who this week are leaving their employment at that factory, somewhere about 100 people, their livelihood terminated—in some cases, terminated already—of whom some have emigrated, others are going and still others will be on the unemployed list.

It is sad to have to relate incidents of that kind. I do not believe in depressing statements, but it is to us, as representatives of the people of Limerick, a very distressing state of affairs.

I fail to understand why these new people are coming here to Dublin—I understand they have already built a new factory in Foxrock and intend to employ 300 people; and they say they intend to engage in an export trade. I wish them luck, but it is really a serious matter for us in Limerick. Now that they are about to leave Limerick they are prepared to sell the factory on condition that it will not be reopened as a tobacco or cigarette factory.

I fail to understand why Limerick is to be deprived of that industry and I ask the Minister it anything can be done. I do not think he can do anything now, but I would ask him, in view of the situation, if he would give Limerick special consideration in relation to some of the worthwhile projects which are already in his Department. I do not believe in kicking up rows, but I want the Minister and the Department to know how we in Limerick feel about this. It is sad to think that our people there who had looked forward to earning a living in that industry are now depressed and scattered and left in some cases without hope of employment.

To my mind, that is a contradiction of what we are told is the policy of the Government and the Department. We have been told by each successive Government that its policy is to keep industry decentralised as far as possible; in other words to keep them out of Dublin. The Minister has stated more than once that it is very often a matter for the promoters of these industries to decide on their location, but in our case in Limerick it was not a matter of keeping the industry out of Dublin, but of keeping it in Limerick. I know that the Minister would much prefer Messrs. Carreras to keep that factory in Limerick.

This is what happens when people who are monopoly-minded are able to paint such rosy pictures of what they will do, if they get into a certain position or a certain place. Then they relate all the disadvantages that exist in a place like Limerick and it is sad to have to listen to them when they tell you: "You have no proper warehousing, no proper bonding stores: you are 120 miles from Dublin where the biggest proportion of our goods are sold." Any industry can advance those arguments, but I would ask the Minister, if he has any influence with the people concerned, to do all he can for Limerick. If possible, I would ask him to direct some worthwhile industry to Limerick to replace that which we have lost.

Fortunately we have another very old-established industry, a family industry, in Limerick—Clune's. They are tobacco manufacturers; they do not make cigarettes. They are continuing that industry in Limerick and I know that the trade in general is inclined to ensure that Limerick will not suffer as much as we first thought it would because I believe we will still retain some of the tobacco trade, but as far as the cigarette trade, which is a big one, is concerned I think it has gone from us.

In regard to the Free Trade Area, I know the Minister when he is in a position to do so will give us his views as to how industries will fare if the proposed Free Trade Area ever comes into being. I do not know what the present trend is, but the Minister is naturally in touch with those European countries. Unfortunately, we have pessimists here who are prepared to talk very glibly and cause depression in industry and cause shares in industries to be depressed as most Irish industrial shares to-day are depressed. These people say that we will be wiped out overnight. Statements of that kind will not encourage people with money to invest it in industrial projects, and I feel that some clear-cut announcement should be made as soon as possible, because young people leaving school are inclined to say: "There is no hope for us because there is no industrial future here. The countries from which we are buying have hundreds of years of industrial tradition behind them."

I think the Government should take a lead—as I am sure they will—from Britain in this matter. Britain is prepared to go into the Free Trade Area with its industrial products, but it has already announced it will protect its agricultural industry. We are entitled to seek protection for our industries, and I am sure the Minister is wholeheartedly with us in that, but it is no harm for us to give our views and I am availing of this opportunity to do so.

I must say that the officials of the Minister's Department when they have come to Limerick in the past—I have met them in the industries with which I am concerned—have been most helpful, courteous and obliging. I hope when they come to Limerick, they will be able to give any assistance possible to us. I do not want the Minister or his officials to stand behind any industry that is not giving good value or showing signs of progress and not inclined to increase its efficiency, but I would point out that in the case of new industries, or even old industries which have to modernise, the Department should be patient because it takes a certain amount of time— longer in some cases than in others— to acquire the technical knowledge required, if one is to turn out goods satisfactorily in competition with goods supplied by other countries.

The Minister and his Department are to be congratulated for offering technical assistance to industries which require it and offering payments towards the cost of that assistance. We know in this age of new methods and machinery we can no longer rely on old methods or machines and whether we send out our employees to be trained or bring in technical assistance to guide them, it is very gratifying that the Department should give that necessary encouragement.

Some of the older industries should get special concessions. It is all very fine and desirable to bring in new industries, but it sometimes makes those associated with old industries, who have had to plough a lonely furrow over the years and who might like to carry out certain improvements, feel that their industries are not being as well treated as some of the new industries which have come here, and are coming here, and which are essential for the giving of more employment and stopping emigration. We are all unanimous in our efforts to achieve these aims.

I should like to say how grateful we in Limerick are to the Minister for his announcement on the progress that has been made at Shannon Airport. We are entering the jet age. We have been told for some considerable time past that the big air companies may overfly Shannon. It would be a great disaster for us in Limerick, if our airport should suffer in this way. Any money spent on that airport is I feel, money well spent. If the money is not spent, we will not get the trade that is available or which may come, and which I hope will come. I trust that the success the Minister and the country anticipate will come to our international airport.

This is a time of difficulty; this is a time of monopolies; this is a time of the big businessman crushing out the smaller businessman. Air companies are going into competition with one another. They are doing that, perhaps, by reducing fares or by cutting out places such as Shannon. Shannon is a natural airport, and while it may not be for me to praise it unduly, I think it is true to say that, in the minds of many people, it is an airport which should remain, with the prospect of increased air travel in the years to come.

The Minister spoke about adverse trade balances and the recovery that has taken place. I suppose we can all play our party piece when we want to talk economics and politics. I notice that Fianna Fáil have been referring to 1956 as a very black year, to 1957 as a year of recovery and to 1958 as a year of progress. When we are discussing the finances or trade of the nation, I do not think that, in fairness, we should play politics all the time. I am afraid it has created a very bad impression on the youth of our country. I am afraid that young men—we all know them—are not going to the Right, but are inclined to swing to the Left. They are joining organisations which are not in keeping with the traditions of our country. They are doing so because they hear a Minister of one Government seeking to score against the Minister of another Government. We should be realistic about tragic happenings in our country.

In 1956, the Suez Canal trouble reached a crisis. That was because Britain, who had occupied that area for a considerable number of years, who built up fortifications and who had controlling rights in that part of the world, was ousted by the Egyptian Government. Our petrol supplies were cut so severely, as a result, that it caused disorganisation in many directions, particularly in the motor trade, and our Government was caused a good deal of trouble, annoyance and loss.

In the same year, the Argentine Government sent meat at very depressed prices to the British market because they had currency trouble in their own country. In turn, that depressed the price of our cattle on the British market. I submit that these are two outside factors which no Government could control. The Government of the day applied such remedies as they thought fit and, as a result, became most unpopular. If they had not applied those remedies, they would have been acting contrary to the interests of the country and would not have been fit to be a Government.

It is tragic that political Parties should take advantage of circumstances such as those in order to try to make the point that this country was going into bankruptcy which was not, in fact, the truth. I daresay that this country is the soundest in the world to-day. Our land is capable of producing enough for our own needs and a surplus for which we cannot obtain a very profitable market outside.

Gloom and discontent should not be engendered in our young people. Frequently, young men come to me looking for work. I feel it is a great tragedy when having called on certain firms to try to obtain work for them, I am not able to help them. The financial position of our country should not be the plaything of political Parties. Our country is capable of doing great things, but we require the full cooperation of all sections to bring that about—political Parties and other sections as well.

The adverse trade balance in the year which is referred to as "the black year" was in the region of £56,000,000. Recovery came the following year as a result of the remedies applied by the previous Government. While, perhaps, dislocation occurred in certain industries, it was in the national interest. It was due entirely to outside influences that that state of affairs existed in one particular year.

We should not be so ready to decry our native Parliament and the elected members of that Parliament who form the Government at any time. It is not in the national interest. We may talk as much as we like about emigration and unemployment, but we are not doing anything practicable to solve these problems.

It is the duty of people who have a certain amount of money, and who can afford it, to give encouragement to industry. They should know better than to decry the efforts of new industries to such an extent that they lead one to believe our people are incapable. Unfortunately, the tendency now is towards monopolies and I believe that is a step in the wrong direction. We have all sorts of experts, industrial experts and efficiency experts, and I do not think their advice is always good. On occasion, they inform firms that a machine manufactured in New York is the right one for a certain type of work and that the firms must get it. That may be the case, but some of the people talking about efficiency are more concerned with buying a machine which costs £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000 than with keeping three or four people in employment. I may be talking through my hat, but very often the producers of such machines in other countries do not sell them outright. They lend them on the hire system and there is a maintenance charge, so that even if a large capital sum is expended at the start, firms still have to pay all the time for them.

I do not countenance inefficiency in any industry or business. Inefficiency will soon show itself and is a hindrance to progress. Much of the machinery that has been brought into this country in recent years has been responsible for our adverse trade balance, but those of us who were born and reared in rural Ireland must realise the labour-saving that has been brought about by the introduction of this machinery. Practically all of it has had to be brought from other countries and no one can deny that the housewife in rural Ireland has a much easier task with the new electrical equipment placed at her service, washing machines, cookers and so forth. They have made life easier and more pleasant for her, but, over the years, this equipment and machinery has cost a considerable amount of money.

We must produce as many industrial goods as possible, and the same applies to agricultural goods, so that we can pay for the imported goods we require. I believe this is not a time for making any highfalutin speeches or rash promises. We have to face matters realistically because the position is serious, but, if we take our courage in our hands, we should be able to accomplish what Most Rev. Dr. Lucey, Bishop of Cork, said we must do. He stated that our first duty is to save the Irish people and he is quite right in directing attention to that as our primary duty. His motives are pure and high, and, in making that statement, he was not inspired by any political viewpoint. We do know that in many parts of the country the young people are disappearing, leaving the old people behind to carry on. Those young people who are leaving have not to go because of unemployment; they are leaving because there is a spirit of uneasiness all over the world to-day, and that spirit is as widespread in this country as in any other.

We must give serious consideration to the many problems besetting us. We cannot afford social services on the high scale that some people expect.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of social services does not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. Carew

I am just mentioning it as another point because I would prefer that our efforts were directed towards the creation of more industries, more employment on the land, more contentment for our farmers and thus direct the minds of the people to what they can do for themselves, rather than to what the State can or will do for them. Self-help is the old tradition of our people, and if our people want to bring about better conditions, they will have to direct their minds more to that task.

We appear to be very much troubled about our adverse trade balance, but I believe it will eventually be brought right, because the capital expenditure necessitated by the modernising of all our industries is not a recurring item. In that connection I hope that when we are entering trade agreements with other countries, we will ensure that those countries who are selling considerable quantities of goods to us will, in return, take a reasonable quantity of the goods which we can so efficiently produce and supply to them. No country should expect to sell us £5,000,000 or £10,000,000 worth of goods, and, at the same time, buy only £1,000,000 worth from us. Continental countries are all the time anxious to sell goods to us, but, with one or two exceptions, they fail hopelessly to give us any return for the trade we are giving to them. Eventually, international trade will have to be on that basis. Otherwise, we will have adverse balances with all countries.

I hope that if the Government have to do anything as drastic as the last Government had to do when they imposed the levies, people generally, and particularly the traders concerned, will not adopt, as some of them did on that occasion, a very un-national attitude. They should have been patriotic enough to see that what the Government did at that time was done in the national interest.

There has to be a new approach because it must be remembered that the younger people to-day in increasing numbers are taking a very different attitude to Government administration and local administration. They are inclined to tell us who are in local government where we should draw the line. That is a very bad state of affairs.

I am glad to have this opportunity of saying to the Minister that, if it is in his power, he should direct some worthwhile industry to Limerick because of the fact that this week a very old industry, Messrs. Spillane and Company, is closing down. One can realise the consequences of the closing of that factory in Limerick City. It means a loss of employment to 130 people and a loss of wages of £1,000 a week. That money will no longer be in circulation to help to stimulate trade. I sincerely trust that in so far as the Minister has power to direct industries to certain areas, he will direct some worthwhile industry to Limerick.

I hope the project for a free port at Shannon will receive the earnest attention of the Minister. We in Limerick are not in possession of the facts, but we know that negotiations have been proceeding. Such a port would be very usefully employed, in view of its convenience to the airport and, as years go by, there might be co-operation between the port and the airport.

The fact that shipping is on the decline in Limerick is a cause for much concern. Because of the increase in freights, shipping companies are now bringing larger ships to Irish ports and, therefore, Limerick is not as attractive a port as Dublin, Waterford, Cork and Galway, which are ocean ports. Limerick is an inland port, 60 miles from the mouth of the Shannon, which is a tidal river. Large ships cannot come up the river. It is felt that if there is a development of the kind I have mentioned, a good deal of the shipping that Limerick enjoyed in the past will not be available in the future. We have already suffered considerably in the matter of shipping due to the fact that, as a result of national policy, the boats which formerly came to Limerick with wheat, barley and oats from foreign countries are not coming now. From the national point of view, that is a desirable trend, but Limerick port has suffered. The coal trade, which is another important trade, is now being diverted to Cork and Waterford, for the same reason.

I feel that Limerick should get the earnest attention of the Department of Industry and Commerce. I live in the City of Limerick. I am associated with industry there. I take pride in a factory that gives employment. It is gratifying when one knows that the people employed are in full employment and that there are possibilities of increasing employment. That should be the aim of every man who takes an interest in the industrial life of the country.

We are very grateful for any assistance the Minister has given us in connection with the Messrs. Spillane's tobacco industry. We feel sore about the closing of that industry because it was felt that something should have been done to help the people in it. The firm which is now disposing of the factory came to Limerick 14 years ago. They are not Irish nationals. They were quite prepared to operate on a working agreement with Messrs Spillane and Company at that time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I fear the Deputy has already said this on two occasions.

Mr. Carew

My only desire now is to thank the Minister for any help he gave us as far as that factory is concerned and to express the hope that at some future date he will be able to direct some industry to Limerick. I should like to place on record my appreciation of the officials of the Department with whom I came in contact in connection with matters concerning my constituency.

Mr. Healy

I have to agree to a large extent with what Deputy Carew has said. I think the Minister's statement last night came at a very opportune time and will do a great deal to counteract the pessimistic pronouncements and speeches which have been made by people in the House and outside it who are certainly not in a better position than the Minister to judge.

If it is true to state that the patriot of the present generation is the man who gives employment and creates employment and helps to keep people at home in industry and agriculture, it is also true to say that the greatest enemy of the country at the present time is the pessimist, who goes around with a long face, wailing and moaning about the difficulties of the country and who sees no hope for the future. Such a person, unwittingly maybe, is doing everything possible to discourage young people from staying in the country.

Some of us are very fond of quoting various authorities. I do not do it as a rule and will not do it now, except to say that we might take heed of what His Eminence Cardinal D'Alton said at the Centenary celebrations of the Christian Brothers a little over a week ago, when he drew attention to the pessimists and to the disservice they were doing to the country and pointed out the number of blessings that we have in this country for which we should be thankful.

Coming back to the Minister's statement last night, I am sure it is a source of satisfaction to all of us to know the progress that has been made by the State industries, Bord na Móna, the E.S.B., Irish Shipping, Aer Lingus, and so on. While that is true, we must also draw attention to the persons engaged in private enterprise. Great inducements have been offered and are being offered in order to get foreign capital invested in this country. That is very necessary. At the same time, a good deal more could be done to induce our own people who have money to invest in Irish industry. That is absolutely essential. There is money here. There is a good deal of our money invested in foreign securities. If people realised what it meant in a practical way to the national economy to invest their money in industry at home, some of that money would be invested in Irish industry. Of course, it is true to say that the person taking such action would expect at least the same security and at least the same return.

I would ask the Minister and his Department to consider very carefully the inducements offered to our people to start industries or to expand existing industries. Whatever difficulties can be removed from their path should be removed. As I say, the man who creates employment at present is the patriotic person of our generation, as is also the worker who does a good day's work in whatever job he is engaged. The time for fighting and dying is over, for the moment anyway, and too much stress cannot be laid on the prosaic task of providing employment.

We know that the pessimists, both inside and outside the House, are talking as if unemployment and emigration had just arrived. We had emigration for over 100 years and I am sure we shall have emigration—not to the same extent, I hope—in 100 years from now, unless some outside influence alters the trend. It is fair game for political Parties to offer a solution for both emigration and unemployment but the solution appears to be:—"The Government in power is wrong; if you put us in office we shall solve them." It is a pity that those outside the political Parties, who make such a play about our emigration and unemployment problems, do not offer a constructive solution, or do not put forward any plan to guide the political Parties, Governments or Opposition, as to what they should do.

Before I leave the matter of State enterprises, I shall be parochial for a moment and say that I hope the Department and the Minister will not allow anything to interfere with the development of the site for the Cork Airport. It has been delayed much too long. It is felt to be a great need in the locality and the community are looking forward eagerly to the day when it will be an accomplished fact.

The Minister stated last night that he was devoting more money to An Bord Fáilte and to the tourist industry. I welcome that statement very particularly. I have been a long time connected, in a voluntary capacity, with the tourist industry in the country I come from, perhaps for the reason that it is the county in which the industry was cradled. I have a distinct recollection that ten years or more ago, it was regarded as a very doubtful industry by many people. Many daily newspapers regarded the tourist as a doubtful asset. They apparently felt that tourists would raise the cost of living, and much was done then to endanger the development of the industry. However, things have changed very considerably and we are grateful for that.

I feel that this has the greatest potential of any industry. Even agriculture does not offer the same potential return in such a short time as the tourist industry. As the industry brings in, from the figures we have heard, anything from £17,000,000 at the lowest to £35,000,000 at the highest, surely it is worth some expenditure. I cannot understand the mentality of people who talk as if it were highly extravagant to spend anything up to £500,000 on such an industry.

I know it is the Department's stated intention to review the position of the Tóstal some time in the near future. I hope that when that is done it will be done sympathetically, because whatever the original object of the Tóstal was, I do not think it should be judged completely on the number of visitors who came to the country during the period. It should not be judged on that alone because it has done many other things. In the present season it was held in 80 centres. Being a Corkman perhaps I feel that nobody did better than Cork City, but I should like to draw attention to the excellent efforts in Cobh and in Buttevant. I am speaking for 90 per cent. of the people in my constituency when I say that the Tóstal in Cork is regarded as one of the "musts" of the city's cultural and sporting features of the year.

It would be unthinkable for the people of Cork not to have the Tóstal, or something of the same character to replace it. We can point to the fact that in our International Choral Festival we have 400 or 500 participants from outside the country. You can call them tourists or visitors, but they come to our city, and to our country, and I am sure it does the tourist industry a great deal of good. It also means that their activities and achievements, and whatever hospitality we are able to give them, all get publicity of varying amounts of prominence in some foreign countries where formerly they did not know Cork existed.

I would also say that the Tóstal has done much to make the people aware of the value of the tourist industry. It has resulted in a spring cleaning in rural and urban areas. More than anything else it has, in Cork, done much to show the value of voluntary self-help. As Deputy Carew mentioned a short time ago, voluntary self-help has shown what a local community can do. For that reason I hope, when the position is reviewed, that all these matters will be taken into consideration, that it will be felt that the Tóstal has by no means been a failure, and that while the indirect benefits are not obvious at first glance, they are nevertheless there.

The Minister's review of the present situation has done much to counteract the pessimists. It is also generally felt among the plain people of the country that when this old nation of ours overcomes—as overcome it will—its difficulties the Minister will be regarded as one who has done a man's share to help to overcome those difficulties. I am glad to support him here and to pay tribute to his work. I think his work is recognised far beyond his Party and beyond those who support his Party.

Mr. Kyne

In his opening speech the Minister drew attention to the fact that the main increase in our export trade in the past year was in live cattle and allied agricultural products. While we all welcome any increase in exports, and in particular the export of live cattle, I do not think that any side of the House would be entitled to claim such an increase as being due to any action of theirs. It must be obvious that there are factors in the countries which purchase our cattle over which we have no control. If an increase has taken place in the past year, while it is something to be welcomed and something we hope will continue and improve, I do not think anybody is entitled to claim it as showing that an improvement has been achieved by any particular Government. In connection with allied agricultural exports, the export of butter is prominent in the figures. I am afraid that is a doubtful achievement. It would be fairly easy to export any commodity produced here, if the people were taxed so as to subsidise this product and allow it to be sold abroad at below production cost.

We all welcome any attempt to increase our export trade in foodstuffs. Much can be done by making use of the influence of our Irish exiles. A few weeks ago, I received, in my capacity as chairman of a local authority, a letter from a chairman of a certain county organisation in London requesting me to appeal at a meeting of that local authority to exiles from the area in which I live to attend a joint meeting of the various county associations in London. The object of that meeting was to endeavour to get from Irish exiles resident there a promise that not only would they endeavour to procure Irish goods in the shops, Irish bacon, beef, butter and so on, but that they would endeavour to encourage other people, even people not natives of this country, to do likewise. It may not be a very big thing, but it would be desirable if each local authority and the chairman of various organisations in the country would endeavour to see that the exiles they are in contact with, who are living in Britain and other countries, are encouraged to form organisations to help the sale and consumption of Irish goods. Every little helps. It is only by our own efforts that we can achieve the prosperity we all desire.

I would have preferred if the Minister had been able to say that our main increase in exports was on the industrial side. Of course, that is because I would be interested in the labour content going to make up such exports. Unfortunately for us, the unemployment position here remains pretty stagnant. It varies from 50,000 at the best period right up to almost 100,000 at the worst—and that is not even the true picture. To that must be added many thousands of boys and girls who, on leaving school, do not bother to register at an employment exchange, but nevertheless are ready, willing and available for work, were it there. It is unfortunate that no inroads have been made on this serious problem over the past two or three years.

Emigration is usually treated as a separate evil from unemployment. I do not think that is proper at all. Emigration of a sort will always be there. Please God, the day will never come when Irishmen will confine themselves to Ireland and never seek to go a step beyond it, either as emigrants or adventurers. But the main evil of emigration is represented by the men and women, boys and girls, fathers of families and indeed whole families who are driven by economic circumstances to leave this land and offer their services, be they of hand or brain, to another country because work is not available for them at home.

Last week, in my native City of Waterford, the Deputies of all Parties were called together by the combined trade union movement. At that meeting, we had the Church, the chamber of commerce and the chief trade union organisations of the city. I was particularly impressed by an address given by a well-known local priest. He did not make an appeal for long-term employment. He called for an immediate attempt to keep the unemployed workers at home. He asked the chamber of commerce to appeal to employers to give even one man half a day's work and to employ men even if only a door of a house needed repair, because, he said, he knew of his own personal knowledge the destitution in which thousands of people in that small city were living.

I can understand that the Minister, when introducing his Estimate, had to deal with the long-term policy for employment. It is his function to do that. Emergency relief schemes are not the function of his Department. We look for these from the Department of Local Government, the Department of Lands and some other Departments, but I think the present position justifies the Minister in endeavouring in some way to introduce into his Estimate some sum of money for emergency schemes.

I have been trying to think what type of emergency scheme it would be possible for the Minister's Department to introduce. A difficulty in my own locality immediately came to mind. We have a small, fairly industrialised town, with fairly good employment, but our small harbour is in urgent need of repair. Some time ago, we endeavoured to secure from the Minister's Department some of the money absolutely necessary to keep the harbour wall intact so that export-and there is quite a considerable amount of export from that port-could continue and ships could discharge there.

Money being scarce, the Minister could only reply that the money was not available and there was no particular fund out of which the need could be met. I suggest that, not alone in relation to our particular town but in relation to other small ports as well, if some emergency fund were set up and money made available, the work thereby carried out would have two results. It would relieve unemployment, a relief which is urgently needed, and it would have a productive value in the years to come because an expanding export trade could be directed through these ports and, likewise, imports of raw materials for our industries could be brought in through these ports instead of having all imports concentrated on Dublin, Waterford, Limerick and Cork.

I am glad the Minister is continuing the policy initiated by Deputy Norton when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce. I refer to the direct encouragement given to outside capital to come in here. No one will deny for a moment the value of the work done by our own people in the industrial sphere. No one wishes to take credit from those who established our present industries and risked their money at a time when it was not popular to do so. The time has come, however, when we need something more and the Minister is to be congratulated on the various Bills he has introduced, following the example set by his predecessor, to make it easier for foreign investors to come in here and invest in industry.

I was reading in the magazine Development, to which reference was made by Deputy Booth, the report of an interview with the present American representative here and I was struck by his statement that American businessmen are prepared to go anywhere, provided they make a decent profit but that, if no particular advantage offers from the point of view of coming to Ireland, then there is no incentive to come here and they would prefer to spend their money in their own local towns rather than invest in Ireland. He pointed out that those who are anxious to secure American help, technical or financial, should first of all decide what particular industry suits a particular locality rather than come along and plug the advantages of a locality and then seek to contact the people who would deal with the particular matter.

There are many areas in which local development committees should be established, but the people in these areas need some little help in making up their minds as to what they really want. In that connection, I suggest the Industrial Development Authority, or some analogous body, should second officers to these development committees to examine the locality, see what advantages are offered and what industry would be suitable. In most instances I believe local money could be made available and these officers should direct the local development groups as to whom they should contact and the most likely source from which they could expect help. At the moment it is not wise policy to wait until someone comes to you. One must get out and sell the idea. If these officers were available, they could go out to the highways and by-ways and seek both the capital and the people essential to development. Much will be done for parochial or county reasons as compared with what might or might not be done for national reasons. We all know the partisan element associated with county or parish. People will put up money to keep a local industry going, money they would not dream of investing in a national loan to promote industry in general.

With reference to what the Minister said about the employees of Messrs. Guinness and other employees devoting portion of their salaries and wages to a fund for the promotion of industry, it is my opinion that counties and parishes would be prepared to make a much greater effort along those lines if they had the necessary impetus.

With regard to increased production, it must be remembered that we must face up to the grave danger of the displacement of manpower by machinery. Nowadays the trend is towards automation. We have an instance of that in Waterford. Within two weeks of certain people joining the paper mills there, some 80 workers were deprived of their employment. The whole tendency is towards mechanisation. In the long run that may turn out to be the correct thing and future results may justify what has been done. I understand that very expensive machinery is being installed there. It is unlikely that this machinery would be installed were it not for the fact that in the long run production will be increased and bigger profits made. In the long run, too, there may be a higher employment content. I merely mention this for the purpose of warning the House that a watch will have to be kept to ensure that we do not increase production at the expense of manpower. It is a sounder economic policy to employ unemployed manpower rather than use machinery.

Mechanisation is all right for overdeveloped countries like Great Britain and the United States where there is a shortage of manpower. Here, we have practically 100,000 unemployed available for work. If we want to increase production we should do it through the medium of these unemployed and not through the medium of increased mechanisation. The introduction of machinery is bringing about grave changes in the unemployment figure already. Looking at the record of wet time stamps for 1950—there was a question asked on this about a month ago by me—I find that, for every skilled man employed in the building trade, there was approximately one unskilled labourer. Within the past 8 years that has changed. Practically 50 per cent. of the unskilled labour is now done without. In endeavouring to find the reason for what seemed to me to be a strange fact, it was pointed out to me that the increasing use of machinery in the building and allied trades was responsible for that. Equally so, in local authorities it is quite clear that the use of machinery for road-making, the spreading of tar, quarrying and various other activities is reducing the labour content.

I am wondering whether that is such a happy position. In checking, in the local authority of which I am a member, the cost per mile of road now as compared with five or six years ago, I was amazed to find that there is no great saving, that the rental charges on the machinery and the repayment of the loan for the machinery almost equalled the cost of additional workers. It was pointed out that when a machine is bought to do a particular type of work in a local authority, it has to be paid for irrespective of whether that machine is fully occupied all the year or not whereas, if human beings were employed, at the period when they would be unemployed they could be paid off and they would no longer be a charge. It would actually turn out cheaper in many cases. The Minister should be ever watchful on the question of machinery versus manpower until we come to the happy stage, if we ever do, when we shall need to increase our output through machinery, having satisfied the employment market.

On the question of production, as I said in a debate here earlier this year, I feel that sometimes a wrong approach to increased production is made by employers. I can speak only for the workers' side on this problem but I do know that the main worry of each group of working people engaged in any industry, factory or anywhere else when an employer makes an appeal for increased production is not the question of having to work harder, nor the question of whether he will be paid more for his work, but the question as to whether, if he works harder, he will work himself out of a job.

Without the co-operation of the worker it will be impossible to increase production and the only solution is the formation of worker-management production committees with the help and sanction of the Government, the Government giving due recognition to them and seeing that the workers' representatives will be enabled to see the whole picture, that, where an effort for increased production is called for and is made, instead of being used to the detriment of the labour content of the factory, it will be directed to the export market to secure bigger orders and probably to improve the labour content.

From 15 or 20 years of trade union activities I can say that at each meeting a trade unionist attends, any time he speaks either in committee or in public, the very first question he will be asked if he speaks of increased production, of better methods of production, of doing things in a way that is different from the way they have been doing them is: "What effect will it have on my job and that of my fellow workers?" Unless something is done to reassure the workers, there is very little hope of increased production. In the export market we shall have to compete against countries which have already solved that difficulty by carrying out under the emergency of war in the past ten years or so the suggestion I am making now.

There are a few other comments under ordinary headings which I wish to make, in particular in connection with Bord Fáilte. Our aim should be to attract the British tourist. Whether, as Most Rev. Dr. Lucey has implied, he is an Irish emigrant who has gone there or the son, cousin or some other relation of an Irish emigrant, does not matter. If he is attracted here and spends money here it is good business for us. There is a wonderful potential for us in regard to the British and Welsh worker, miners and various other people. If you can attract those people to Ireland, the nearest foreign country to them, a country in which their language difficulties are nil, a country in which they can understand the money market and which can provide good food at a reasonable price and a variety of amusements of the type they like, then you will more than make up for whatever loss there will be, say, in the American tourist trade. Maybe that trade was more important some years ago when dollars were vital to us.

It is all very well having super hotels in Killarney and elsewhere, but you will always have that American tourist trade—the American who comes to Ireland to see Killarney because it is one of the beauty spots of the world. However, they do not come here primarily because of Ireland. They are doing a European tour; they go to Europe to see Buckingham Palace, to see France or somewhere else and they drop off here either on their way there or returning and spend a little time in Ireland. I do not think too much emphasis should be laid on providing accommodation for that type of visitor. The majority of American tourists to this country will be those who come from this country or people who belong to them. If they come here, they come to visit the old homestead and there would be greater variety and interest for them to meet us in our own conditions rather than in de luxe American-copied hotels that would give them the impression that they were in New York, Washington or somewhere else rather than in Ireland on holidays.

There is another personal matter which came to my attention in connection with hotels that seek not grants but loans for development. This hotel which I have in mind secured a loan for the installation of running water, wash-up facilities, and so on, in all the rooms upstairs. As a result of being able to advertise that year the improved facilities, including some bedrooms which they had added, they found they had increased bookings. Having examined the bookings for a particular month of this year, they estimated that their diningroom, which prior to that was quite capable of seating all their visitors, needed expansion. On applying for the second loan, although they were good business people they were informed that until the first loan was paid off there was no hope of getting any additional money. That is a short sighted policy because the value of what was done in the first instance and the value of the money lent to them has been offset by the fact that the bottleneck of the diningroom has deprived them of taking full advantage of what otherwise would be increased tourist trade for that hotel.

In connection with my own constituency, in my native town of Dungarvan a particular factory, the only one, I understand, engaged in the manufacture of glue and gelatine in this country, has ceased to function. It was in the control of an Irish group, but I understand that a well-known French firm engaged in the gelatine business secured a lease of the factory for the coming five years. Might I appeal, as I feel I can very confidently appeal, to the Minister for his fullest co-operation in meeting this foreign firm and helping them in every way? I understand that they hope to re-employ the 60 workers previously engaged in the production of this commodity and they believe that inside the five years they can increase employment to double that number. If that is so, any concession the Minister might be asked for or that he may be able to give would be welcomed by those of us anxious to see local people employed in local industries.

It is regrettable that price control has been removed. Most of us know that the source of the produce of our factories, the raw material imported from outside, has fallen in price on world markets; yet we rarely see that reflected in prices here. On the other hand immediately any increase takes place on world markets, there is automatically a price increase here. The Minister should take power, if he has not got it already, to see that there is control at least over the items which go to make up the cost-of-living index figure. Reading this morning's paper, I saw that a prominent trade union official indicated that workers were entitled to a certain income per year and that he and his union would take steps to see that that would be implemented.

While I agree, and it is laudable, that the workers are entitled to a proper standard of living, any attempt to secure an improved standard of living will only lead to a spiral, unless we have price control. The workers proved their interest in the national economy by their acceptance of the national wage agreement. Unfortunately, some employers—not many, be it said to their credit—did not keep their part of the bargain, that they would endeavour not to tack on the increased charges in the cost of their commodities. Should any national wage increase be formulated now, should such a wage increase as is being hinted at by prominent trade unionists-a round of increases between 30/- and £3 a week —become necessary, it will seriously affect the economy of the country.

I suggest to the Minister that the only way he can guarantee for himself that trade unionists will endeavour to play the reasonable game they have played up to this is to assure them that he will continuously watch the prices of commodities so that the cost-of-living index figure will not increase, but will decrease.

The Minister paid a compliment to the work carried out by the officers of the Labour Court. As one who has a fair knowledge of it, I should like to add my congratulations to the Labour Court and to its officials—in particular, to its conciliation officers, who do the unspectacular work, who go down unheralded, unsung and unpublished, who go between trade unions and employers, and, by hard common sense and a good deal of tact and understanding, achieve settlements which never make the columns of the newspapers.

I suggest to the Minister that that service, the conciliation department of the Labour Court, should be extended. It is my experience that the biggest trouble with a trade union dispute is when the would festers. When the demand is made, when the employer is stubborn and when both sides are left in that way, outside difficulties creep in which would not be there if the trouble were dealt with quickly. If the Labour Court had more conciliation officers available, who could go down and provide for a quick settlement, there would be an improvement in the general economic life of the country and there would be even less loss of work days due to labour disputes than there is in the good record we have at the present moment.

In a short time, the Dáil will be going into recess. While I accept that the Minister is honestly endeavouring to do everything he can to promote employment and work for our people here, I am afraid it is a long-term policy. It will carry very little consolation to those people who are either on the dole or drawing unemployment benefit at present. There is urgent need to treat the present unemployment position as a national emergency. It is the responsibility of the Government to make some announcement. We are now at the best period of employment. Before this Dáil resumes, after it breaks up next month, we will be back in the bleak period, or starting on the bleak period as regards work. Every week from then on, right up to the following April, will see a mounting figure of unemployment, unless some effort is made to encourage relief schemes by means of various Department grants.

While I realise that this Ministry has not charge of all that, the Minister has, nevertheless, responsibility for the overall employment content in the country. I feel that in his closing speech he should give some indication of the proposals he or the Government have to deal with the position before the winter months set in.

Mr. Desmond

Like Deputy Healy, I agree with the remarks of His Eminence Cardinal D'Alton when he spoke of the damage being done by pessimists in their pronouncements on the overall position of the country. The tragedy of pessimism has been causing much trouble in recent years, and a leading part in that campaign was taken by the members of the present Government, by their newspaper and by their publication An Gléas. At that time, in so far as they made statements which were not helpful to the overall position, by their very sense of exaggeration they were helping people who found it convenient to attack anything and everything done for the welfare of the people.

Even at this late stage, the history of the past and the pronouncement of such an eminent person should teach members of the Government to understand that their statements when in opposition were harmful. The Minister for Health, when in opposition, attacked the previous Government and went so far as to state that they were out to threaten, as it were at gun point, the directors of the banks of this country. Surely this is not the time for anybody, especially Ministers or ex-Ministers, to make reckless statements when we should be able to discuss matters concerning industry and commerce or other matters here without harking back to what one Party did when in Government and what the other Party did not do.

I should first like to refer to Cork Harbour and the possibilities for industry in that area. The Minister said very little in his opening address either in regard to present activities or future prospects in that area. I think it is only right that credit be given to Deputy Norton who, when Minister for Industry and Commerce, played more than one man's part in getting the oil refinery into the area. That should be but the beginning of a real trend of prosperity, not alone for Cork Country, and the harbour, but for the country as a whole. I do not understand the attitude of the Minister, as indicated in answers to questions here, regarding the possibility of subsidiary industries based on by-products that will become available from the operation of the oil refinery. I cannot understand why some effort is not made to bring about the establishment of smaller industries which, if combined, could achieve a great deal of success in giving increased employment.

There are many towns in that area where employment is not good and that position has continued for years past. There are plenty of workers available for any industry established there and that is why I fail to understand—judging only by the Minister's replies to Dáil questions—why an attempt is not being made to examine possibilities that may arise through the establishment of small industries dealing with the by-products of the oil refinery. I must say also that, as far as I am concerned, replies given by the Minister on a few occasions to questions in connection with the possibility of the establishment of a shipbuilding and a ship-repairing industry in Haulbowline were anything but satisfactory. Some of us hear of certain proposals and we may know a little, but why should we be kept in the dark?

Is it true that everything is not completely satisfactory in regard to the industry at present at Haulbowline? Is it true that sensible proposals have been put up by the foreign industrialists in regard to the establishment of a ship-building and ship-repairing industry, which, taken in conjunction with the coming improvement in Cork Harbour and the extra volume of shipping resulting from the establishment of the oil refinery, would be a considerable asset?

Why is the Minister not prepared to take into his confidence all the people concerned? Why is he not prepared to move more swiftly in dealing with proposals of such concern to people anxious—perhaps, in their own interests—to come in and establish such an industry which would be of vital importance in creating more employment and which would be of immense importance to towns such as Passage West, Cobh and other areas?

I should also like to draw attention to the fact that Cork Harbour is of great importance to the South of Ireland. When the Minister comes in to introduce his Estimate and speaks of the number of new industries in the country, he must be prepared to admit, as his predecessors had to admit for many years, that the great majority of all these industries have been and are being established in Dublin. We know it is essential to have employment in Dublin increased and it is a healthy sign, perhaps to see new industries established there, but it is not sufficient to concentrate completely on Dublin at the expense of the rest of the country. I cannot see why greater co-operation between the Minister and various industrialists should not help such areas as Cork and Cork Harbour and other important areas in the South, while at the same time fostering industry in Dublin.

We all agree in principle regarding grants for the establishment of new industries. Deputy Norton, when Minister, naturally concentrated on that line of approach, just as the present Minister is doing now and as he did in years gone by. It is a healthy approach, but I believe that with it, there must go a certain responsibility. Every proposal must be examined minutely when it comes before the Department and before any grants are made available for the erection of factories, whether under the Undeveloped Areas Act or in general, in the eastern or southern parts of the country which did not qualify originally under the Undeveloped Areas Act.

In my opinion, there is another aspect of this question which must be examined. Both the Minister and his predecessor stressed the vital necessity for increased production, and especially increased exports and, on all sides of the House, that policy has been trotted out as the gospel of the day—that the survival of the nation depends on increased exports. If that is so, and if we are serious about the necessity for increased exports, surely, when providing grants for factories which are being erected and which claim to cater for the export market, the Minister should be satisfied on all points in regard to the production of the lines necessary for export in these factories.

I have in mind the fact that at present a factory is being erected, introduced from another country, for the manufacture and export of heavy machinery. A grant has been made available, I understand, with which, of course, I agree. I should like to know on what advice was the Minister satisfied that the location of such an industry in an inland area was more suitable than its location at the mouth of a harbour—say, in the town of Kinsale. I believe a Minister—I do not mind what Government he may belong to— cannot go around glibly and say that exports are essential and production at the lowest possible cost is essential when, at the same time, this sort of thing is allowed to happen. The Minister must know that the cost of production of heavy machinery and the cost of the transport of machinery from an inland area to the nearest seaport a long way away from the site of production means that the cost of the commodities, when completed and placed on the export market, will be higher than it would be if they were manufactured in a town such as Kinsale at the very mouth of a harbour near to the western seaboard.

I cannot say I am satisfied with the examination that should take place in relation to the establishment of industries, particularly for export, in locations where they cannot possibly hope to give the same satisfactory economic returns as they would if situated in other localities. I am afraid I have to say, from my experience of this project, that other considerations must have operated to establish industries in some areas as against others. That is wrong. Any Minister for Industry and Commerce is dealing with the property of the people. When offering grants, he must be prepared to determine that, by the establishment of these industries, every part of this country will get a fair break and not just a certain locality because of certain influential interests that may help him to come to a decision which is unsatisfactory in the long run.

I want to deal now with the introduction of American capital and industry into this country. Some of us in the Labour Party have always explained our position in relation to the importance of establishing industry here. We all know it would be far better for young Irish men and women to get employment in their own country, even if that employment is offered in Ireland by a foreign industrialist. It is far better that that should be so than that these young people should have to go abroad, should have to establish themselves under different circumstances in another country and hope, after keeping themselves there, to send a few pounds back to the old people. What strike me most forcibly are the extraordinary statements that have appeared in our daily Press in relation to the ramblings of Ministers and other very important personages from this country within the past few years.

It is a healthy sign that a Minister for Industry and Commerce is prepared to leave his office to go to England or America with his officials, with a view to making contacts which may help to bring to this country even only one or two more industries. I cannot understand all the ballyhoo about an important member of the Government Party on his yearly trip to America and coming back and telling us that industrialists there are behind him and are coming over here. I am not satisfied with that. Furthermore, I am not satisfied with the lack of information by the Minister in relation to the activities of a properly-appointed person who was recently sent to America to encourage industrialists there to come to our country.

I agreed when the Minister sent a person of high standing among industrialists in this country to America in order to put over the advantages that would be offered to American industrialists coming here. I cannot understand why his homecoming was not heralded with trumpets or by the appearance at the mouth of the harbour of a tender awaiting the arrival of a famous person. There was nothing whatsoever about the homecoming of the person sent out. It is important for us and for the people of the country that any statements which are to be made as regards proposals or suggested proposals by Americans or others to come here should be made by the Minister rather than by a Deputy who apparently is more interested in pulling the wool over the eyes of the Irish people than in anything else.

We are facing a critical position-a position which has faced the economic rulers of countries such as America and Britain for many years. We do not seem to be making ourselves aware of the dangers that can come in with the system that has already seeped in here and seems to be establishing itself under each Government, under the aegis of each Minister for Industry and Commerce, that is, the accursed combine system. We know what combines mean to America—they mean the liquidation of the small man in business. They mean a vicious system which removes from its path every form of competition so that they have all the people concerned with the raw material—the producers—and particularly the consumers at their mercy and can dictate to all these sections and, equally well, to the Government of the day. It happened elsewhere and it is happening here.

Under our very eyes, whether it is in the bakery business or in the petrol business, small concerns are being wiped out in this country. I am not echoing the sentiments expressed by anyone outside this House who may have spoken on this subject during the past few weeks. I said this here before: I say it again now. A Minister for Industry and Commerce may find his hands tied under the Constitution. The present Minister or any other Minister may be able to say—perhaps truthfully, to a certain extent—that, under the Constitution, the small industrialist has the right to sell his business. But, far and away beyond that, the Minister must be prepared to examine the situation in relation not to the present activities of these dangerous combines but to the deadly danger of their having an overall control of industry in this country in the years to come.

I am afraid that, from the point of view of the petrol trade and the bakery industry, we are now at a stage at which unless something is done to curb the power of these strong groups, we will find ourselves in a short time in a position that they will be too strong for us to handle unless we are prepared to do what the majority in this House would never do, that is, concentrate on the possibility of the nationalisation of industries, which would mean the liquidation to a certain extent of these combines or dealing with them in a severe manner.

While the majority of proposals for the establishment of industries are based on the proximity of industries to the bigger markets, such as Dublin in particular, and while we know it is essential to keep down costs of production to the very minimum, I believe we are not concentrating sufficiently on the establishment of smaller industries in rural Ireland, industries using what may be termed agricultural by-products as their raw materials. In that regard the present Minister is faced with the same problem as that which confronted his predecessor, that emigration is more prevalent in rural areas than in the larger centres where a certain amount of employment is available all the year around.

Emigration is mainly originally caused by the movement of men, women and children from rural Ireland into the larger centres which are used as stepping stones in their passage abroad. By establishing smaller industries in the rural areas we would provide employment for the people there and the movement to the larger centres would be halted or slowed down. Such small industries, based on agriculture, would help to heal the festering sores of emigration and unemployment in these areas; they would help, to a certain extent, in giving a sense of security to the people in them. I believe that is far more important than anything else. Such industries will give the people a permanent opportunity of earning wages in their own localities.

I notice that in the Minister's speech he expected to receive certain co-operation from banks, insurance companies, etc. in future. He would have my support and the support of every member of the Labour Party in that, but we know that even in asking for that co-operation we have to pay dearly for it. We have to pay dearly because we are operating under a system from which the Minister cannot depart because it must be part of Government policy.

We are determined, naturally, to restrict ourselves solely to the matters dealt with under this Vote. Unemployment and emigration were increased, and conditions of living in the Twenty-Six Countries were made more difficult by the fact that industrialists, or any type of employers, found it almost impossible to secure credit. We were told that the remedy for all our ills was the restriction of credit. Apparently we failed to take cognisance of the fact that in America, the land of wealth, and in England to a certain extent, credit restriction brought unemployment in its train, though to a lesser extent in England than in America because there there has been overemployment. This applies to the last Government as well as the present one. We believed that the remedy for all our ills was the remedy which had been proved to be a failure in other countries.

If at this late stage we were prepared to admit our mistake in that regard, a mistake which caused a great deal of unemployment and emigration, it might lead to the removal of credit restriction and give security of employment to people who at the present time have no hope at all of being employed. In many instances employers are anxious to extend their activities, but in the first instance they must apply to a bank for a loan. They do not seek a grant but a loan which they themselves know must be repaid and they are prepared to repay it. Very often, however, they are refused a loan. The present Minister finds himself in the same situation as his predecessor, a situation in which outside critics of this House are only too happy to express their condemnation of the policy in that regard.

The Minister last night spoke of the amount of money made available for harbour improvements. I can tell him there are a few harbours in County Cork which need improvements and have needed them for a long time, but, unfortunately, grants for harbour improvements are not coming our way. I would ask the Minister to realise that when grants are made available for the improvement of harbours, the bottom of the queue is not the rightful place for harbours such as Kinsale and Ballycotton. They are long overdue for grants and it is about time we in Cork got our due in relation to such grants. It would mean a betterment of conditions in those areas, areas which are entitled to harbour improvement grants and to better conditions just as much as any other areas which have got them.

I am glad that last night the Minister spoke about the commencement of work upon the proposed airport in Cork. The scheme has been in existence for a long time. I know that the Minister, just like his predecessor, met with the problem of local people saying that money could be saved by utilising the existing facilities there. I know nothing about that side of the question but this I do know: Cork is in need of an airport. It would benefit the whole of the South and would attract both industrialists and tourists. The fact that a start has been made is not sufficient I believe. I would suggest to the Minister that all endeavours be made to speed the work to completion. Not alone is Cork entitled to an airport but the whole of Munster is entitled to such an important facility. The people need it.

I wish to speak briefly on tourism in relation to the new Cork airport. Some previous speakers have referred to it but I find it difficult to speak on some of these points. It would be so easy to be critical, perhaps constructively critical, in relation to some of the items not alone in the Minister's speech but in the whole set-up. One could be critical but we are hampered by the fact that if we wish to be constructive, the people outside, the self-appointed critics, are only interested in pulling down everything we put up. That means that if we are to adopt as critical an attitude as we wish, we are put in the position of supporting people who are causing harm outside.

On the question of tourism, from reports we get—many of us never travel, but we do get reports—in many countries on the Continent, not a word of Ireland is ever heard, not a poster is to be seen. Money is being spent on tourism. May I ask the Minister is it possible to examine the various lines of expenditure in relation to this important industry? Not for one moment would I say that the amount of money being spent on tourism should be reduced. Other countries can make a good living out of tourism —Switzerland, Austria and many others. It is up to us, by advertising and spending money, to get in as many tourists as we can. The important question that must be answered is: are we spending the money in the best way?

I have been informed—and perhaps if some people outside heard it, as they may in the ordinary course of conversation, it would be another feather in their cap-that no later than last week a little cocktail party or sherry party was given in a city in this country to people, including members of the executive of an organisation having their annual conference. If it is true that money was spent by An Bord Fáilte on that or any little banquets like it, is it not right for us, within the confines of this Chamber, to say that that should not be so? If money is being provided for tourism, let it be spent in advertising in every possible part of Europe where we could get tourists, in every town and city in England, if, by such advertising, we can bring people into this country, and in the United States of America, if it will be of benefit to this country.

Having regard to the importance of tourism, I would ask the Minister to concentrate more on advertising than on little happy parties that are becoming a feature of the organising of tourism in this country. In saying that, I do not wish to be hard on An Bord Fáilte or anyone concerned here. They may have the best intentions in the world—I do not know—but I consider that it is not the most sensible way of spending the money that is provided for the tourist industry.

I agreed with the Minister on many occasions in this House when he was in opposition and when he referred to governmental Orders. They are bad. They can be bad. I remember hearing the Minister on different occasions saying in this House that he was most anxious to see the time when such form of governmental direction could be completely removed. My hands are tied in this regard. I will not give the Minister the opportunity of calling the attention of the Chair to a matter that may be sub judice—I am not referring to it. I will say this much to the Minister— he is a lucky person, in my opinion, a very lucky individual, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, that the matter I would wish to discuss is sub judice. I leave it at that, except to say that, by ministerial Order, the Minister for Industry and Commerce has acted in a most disgraceful manner, in my opinion.

Mr. Sweetman

I am sure the Minister has acted in a disgraceful manner but I should like to know why.

Mr. S. Lemass

So should I.

Mr. Desmond

The matter is sub judice and the Minister knows well that he is protected by that.

Mr. S. Lemass

I have no idea what the Deputy is talking about.

Mr. Corry

I am deeply interested in Cobh Harbour, which is misnamed Cork Harbour, and the developments that have been going on there for some time. I am also deeply interested in the fact that, under legislation passed by this House some years ago, the Minister unfortunately removed the power or the representation in regard to the port that up to that time had been held by the residents and business people around Cobh Harbour,

When I see the amount of money provided in the Estimate for harbour development and couple with that the proposals now being put forward for an airport in Ballygarvan, and when I remember the report made by people paid by the taxpayers for two years to carry out a geological investigation in Cork in regard to the establishment of an airport there and remember the Minister's statement in this House that the Ballygarvan site had been ruled out, due to the prevalence of fog, it is no surprise to me to find that it is costing a few million pounds now to throw light enough to banish the fog over Ballygarvan. I certainly object to the pull of business interests in Cork City against the money being used on the most suitable site that was found by the meteorological experts, namely, the site at Ahanesk near Midleton.

I am wondering whether the money being devoted now to the airport could not be far better spent on the proper development of Cobh Harbour. I saw a nice picture in the Irish Press this morning of 450 tourists being landed in Cobh from a tender that I believe was knocked out of service in 1906. I wonder what would be the circumstances of those 450 people, if they were coming in to land in Cobh on a wet, stormy morning.

Unfortunately, the concern of the business interests that the Minister has put in control of Cobh Harbour is very definitely to prevent its development. They are the business interests of Cork City, which are opposed to any development whatever in Cobh. There was the extraordinary position there that some years ago an expert was brought over to examine the port, and was paid a fee of £12,000, I understand, for doing so and he made recommendations and proposals, all of which were carefully filed away in the wastepaper basket of the Cork Harbour Commission. With modern developments, there are more bulk cargoes and larger ships. There was the spectacle only a few weeks ago of a cargo of sugar lying in the harbour in Cobh for four days waiting for the chairman of the Harbour Board, like Moses of old, to strike the rock and produce sufficient water to allow the cargo to be brought up the river.

We have a position in which, for a very moderate expenditure, a proper docking place could be made for those vessels to discharge their cargoes at Cobh, beside the railway terminus. The cargoes could then go direct to their destination. The present position is that vessels over 500 feet in length cannot go up at all because they cannot turn Blackrock Bend and even vessels of smaller length are held up waiting for spring tides to carry them up. You have a file of harbour dues which are twice, or three times, as high as those charged in other ports, solely because of the amount of money needed to dredge the River Lee from Blackrock Bend up to Cork.

On behalf of the people of Cobh and of Cork County, I demand that a harbour of Cobh, for the proper harbour authority be set up for the development of the harbour. I am informed by shipping agents that a considerable number of ships cannot come in on account of their loading and length. The time has arrived, therefore, for a change in that respect and for putting the control of Cobh Harbour in the hands of people who are at least interested in the development of Cobh, and not interested in seeing that Cobh is not developed.

I have here a schedule of the dues charged by the Cork Harbour Commissioners and it is the most ridiculous thing I ever saw. When you go through it, you find, for instance, that the harbour dues on bacon are 3/9 a ton, plus 10 per cent.; that the harbour dues charged to farmers on feeding stuffs to feed their pigs is 7/6 a ton.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Has the Minister any responsibility in this?

Mr. Corry

The Minister established the harbour authority and by legislation removed the people who knew something about this matter. It is extraordinary that we have harbour dues of 2/6 a ton on wheat, and nearly 3/- a ton on rock phosphate which is worth about £2 or £3 a ton and which has to be brought in so that we can manufacture our fertilisers. Those who manufacture our supplies here can pass on that charge to the agricultural community, who have no representation whatever on that harbour board. Right through the whole schedule of dues, there is a definite bias against the agricultural community—right through, from start to finish.

Of course when those dues were being prepared, you had one gentleman saying: "You cannot put anything on my coal", and another gentleman saying something else. There was no one to speak for the agricultural community or what was to be put on commodities for them. We have this extraordinary position that, in the past 12 years, £1,000,000 was spent in development work from Blackrock to Cork City, of which £600,000 was a Government grant. During the same period, there was an expenditure on Cobh Harbour of £38,000, of which £34,000 was Government grant. The question is whether the grants are made for the development of the River Lee or for the development of the harbour.

We had the extraordinary position of one liner which came right up to the deepwater jetty in Cobh before they could stop her. The tender had to go out only a mere 40 yards, but the liner company was charged the same £240 as if a tender had had to go the whole way out. That is the condition of affairs that exists there. I suggest to the Minister that it is high time he went to work here and changed the harbour authority to one for the town and harbour of Cobh.

I am also wondering what is the position regarding the Industrial Development Authority. I know the difference it can make to a rural town to have a little industry placed in it which will give employment even to 50 people. I know good Irishmen whose every penny is invested in industries in this country and who endeavoured to start further industries to give employment here. One of those industries was concerned solely with export. It was started 12 months ago in the town of Charleville. They made application to the Industrial Development Authority for a grant but they were ignominiously turned down.

Unfortunately, from the way this is set out, nobody knows who are getting the grants and who are not. Nobody knows whether there is a premium on foreigners getting grants as against people in this country wishing to set up industries for export. I asked a question in connection with this in an endeavour to find out who is getting the couple of hundred thousand pounds being given out by the Industrial Development Authority. Have any Irish nationals applied for those grants? Is there any reason why Irish nationals should be refused something given to a foreigner?

We have a somewhat similar position in regard to the E.S.B.—another of those half Government-controlled institutions. I should like to know the following in connection with the import into Cork recently of 100,000 tons of coal for the E.S.B.: were tenders invited for the discharge and unloading of that 100,000 tons and who was invited to tender?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would be a matter for the E.S.B.

Mr. Corry

It concerns the money we have voted here for the E.S.B.

Mr. S. Lemass

Not a single penny.

Mr. Corry

We will get it another way.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Have we any control whatever over the E.S.B.?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is discussing the administration of the E.S.B. and the Minister has no function in that matter.

Mr. Corry

So that half Government-controlled institutions set up in this manner can spend amounts of public money? It is the public who have to pay for the electric light in the finish.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is now criticising legislation enacted by this House and he is out of order.

Mr. Corry

I am not criticising legislation. I am criticising the manner in which those who have got these powers use them to the detriment of the ratepayers and taxpayers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It does not arise on this Estimate and the Deputy will have to find some other opportunity of dealing with it.

Mr. Corry

I will do it when I am bringing in a Bill here to render illegal two secret societies we have in this country, the Knights of St. Columbanus and the Masons.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

We never saw any of these Bills actually being brought in.

Mr. Corry

I can assure you they will.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Deputy gets a bit shy when it comes to doing that.

Mr. Corry

Since we are concerned with transport and marine services, I should like to know from the Minister what steps have been taken to ensure that imports to this country will be brought in Irish ships. It is an extraordinary thing that the bulk of our imports are brought in foreign ships, covered by foreign insurance, while we have here, or are supposed to have, a shipping company of our own. It is wrong. Steps should be taken by the Minister to ensure that our ships, and particularly our coasters, get a fair share of the freightage offering.

My attention was drawn to this on three or four occasions recently. I saw the follow-up by one ship-owner. First, we had to get in touch with an agent in Dublin acting as a dummy for a fellow in London, and the fellow in London was acting as a dummy for some fellow in Denmark or Holland. By the time he reached the last of them, the cargo was in and discharged from a foreign ship. When we are inviting people to invest money in Irish industry, we should at least see to it that our shipping will get an opportunity of catering for the freight being brought in here.

In regard to the £25,000 provided for Cork airport, I would like the Minister to tell the House what developments have occurred since the Minister read out the meteorological report here. In that report, the site at Ballygarvan was condemned, due to prevalence of fog. The only site found suitable was at Ahanesk in my constituency. Has that been condemned by any other expert, and, if so, who is the expert? Any further delay in the establishment of an authority at Cobh to take over control of the harbour will be vital to the interests of the harbour. It is a matter of very grave urgency at present.

Mr. Sweetman

May I say at the outset that I had not an opportunity of hearing the entire of the Minister's statement and, therefore, I have had, of necessity, to take the report of his speech from the newspapers? Obviously, in relation to a speech of the length of that made by the Minister, newspaper reports may be somewhat summarised and if, therefore, I misinterpret the Minister in any respect, I do so because of the fact that I did not hear everything he said and not because of any deliberate intent.

So far as the volume of Estimates and the figures in the Vote under discussion to-day are concerned, I want to repeat what I said on the Budget debate and on the Second Stage of the Finance Bill. This Vote contains provisions for the transfer of two items from current to capital account—a sum of £200,000 proposed for industrial grants and a sum of £450,000 for Foras Tionscal. Both these sums were carried on current account rather than on capital account in previous Estimates. I shall not make any comment as to whether, in the circumstances of this year, it is wise to carry those on capital rather than on current account. There is, of course, a case to carry expenditure of that nature on capital account, but it is not a matter that should be considered in the framework of the Estimates for the Department of Industry and Commerce, but rather in the framework of the general fiscal structure and the entire economic position.

I merely mention the matter for the purpose of asking the Minister to examine his political conscience—if he has a political conscience—as to what he would have said if he were speaking in relation to that change from this bench. I am quite certain that if Deputy Corry had been speaking from this side of the House—indeed, Deputy Corry speaking from any side of the House—he would have instanced this as a manner in which debt was deliberately being piled up for future generations in disregard of the obligations of Government to pay as they go. However, I do not regard the transfer of these items, or any item, from current to capital account as being a matter for consideration on this Estimate but rather for consideration in relation to the whole framework of fiscal and economic policy.

The two increases of £50,000 each included under these headings are, of course, the result of plans that had been made coming to fruition. It is inevitable that there will be a very considerable time-lag between determination by the Industrial Development Authority, on the one hand, in relation to industrial grants and by Foras Tionscal, on the other, in relation to their grants. One cannot possibly expect the negotiations that may take place to come to fruition within a short period. It may well be a matter of years—not merely a year or two— before the payment that has to be made on foot of the arrangements entered into reaches the stage at which it must be included in the Book of Estimates and in the Appropriation Act.

It is impossible—the Minister will not disagree with me on this—to say in any one year whether the amount provided in relation to either of these services represents either an increase or a decrease in the actual current position. Because of their very nature, there are always mopping-up operations and the clearing of commitments entered into previously. We did not get much indication from the Minister as to what the position is likely to be in the future and the House should have got a little more information than just the vague "blah" which is headed "Fifty-three More Projects" in Pravda.

I am glad to see there is an increase for technical assistance and industrial research, both of which are being paid for, of course, by the generosity of the American people via the Grant Counterpart Fund. The increase of £67,000 and £46,000 respectively for technical assistance and industrial research is, in fact, being paid for as to £80,000 out of the Grant Counterpart Fund and there is, therefore, included only the small sum of £33,000 from our own resources. There is a growing awareness in industry as a whole, in management as a whole, and among all our people that we cannot have any real progress without greater research and better technical know-how and, therefore, the increase of £33,000 is a very small sum indeed, as far as we are concerned. It could be termed a mere drop in the ocean in relation to the magnitude of the problem as a whole. It is, however, better that there should be some increase in that sphere rather than that we should go back.

The Minister, in that suave way he has of stating something flatly as if it were a complete vindication of everything he had thought and uttered heretofore when, in fact, it is exactly the reverse, excelled even himself yesterday. He is reported in this morning's paper as stating that the growth of electricity current usage at present was 7 per cent. He was patting himself on the back and saying what a wonderful thing that was; he was obviously saying it with great gusto and great pride. He must think that our memories are extraordinarily short. He must have forgotten completely his White Paper of 1954 when he himself, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, in defiance of the advice tendered to him by the E.S.B., deliberately overrode all advice and based the entire electricity generating programme not on 7 per cent., or anything like it, but on 14½ per cent. Doubling in 5½ years is the whole theme of the 1954 White Paper.

Mr. S. Lemass

That is not 14½ per cent. The Deputy's mathematics are wrong.

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Minister like between now and the time the House sits next week to sit down and do a little mathematics? If he gets up in the House, having done his mathematics, and shows that he is right and I am wrong, I shall willingly apologise. But, before he does any mathematics, may I refer him to page 5 of the Inter-Departmental Committee report on the State Capital Programme in relation to electricity? May I refer him to the fact that in line one of page five, the percentage is given as 14½? May I also suggest to him that he work it out in his head while I am speaking? He will find that if he takes the growth of 14½ per cent. per annum in 5½ years—it is between 5½ and 5? years—it will amount to a doubling of the programme.

That very interruption he was kind enough to give me is typical of the manner in which he assumes always when he comes into this House that nobody else has had the opportunity to make up his facts before he comes in. However, I have not merely availed of the opportunity of making up the facts before I came in—although I did not believe at one time I would be speaking this week—but I have the actual report here in front of me, a report signed I might add not merely by the dreadful people in the Department of Finance but also subscribed to by the Department of Industry and Commerce. I find it difficult to believe that they, as well as myself, went wrong in relation to mathematics in that respect. It is much more likely that, as usual, the Minister was chancing his arm.

I understand we shall have another opportunity of discussing the E.S.B. programme on the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill that will be introduced. Perhaps that might be a more suitable time to have a fuller discussion on this matter. The fact remains—and it is a fact that cannot be gainsaid—that in 1954 the White Paper quite deliberately, by direction of the then and present Minister for Industry and Commerce, set an increase in possible electricity consumption here that was far and away beyond the increase likely as a result of any comparison with any European country.

The E.S.B. were forced by the Minister in defiance of their own expressed view to him at that time, to embark on a capital programme which was to mean that there would be capital expenditure on electricity generation far in advance of the possible demand for the electricity so generated. That had the effect of making electricity dearer on the consumer because capital assets were being utilised before there was the demand there to service them and in consequence there was not the return from those capital assets that there would be otherwise.

We shall all agree that it is essential, in relation to any planning of the E.S.B.'s programme, that there must be an element of estimate, a very forward estimate. I do not think it at all an exaggeration to say that it will take at least five years before a generating station comes into operation from the time it is originally planned. Necessarily therefore one must, in deciding what generating capacity is necessary, make estimates, but the estimates made at the time of the 1954 White Paper which were subsequently overruled by the Minister and stepped up in their public presentation have been shown now to be unrealistic as advanced by him.

The figure of 7 per cent. mentioned now is even less than the figure I was prepared to accept as being a likely increase in November, 1955. The figure of 10 to 11 per cent. was the annual increase I was prepared to accept at that time, but I was not prepared to accept then the figure of 14½ per cent. on which Deputy Lemass, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, had given the E.S.B., under his own hand, specific instructions to base their calculations.

At that time when it became necessary, because we as a Government found that he had completely misjudged the situation, to change the board's instructions, we were assailed vigorously by Deputy Lemass, as he then was. It now becomes clear from his statement yesterday that the reality to which he refers as being the expected expansion rate for Western Europe of 7 per cent, is even less than the figure I was prepared to accept, and that once again we have had, as we have had so often during the past, the significant sight of Deputy Lemass in office having to swallow statements he made so extravagantly when on this side of the House.

After dealing with the expansion rate of the E.S.B. he went on to discuss the varying costs of electricity provided by the different methods. I think I am right in saying that this is the only country, not merely in Europe but in the world, trying to get its electricity from so many small stations. The effect of that inevitably is to increase overheads and to increase the cost to the consumer. Before we have a discussion on the E.S.B. I shall give the Minister an opportunity, in relation to certain questions, of giving the House particulars of the power of our stations. It may be that it is necessary in our circumstances, speaking from a national balance of trade point of view, to deal with it on that basis but so far as I can find, without the same facilities as I had available to me when I was in Government, it is a fact that this is the only country in the world which provides so high a percentage of our national current from a large number of small stations rather than a small number of large stations and rather than adopting the principles adopted by other countries in relation to their problem of obtaining electric current.

With the information supplied to the public, and even with the information supplied by the Minister yesterday, it is impossible adequately to compare the cost of electric current from different types of raw material. One needs to know a great deal more as to how the station is being utilised— whether it is being used for peak loads, or solely as a standby, or whether it is being operated constantly. In relation to water power stations one would need to know what the rainfall is in a particular year and what supply of water is available in the reservoirs.

Whatever else the dreadful weather we have had this year may have done to damp our spirits, at least it should mean that in the last few months the supply of electricity would be somewhat cheaper from our hydro-electric schemes, as there would be a greater output from hydro-electric schemes than in a summer of drought. On the whole, quite apart from our own personal pleasures and personal convenience, I think the national point of view would be far better served by a fine summer with its advantages for tourism, as against the trifling advantage that would arise from an electricity generating point of view.

Because of the lack of published information, I have not been able to make a comparison between peak load, standby and continuous loading of the stations, and therefore I have not got the information necessary to make a comparison of costs at the present time. In 1954-55 the experience was that the total cost of generation for Portarlington was 1.532 pence; for Marina, Allenwood, 1.542 pence; for Marina, the oil fired station in Cork, 1.137 pence and for the North Wall 1.130 pence. Those figures do not at all tally with the figures mentioned by the Minister yesterday. I do not want to be misrepresented in this respect.

Taking our balance of payments and balance of trade into account, it is highly desirable—and, indeed, in our present circumstances, essential—from the national point of view, that we would utilise our own native resources. I want that to be done honestly and above board. I want it explained truthfully and honestly to the people that we believe it is better in the national interest that turf stations should be utilised, even though they are to cost slightly more per unit. It is better that the people should be taken into our confidence, told the truth and then asked to accept it and go ahead on that basis. Let me make it clear, when I talk of these figures for 1954-55 that I had no comparable milled peat figures. I am not in a position, therefore, to make any comparison as between milled peat on the one hand and oil on the other hand, or coal.

Mr. Dooley

This figure for milled peat is .52.

Mr. Sweetman

The Deputy is falling into the same error. Even though he lives in that area, he does not know for what period the milled peat station has been taken into account. It is not possible to make the comparison at all, because if you are informed that the station is to take 1 per cent. of the peak load, obviously its overheads will mean an entirely different percentage on unit cost than if it is running continuously the whole year; and from year to year that will change, dependent on whether there is high or low rainfall. If there is high rainfall, you can throw in the hydro-electric stations for a very much greater period in the summer than if there is a drought. I know that the figure the Deputy suggests is the quoted figure, but it is a quoted figure on a certain selected basis and it is not a comparable figure taken as the breakdown was taken in November, 1955 over the whole E.S.B. system. I should very much like to see comparisons brought on in the same way.

It is quite clear also that, in relation to electricity, there must be complete integration of planning between Bord na Móna and the E.S.B. The position is likely to remain that Bord na Móna will have to sell approximately 80 per cent. of its output to the E.S.B. In sod peat, I think that is about the figure. Of course, the milled peat figure in the future may slightly change the situation and the briquettes may change it also; but in relation to sod peat that certainly is so and in any event the exact percentage does not matter very much. It is perfectly clear that they must be entirely integrated and operated in a complementary manner to each other.

I am afraid that the Minister, in the directions he gave when he was in office in 1953-54, did not make that integration possible. The manner in which he himself decided to change the estimates of user meant that, at one stage, there were to be Bord na Móna products available—and I use the term "products" to cover the various types that Bord na Móna produces—for which electricity consumers were not there with the demand. I hope that will not happen in the future and now that we have got down to what is a more realistic estimate of our probable electricity expansion, I hope we will be able to avoid the position we had before, of capital being unnecessarily anticipated in its use.

I take it that we will have an Electricity Supply Bill, dealing with miscellaneous matters and that it will afford us an opportunity of discussing the matter in some greater detail. I did not intend to refer to it to-day, but for the manner in which the Minister, in his opening statement yesterday, was kind enough to admit that in 1954 he was wrong and that we had been correct in 1955-56.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.