took the Chair.
IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE NO. 56—INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE (RESUMED).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:—
"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."—(Liam O Daimhín, Seán F. Lemass.)
When the House adjourned last night I was dealing with certain matters that had been raised on this Estimate, one being the question of transport As I fear certain remarks that I made have been mis interpreted, I desire briefly to recapitulate one or two points. I have made no statement that there is not going to be anything done with regard to the advent of motor buses in competition with the railways. I have said that, in so far as there are bus regulations required for the safeguarding of passengers and matters of that sort, these regulations are the subject of discussion at the moment, and that legislation will likely be brought in to give effect to the Committee's Report. I have said further that a particular finance scheme has been adopted with regard to the upkeep of the roads, and that there may have to be certain changes made in regard to the incidence of taxation as it presses on different classes of motors, and that if such changes are found to be necessary they also are going to be made. That reduced the whole question of co-ordination and control to a very narrow point. It meant control in the sense of the allocation of routes and a statement with regard to fares as well as the possibility that, Deputy Davin I think added, of having scheduled timetables to which the buses would have to run. I pointed out that that would have to be narrowed in its application only to public road services plying for passengers. I went through that in order to get this problem brought down to the narrowest possible limit, but even on that I have not stated that there is not going to be anything done.
I stated that there were two big objections to anything being done at present. One was that it meant the adoption of a particular principle that, where certain people made a decision that there was too much competition, then somebody was going to be debarred from competing. I wanted the House to have it before it hereafter that such a decision is to be taken, and to realise that if that decision is taken with regard to transport, it inevitably is going to have a wider application than merely to bus traffic. My second objection to anything being done at the moment was that there was no one in a position to state, after careful consideration and on ascertained facts, what is the proper minimum fare that could be set down as a charge. I am ready to move on this matter when information, properly verified, comes before me, and further when the people who are said to be prejudiced by motor transport, as it exists at the moment, raise that as a complaint. I have had the closest possible association with the amalgamated railway company since it was formed, and never once have they put in any demand with regard to any sort of restrictive control in the case of bus traffic. They did ask at one time that they should be given permission to run buses on the roads themselves. They were given that permission last year.
Then, on the other hand, there are the local authorities from whom we get complaints voiced by two or three Deputies that the ratepayers have to pay too much for the upkeep of the roads. That contention, I think, I have already answered. The second point is that the roads, no matter what moneys are being put into them, are not at the moment able to stand up against the present wear and tear occasioned by the bus traffic. I have already pointed out that there is the Roads Act of 1920. Under that Act a local authority, on its own initiative, can move to get a road closed. I pointed out to the House that under that Act there had been six applications made. Of the six, one was granted completely, one was granted partially, and one was referred back with the statement that the order asked for by the local authority was not one that came under the Act, and that an order could be made to accomplish the same purpose. As regards the three others they were not followed up.
Does the Minister mean to suggest that under that Act powers are given to a local authority to close a public road permanently?
I read the terms of the Act yesterday. Three reasons must be stated when application is made to have a road closed. Under Section 7, sub-section (4) of the Roads Act. 1920, the Minister may, by order, on the application of any county council after holding a public inquiry prohibit or restrict the driving of vehicles of any specified class on any specified highway in any case in which it appears to him there would be a danger to the vehicle or passengers or other traffic using the highway, or where a highway was unsuitable for such vehicles.
On such an application being made to the Minister for Local Government, the Department of Local Government have a definite policy which they follow with regard to the closing of a road. After the application has been made by a local authority to have a road closed a public inquiry is held. As regards three of the six applications which were sent in asking to have roads closed, three were dropped when the county councils in question found that there was a necessity of holding a public inquiry. As regards local authorities, that is the only use that has been made of the Act by them.
As long as that is the case, how can people come along here and complain that the county councils are feeling the burden of the increased rate in the rates on account of heavy bus traffic? In the first place, if that contention is made, it can be refuted quite easily by the figures. The actual amount contributed from the rates to the roads has lessened year by year in the last three years. At present it is slightly below the figure that at one time was decided on as being the proper contribution from the rates. When speaking yesterday I went into a certain amount of detail. I want it to be understood that there is no hesitation in facing up to this problem once complaints are put forward by the local authority or by the amalgamated company, which is the only railway service operating completely in the 26 Counties. The point I want to make is that the volume of complaints from the county councils to the Minister for Local Government has not been sufficient to raise this whole question so that it should be regarded as one of extreme urgency. As I have said, the amalgamated company has made no representations on that point.
There was another remark of mine that I think was misunderstood. I have not said that I would regard, or do regard, with equanimity the railways becoming merely a goods carrying service. I agree with Deputy Lemass in what he said, that the railways must be maintained here. Circumstances that arise may alter that point of view, but the circumstances as seen at the moment back that point of view. The railways must be maintained. There are certain types of service to be rendered to the country that at the moment can only be rendered by the railways company. If there are certain other subsidiary services which the railways company can render and which other companies at the moment have taken away from the railways, leaving them a little lean and in a state tending towards bankruptcy, then, certainly, even though it may mean the introduction of some new principle with regard to the closing down of competition, that new principle will have to be adopted.
I have not said that I regard passengers as being irretrievably lost to the railways. The railways company, while not making any complaint to the Department most closely in touch with them, have on occasions publicly put forward what amounts to that argument, but they have not specifically stated that a certain amount of passenger traffic may be regarded or is being regarded by them as being irretrievably lost.
I am afraid I could not find myself in agreement with that argument if it were put up. Certainly if such an argument were put up publicly before the Railway Tribunal, it would be argued against. I know, of course, that there is a certain disposition amongst people to regard the passenger traffic on the railways as being irretrievably lost. If that contention were made before the Railway Tribunal, and if the Tribunal agreed to it, then necessarily a reaction to the decision of the Tribunal must follow in this way: that the railways must readjust their whole service so that they will become a goods-carrying service. I regard the whole argument as a rather absurd one. It is for the railway company to give better service and convenience than the buses, and to see what they can do in the way of economy. They are now given power to put buses on the road, and they can draw back passengers from the type of bus that has taken them away.
Does the Minister not admit that if the railway company puts buses on the roads they are curtailed, and have restrictions imposed that do not apply in the case of bus companies?
Of course, they are in a different position. There are restrictions that the Dáil thought fit to impose, and which I myself was not anxious to have imposed. These restrictions were imposed owing to the fears that the railway company, being a wealthy corporation, would be able to run buses all over the country and crush out competitive services, and once that was done the community would not get the advantage of the different types of transport and the lower fares that competition brought about.
Does the Minister still stand for the policy of forcing one section of bus owners to ply for hire under regulations and allow another section to be free from control of any kind? That is the complaint I made.
If the conditions can be equalised as between the ordinary privately-owned bus and the railway company, then they should operate on the same basis, but there were fears expressed here and elsewhere when the other Bill was going through, and they were fears which the railway company admitted as being to a certain extent justifiable, and on that basis certain restrictions were put on the railway company.
By you.
Not by me, but by the House.
At your request.
Not at my request. If the Deputy would read the debate that took place when the matter was under discussion, he would see that I was not seeking that any restrictions should be put on them. If I had my way, I would have a simple piece of legislation giving the railway company power to run on the roads and nothing else. As a matter of fact, amendments were forced in on that Bill with which I was not in agreement, and I think I expressed my disagreement with them. The question of nationalisation was raised in a funny way yesterday. It was raised in the course of an argument that I thought was as to whether or not there should be commercial control of the buses, or some Government Departmental control. How nationalisation comes in to affect that problem I do not see. It was not a question of nationalisation as against amalgamation that was under discussion. The question was should certain types of motor vehicle transport be under control of a Government Department equally with the railways, whatever control the Department has over the railways, or whether they should be left as they are.
Deputy Lemass said when asked for his policy that if it should turn out to be that nationalisation was the solution the Fianna Fáil Party would face up to nationalisation. I would not like to stand up here and give out a statement of policy which was based on the hypothesis of Deputy Lemass, that if as regards trade, transport, or anything else, it should be found hereafter that something was the policy, I should not hesitate to adopt it. That is not an intelligent reaction to the question asked. It may be that what Deputy Lemass did mean was that he was not scared by the word "nationalisation," and is ready to face up to it under particular circumstances. But when Deputy Davin asked him under the present circumstances what was the policy of Fianna Fáil towards the railway situation as complicated by the advent of bus competition, all that Deputy Lemass could say was that he did not regard the 1924 Act as a permanent solution of the railway problem, which no one suggested it is, but if nationalisation should turn out to be the solution he would be ready to accept it. That, as far as I can gather, was Fianna Fáil's contribution to the transport problem.
He goes further than you in that direction at any rate.
I do not think so. A statement quoted here yesterday as having been made by the President on the Second Reading of the Railways Bill was that this was the proposition under particular circumstances. There was a hint given there, and it was relied upon yesterday by certain speakers as an argument that there would be a further advance. But certainly the President would not say at the moment that the advance is towards nationalisation, or that nationalisation is the solution at the moment. I will go so far short of Deputy Davin. I do not know where the Fianna Fáil Party stands on that.
Is it not a fact that in the year 1922 the Government set up a Commission to inquire into the railways, that three members of the Commission recommended nationalisation and that only one member recommended amalgamation, and that the Government accepted the minority rather than the majority recommendation?
That is a fact, but it does not carry us any farther. Deputy Davin is of opinion that the number of railway directors is the cause, or partly the cause, of the failure of the Railway Act. He complained that the Government had fixed the number of railway directors at fifteen, and that the Government were not consistent, as afterwards the Electricity Supply Board was set up with a lesser number of directors than fifteen. The Deputy tried to draw the conclusion that if we were right about the railways we were wrong about the Electricity Supply Board, and also that the argument applied the other way. There is no application of the argument from the railway directors to the Electricity Supply Board. The Deputy did not quote the Railway Act correctly. The Act states that as regards the number of directors under the amalgamation scheme there was to be a minimum of twelve and a maximum of fifteen. One must remember the circumstances under which the Act was passed. It meant the amalgamation of certain groups of railways, and each of the larger groups had its own directors. There had to be such a number agreed to at the start as would give representations to the various interests, for there were interests to be reconciled in the early years of the amalgamation and absorption scheme. Supposing an amendment was contemplated now, it would be a useful thing to withdraw the minimum number and not to put any number in. It would be a useful amendment to say that the amalgamated company should be run by a Board, by the people who settled the previous amalgamation scheme, or a minimum number to be fixed by the Railway Tribunal.
Does the Minister suggest that the amalgamation scheme was settled by the railway companies?
I have made no suggestion that comes anywhere near to that. Surely the question of the directors, what pay they get, the number of them, and whether they are so numerous that they are clogging efficiency, is a question for the shareholders. The railways are not Government controlled, but they are subject to Government intervention, and have to be controlled under statutory regulations by the proprietors of the several companies. It is a matter for the shareholders to decide what the number of the directors should be and how they are to be paid. Even though there is a minimum number of twelve set down, it is easier for the shareholders if they agree that the number of effective directors should be less to do as was done in connection with the Electricity Supply Board, and insist that a certain number should be part-time and a certain number whole-time, with salary and emoluments fixed according to the work done. That is a matter for the proprietors of the company, for the shareholders themselves.
Deputy Moore quoted me as saying that transport was all right and the Railway Act was a wonderful success. I object to the adjective "wonderful"—I never made any statement of the sort. I say the Act was successful in what it set out to achieve, and where it has been rendered unsuccessful, as it has been partly unsuccessful, that is by reason of a definite and new form of transport which was not in contemplation when the Act was passed, and which has to be looked to, but as to which we have not the full details to get a proper decision as to what is to be done.
Does the Minister consider the present situation with regard to the Railway Tribunal and the prospects of standard charges satisfactory —does he consider, for instance, that standard charges that will have any permanent value are likely to be settled in the near future?
Most decidedly. One has only to follow the proceedings of the Tribunal and the arguments put before it to see just why the rates and fares should be reduced and what prospects there are of getting reductions. There may be a particular hold-up by reason of the fact that Deputy Davin referred to, that an appeal has been entered on certain points. An attempt is being made to expedite that appeal, but it is not right to discuss here the matters that are in dispute in that appeal. I said before, and I say again, that the Act itself reduced rates and fares—in fact brought about a reduction of more than 12½ per cent.; it was nearer to 15 per cent. than anything else—and saved the railways an expenditure of £777,000. These things alone, stated in that way, are a justification of the amalgamation scheme, and there is no well-informed opinion at present against that scheme. That being stated, I have only to add a further point, that the amalgamation scheme was never regarded as the last word to be said even about railway transport. It certainly was the last word to be said at a particular time, and it stands justified.
Several points have been raised with regard to buses. Deputy Davin raised a point as to insurance, and made the statement, I think, that passengers who travel by the Dublin United Tramways Company's buses are insured, or that they have, at any rate, a chance of some compensation being recovered by themselves or their relatives in case of accidents, but that in regard to other buses there is no such thing. Again, that is a matter which should be attended to by the Committee dealing with traffic regulations, but even at present that is working itself out, because there is no doubt that people are getting informed of the fact that certain chances with regard to compensation and insurance go with travelling on a particular type of bus, and do not go with travelling on another type of bus. If that fact were widely advertised, it would certainly bring most of the companies up to the standard of the better ones, and would possibly in itself help to reduce the number of competitive buses that really have no right to be in existence.
A further point has been made as to the free stances for buses granted by local authorities. That may have come to the point again that it is a serious nuisance at certain places to have a congregation of people waiting for or getting off buses, but again the local authorities are concerned. As to there being any injustice in that, the tramways company are not charged for resting places or stopping places for their cars.
They pay rates and for wayleaves.
Yes, and the buses pay for the upkeep of the roads.
No.
The buses pay, or are intended to pay—I go no further than that—for the damage which they do to the roads. If that doesn't satisfy the Deputy, and he puts up the point that they in fact are not, I say what I mentioned before, that the incidence of the tax between the private motor car and motor bicycle, the heavy motor lorry and the heavy passenger bus, may not be right and may have to be adjusted, but in fact motorists as a whole are paying for the extra money that has to be expended on the roads by reason of the fact that they run over them. The tramways company, for instance, do not pay for a stance around Nelson's Pillar, and the buses do not pay for a stance near O'Connell Bridge—they are equal in that. The tramways company pay for wayleaves, and they have to keep certain portions of the road. But that was in particular conditions—that was when the tramways company were granted a monopoly of tram transport in the city, and also by reason of the fact that in running over certain streets they restricted the use of these streets to the ordinary user of the highway and were made pay for it. The roads were built for the ordinary type of vehicle that the ordinary person would own, and if there is any question of wear and tear of the roads, I meet it again by the old argument—that the buses ought to pay. We are making an attempt to see that the buses and other types of motor vehicles will pay. If that has not been successful to date, it will be more successful in future.
What do the bus companies pay for the use they make of the tramway track between Dublin and Dalkey?
Nothing; no more than Deputy Davin pays for the use of it; no more than I pay for it in a private car; no more than the ordinary person who drives on the ordinary outside car about town. What happened was that the Tramways Company were made to pay extra because they got the right to run trams through the city and they were granted a monopoly of tram transport. That is what that comes to. If the trams were not there, there would be an ordinary road, and for the wear and tear of that the buses would be paying. If there happens to be a different type of road set up for the trams, the Tramways Company got certain considerations for it.
I do not pay much heed to the argument of Deputy Lemass, that the buses were financed by British firms in order to break the Irish railways. One might as well say that some very suspicious Englishman interested in the L.M.S. Railway Company might say that the English buses were financed by a lot of cross-grained, antagonistic Irishmen to smash their railway companies. The argument would cut both ways, and is equally ludicrous.
I have already referred to a matter raised by Deputies MacEntee, Goulding and Derrig in different forms as to the ratepayers' contribution to the roads. Deputy Derrig said that the ratepayers were heavily mulcted in rates for damage to the roads by the buses. They, in fact, are not. If one takes the contribution of the ratepayers to the Road Fund in 1914, takes the contribution to-day, takes the value of wages, the difference in wages paid now as compared with 1914, there is, in fact, less work being done on the roads at the expense of the ratepayers than in 1914. The extra proportion of the money that the ratepayers have to find, compared with what they found in 1914, is less than the percentage increase of wages as between 1914 and to-day. Deputy Goulding would not admit my contention about the percentage increase being a fair one. That is a matter that could be argued on another occasion. The policy, at all events, was to make the ratepayers simply pay the old bill, the adjustment being made in the value of money. Deputy Goulding went on to say that, despite the fact that some roads are closed, others will not stand up to the traffic. I invite him to call the attention of his local authority to the Road Act of 1920 and let application be made and see what follows from it.
Is the Minister aware that in the County Waterford practically all the work on the roads is done by piece-work—the greater proportion of it—and that the rates paid for the piece-work are practically the same as in 1914, but the ratepayers have not the same bill to pay?
The ratepayer is paying something less than 50 per cent. over the 1914 contribution. I do not know if it applies to this particular county, but all over the country there was a calculation made, and the basis for the policy was as I have described. It was discovered that the increase in wages and cost of material certainly represented an increase of about 121 per cent. over 1914. The amount contributed by the ratepayers for road-making—the average for 1923-4-5 over 1914—is about 98 per cent, so that it was considered that the ratepayers were not paying any more. There was another basis taken for the rates that in future it was considered they should pay. County Waterford did make an application under the 1920 Act, but it was not proceeded with when it was discovered that there would have to be a public inquiry. I do not know whether it was that the local authority did not think itself strong enough to stand up to a public inquiry, but for some reason the application was not proceeded with.
The question of the reorganisation of the railways has been raised; that has been looked to every day since the Amalgamation Act. It is being done on a proper basis. Deputy Cassidy said the Inter-Departmental Committee could not consider reorganisation under the terms of its reference. Of course it could not. It was deliberately precluded from considering that. This Committee has only to consider one aspect of the whole situation. Deputy Derrig advanced the contention that any man could advance without any thought; that the railways should be reorganised to meet the new conditions, without describing the new conditions, or showing that he knew anything about them, or giving any hint as to what reorganisation was. Deputy O'Reilly had the same point of view, that some sort of co-ordination and reorganisation were necessary. As a matter of fact that whole question is being looked to in detail. There have been suggestions for reorganisation along certain lines, and, even suggestions as to methods by which schemes which were proposed to the railway company, and more or less denied by them, could be better tackled, and even an invitation was issued to the railway company that another point of view could be brought to bear upon certain proposals put before them. I hope there will be some advance. The matter is more or less sub judice between the railway management and other people at the moment, but I hope that there will be sufficient reorganisation at any rate from the demand made upon them with regard to the latest endeavour in that way. However, this is a question I would rather not go into detail on. We must still wait and look for results somewhere towards the end of the year.
Does that scheme involve more dismissals?
I hope not. The particular plan to which I refer involves taking on a few more people.
On the Board of Directors?
No. The Board of Directors is fixed at fifteen, and I understand that the maximum number is on.
And if there is an increase in the maximum there will be suitable applicants for the positions.
I agree, but I did not think that Deputy Davin was leaving the other side of the railway service just so quickly. Deputy Cassidy raised one particular question which I would like to deal with before I leave this question of transport, that is that the motor lorry is a competitor with the railway in Donegal. Either he is misinformed or I am. There is certainly a conflict between us. I understand that most of the lorries that ply in Donegal are in fact registered in Donegal, and by reason of certain reciprocal arrangements, are enabled to go into Derry City without the payment of a certain tax. I believe that actual conditions under which something approaching a reciprocal arrangement has been arrived at do in fact favour the lorry registered in the 26 Counties as opposed to one registered in the Six Counties.
That does not apply specially to Donegal; it affects other counties. For instance, buses from Belfast to Dublin ply within the Free State, tearing up the roads, and pay no taxes.
Surely that is where the Deputy is misinformed.
What percentage are they paying of the taxation? Are they paying in the Twenty-six Counties?
The Deputy misunderstood me. There are certain regulations with regard to buses that may be classed as a tourist development bus. If that bus starts with a certain number of passengers and comes inside this area and goes out without having a greater number of passengers than it had coming in, without having taken up or having dropped any passengers, there is a remission— there is no tax to pay. But any other bus has to pay.
In what way? If they are registered and pay taxation in the Six Counties and run from Belfast to Dublin and after crossing the Border into the Free State, ply for passengers and carry them on to Dublin, do those buses pay any taxes to the Free State towards the upkeep of the roads?
They pay taxes as motors coming into the Free State.
They pay the motor vehicle duties.
Yes. If I imported a car I would pay a certain taxation on it.
Every day?
No. One payment. Every car that crosses the Border—of course there are exceptions. —but generally every car pays.
On the frontier?
They pay.
They pay the import duty instead of the motor car licence duty?
Yes, but it is on the licence duty question that the reciprocal arrangement comes in. Certain buses are registered here and ply, I understand, in the Six Counties. They are registered here, and they do not have to register in the Six Counties. If Deputies will look at the regulations I do not think a change in the present arrangements would be proposed. I think the arrangement is quite satisfactory from our point of view.
I should like to clear the air on one point, raised previously, with regard to a certain report that is expected from the Railway Tribunal. I made inquiries as to that report and I find it is held up by a delay occasioned by myself in not having sent forward the names for a particular panel to be established. That report is ready for printing now and will be available soon, but the delay was occasioned by myself in not being able to get certain nominees in time.
The other point raised was the delay of the railway company on the matter of standard charges. There is going to be occasioned a slight delay owing to the appeal, if that appeal is not taken quickly, as was suggested. With regard to standard charges, I would like simply to draw a comparison admitting that the conditions are not equal between the imposition of the standard charges here and in Great Britain. The British Railway Act was the Act of 1921 and the standard charge for the British railways only became operative from the 1st of January this year. Of course they had much more to consider. It is a different situation, but at the same time, even though there may not be the same mileage and the same conflicting interests, the problem is essentially the same one. It was a very complicated and difficult one to argue here, and the fact that the Tribunal, as far as its own efforts were concerned had been brought clean up against the imposition of standard charges this month is very definitely in their favour. They have got through their work more speedily than was expected, and only for this appeal they would have come down to the last point on the standard charges and we would be in the position shortly to have the standard charges in operation.
The geological survey was raised as a special point by some speakers. I may have misled the House by joining up the geological survey and the transfer of the office to a few remarks I made regarding a new Vote I am asking for, for trial boring and the sinking of trial pits. I did not mean that there is not going to be any geological survey except when there is commercial possibility from it. The survey will go on in the ordinary way. There are certain things to be done in the season that goes on in the ordinary way. But I wanted to emphasise the fact that I could not use the sum of money I am asking for special borings and trial pits except there was a possibility of commercial development from it. Otherwise I put it to the House if it is expected that as part of the geological survey there should be boring done, and trial pits sunk, obviously there is going to be no prospecting done in the country except by my Department. There is no firm that will do that work for itself. Rather will they come to my Department, make an appeal and say that they are likely to have a proposition, but they want certain information. They will ask what the surface indications are and what is shown by the geological survey. Possibly they will ask us to proceed to make borings, and borings are a very expensive item. One of the matters referred to by one Deputy could easily cost £20,000, and there might not be any result; there might be only the result that there is nothing there, and that the particular vein had run out and nothing could be looked for from it.
I would not agree with Deputy Lemass's phrase, that information now in the hands of the Geological Department is useless. I think there was a lot of valuable material collected, but it is quite clear that there were new developments brought about during the war period which enabled services of a more complete character to be made, services of an up-to-date type which give perfectly good results. Also there are newer technical methods employed. At the moment there is quite a lot of valuable information as a result of previous geological surveys in hands, but that has to be revised, and a certain amount of work has to be kept up from year to year. All that will be looked to. There is really a lot of information available at the moment. I put it to the Executive Council that as there was going to be a mass of information soon in the hands of the people of this country that they never had before arising out of classified particulars from the census of population and production, that around about the same time we also should have brought up to date and tried out by the newer methods of information that could be got, certain particulars with regard to the geology of the country and its mineral wealth. That is the aim that is at the back of this.
A lot of criticism has been made in regard to the industrial side. Deputies have complained that I should have spoken on certain matters, and that I should not have gone into such detail with regard to the description of the machine such as the industrial branch is. I dealt with two aspects because I learned from observation that there were two matters about which people were talking at the moment, the question of transport and the particular branch of my own Ministry which has to deal with industrial development. I find, by reason of the fact that I did deal in detail with that, I got the type of comment made by Deputy Derrig that this is a huge machine. It is not a huge machine. The criticism of Deputy Flinn was much more accurate, that, if anything, it is too small for the purpose. It cannot be described as a huge machine, modelled on British lines, or any other such description that comes readily to the mind of any Deputy who has not thought much about the thing. These remarks about dealing with Irish matters in a small and in a petty way rather than in a broad and generous spirit come quite readily to those who have not considered the subject. Anybody who uses those remarks has not given the slightest thought, apparently, to what is required and if there is anything deficient.
If it is thought the branch is not doing its work very efficiently, I would like to have a test case brought to me. It is only by test cases that matters like this can be threshed out. I would like to have an example of an industry in this country which is employing a certain number of men and which is enjoying a certain amount of capital, which has shown certain results and which, if some type of Government assistance were mentioned and given to it, it would mean an increased number of men being employed, would give better results, and would get additional capital in order to increase the industry. It is only by the application of particular remedies to particular cases that we will discover whether the remedy would be too costly in view of the effect to be produced. The cost of any remedy of that sort has to be borne by the general taxpayer. It is only when we have particular instances given that we are going to get to any improvement in the whole situation.
There is machinery set up here. Deputy Lemass says it is not the machinery but the outlook that directs the machinery that counts, and the function of the Department should not be confined to the administration of statutes, but should be directed to stimulating industry. I think yesterday I cut out entirely all the statutory duties, except that I referred to them incidentally by saying that the people engaged in statutory duties had also imposed on them an extra duty—that they were to report in a way not imposed by statute upon conditions in certain areas and upon conversations they had had with people who ran certain industries; they were to state what seemed to be the impediment in industry, what were the impediments that certain industries seemed to labour under, and they were to suggest remedies if they thought they were available. I left out completely the statutory duties, but statutory duties have to be mentioned.
Deputy Derrig says that these statutory duties were imposed by a foreign Parliament and were taken over simply en masse by this Parliament. I would like the Deputy to go through these and sift out the ones he thinks are unnecessary or the ones he thinks that are necessary but are extravagant in our present circumstances. Even where it is thought the administration is being over-done and there is too much attention paid to inspection and Trade Board work, I will meet the Deputy on all these points, but it has to be after the House has had the point of view expressed relating to some instance of factory inspection and other matters. It has not been found in this Department that the inspectorial or factory duties that have to be performed are any hindrance to the work of the industrial branch. I claim that the people engaged in the enforcement of this work have brought back valuable information very often to headquarters with regard to certain industries in the country and have been able to bring back certain indications of policy and remedies to the people engaged in the industry. In that way the whole staff has been used for the purpose of industrial development.
I was stirred to a certain amount of enthusiasm when I heard Deputy Lemass say that unemployment was the responsibility of the State and that with a properly-directed policy unemployment could be made to disappear. I hope it is not for merely party reasons that he is going to withhold the secret as to how unemployment can be done away with. It is a question that everyone would like to have settled. We find Deputy Lemass urging three or four matters. One is the protection question that we have dealt with at length on other occasions. I dealt with that on one particular occasion when we spoke of tariffs, but only from the point of view of employment. There are certain tariffs put on in this country which result in decreased employment in the country. The results which follow are so valuable that even the decrease in employment might be faced. There are certain tariffs asked for where a likely result would be a decrease in employment. Merely to say that there should be tariffs does not mean that tariffs will increase employment. The Deputy stated there should be protection for the home market. There should be, he said, provision of capital for Irish industry, more efficient management and better technical skill. Which can the Government supply? Protection has been supplied to a very big number of industries and will be supplied again where a case is made. As regards the provision of capital, the only moneys at my disposal are moneys under the Trade Loans Act and that Act has not been availed of. Why, I am not in a position to say. I know there are statements made that the Act is too tightly drawn and there should be a provision for providing working capital. I think we had better postpone the debate on that until the Act comes up for renewal, as I intend to have it renewed. As regards efficient management and technical skill, no Government can supply these things unless the Deputy means that the Government is to go around getting efficient managers, feeing them and asking them to run certain industries or get technically skilled people, fee them and put them into certain industries.
I did not gather if Deputy Lemass had gone into that point. He did say that there should be State participation in the way that he mentioned, following the line of the pamphlet brought out by the Liberal Party in England. He said that there should be a State Investment Trust, and that that State trust should be provided with money and be able to put it into Irish industry. That is not the first time such a suggestion was made. I remember at one time here when banks in the country were under discussion and the question of credit both for agriculture and industry was raised, the statement was made and accepted pretty readily by those here at the time, that for the ordinary good, safe type of business proposition, the banks, had not failed in their duty. The banks had put up whatever money was necessary for a good safe business proposition. If any complaints had been made against the banks in the last few years, those complaints would be in regard to certain land transactions—that in fact the banks lent money too readily and too liberally, and that the people who borrowed from them are now feeling the pinch of hard times. But it was also stated that it was not the function of the banks to provide industrial initiative. It was stated that it was not their function to be opportunists in the way of looking for the establishment of industry in the country; that it was not their function to be optimistic about the establishment of industry in the country. There is lacking in this country what there is in other countries—some sort of investment corporation, whose business it is to provide the industrial initiative and that experience which lead to the optimism that is necessary to get business going in the country.
Various methods have been canvassed as to how one can get that combination; and a proper regard and belief in the country's possibilities altogether, without a certain amount of funds. The fact of the matter is that most of the people who have been interested in the finances of this country are of the safe conservative type, who are very pessimistic about the chances of development in the country. The people who are optimistic are for the most part inexperienced, and nobody could count on them in starting industries. But even if one were to develop on the lines that Deputy Lemass suggested, and it is a line that was suggested years ago in this country, along which we have endeavoured to go, one will find that the difficulties are personnel. Supposing that there was money at the disposal of a State Investment Trust, supposing those moneys were there ready to be handed over and that this was a corporation whose business it was to go round and water the ground for industrial development, where is the personnel for that to come from?
It either has to be experienced men full of pessimism, who do not display industrial initiative, or inexperienced men full of optimism and possible enthusiasm. It is altogether a matter that will depend on the type of personnel. Again, one will be up against the type of business man who will be brought into that corporation and from whom value could be got. It is obviously the type of man who will be doing well in his own business. If you have men with initiative they are very likely in business at the moment, and they are not going to be tempted out of that business very readily, and certainly they are not going to be tempted out of it by the laying down of a condition that no man in the country is worth more than £1,000 a year. It will be very hard to get a successful man to give up his prospects as a successful business man for the rest of his life and to come along and operate for the good of the State and to build up industries that will probably be in competition with the business he has left. The whole matter turns on the personnel. It is a suggestion that we can argue again if there is an opportunity of discussion hereafter of the getting together of such a corporation; it is a line than can be followed usefully. Because undoubtedly it is a big defect in the country, and it is a defect that has not yet been made good. A certain attempt has been made towards it with regard to agriculture and in the recommendations of the Banking Commission to go a certain way with regard to industry. I am not sure if it has gone a sufficient way. At any rate these recommendations have been examined.
May I ask, before the Minister passes away from this, if the Minister denies that the banks have been bringing unreasonable and undue pressure on several firms which are in a healthy state at present?
I must say that I have often heard that phrase used vaguely. I have had experience now in this matter. I have not had much experience, because I always refused to interfere in a matter between the banks and their clients, and no member of a Government likes to interfere. These are matters between the banks and their clients, but on occasion I have been pressed to go into matters of that sort, and I say this: that it has always been my experience that the bank has treated its clients in a liberal way. I have not yet found an occasion in which the phrase "undue pressure" could be applied. I started quite as prejudiced against the banks as any Deputy on the opposite Benches. I have a limited experience in dealing with this matter because I avoid that kind of case. But in two or three cases I was made go into the matter. There is a Deputy on the Labour Benches, and if he were here present he would tell you about one case, and I think he would agree with me that in one case presented in an ex-parte fashion and to which was applied the phrase "undue pressure," it turned out when examined that the bank had been unduly lenient towards that man.
Who is he?
I have no example of what Deputy Moore speaks of.
If I could mention names I could give the Minister examples. I would like to take the Minister's word in this case.
I would like to have the example privately, because I would like to know if the whole thing has been examined fully and the full facts from the banker's point of view had been cleared. I say that because this case that I speak of, and in which a Labour Deputy will bear me out, presented a very different aspect when you heard the two sides of it. I heard first the statement of the case from the person upon whom it was alleged undue pressure had been put, but when the banker began to speak you had a very different type of case. I would like to refer Deputy Moore to the instance I am referring to. I think I can get the Labour Deputy to give him the full details of this case. Deputy Moore is one of the Deputies who complained that I have not spoken about particular industries. As a matter of fact, when speaking yesterday about industries, there came a point when there were three industries about which my Department had collected an amount of information and had sought to get outside people interested. However, in this matter, three cases being under consideration, I did not want to speak of them. Two of these industries, however, were mentioned. One was artificial silk and the other was cement.
There is nothing that I have had more propositions about or heard more talk about than I have heard about cement. It was one of the things that was under discussion when I first came into this office, and there have been propositions regarding cement pouring in since. The thing that amazes me is this—I find that most people approach this cement proposition in the same mind as Deputy Moore does. Take Denmark. Denmark not merely makes all the cement that she wants for herself, but she exports a great deal of cement, and she manufactures the type of machinery that is useful in the preparation of it. Deputy Moore heard, as I heard also, that Ireland was far richer in the necessary ingredients for cement than Denmark, and yet there are no cement works in Ireland. Deputy Moore has apparently got the same answer that I got. He was told that certain firms interested in foreign cement companies came here, bought up the only sites of cement factories and closed them down. One of these sites I hesitate to mention, because Deputy Corish is present. That is Drinagh. Drinagh has been examined over and over again. Every foreigner who came to this country in quest of a good cement proposition was referred to Drinagh in the first instance, and there has not been an individual who looked into Drinagh who has been able to say that it is worth developing. They have to pass it over.
The present proprietors placed a value on it, and when asked to re-open it they will not re-open it, but they are prepared to sell it out.
The present pro prietors will sell to anybody.
In what way has it a selling value?
It has not a selling value because it has not been purchased.
In their opinion it is because they are asking a high price for it.
The Deputy does not mean that it should be given away in charity.
You say it is worthless.
I say it is worthless from the point of view of putting it in competition with the cement industry.
What are they prepared to sell it at?
I do not know, but the allegation is that they are holding fast to it in order to stop a good cement proposition being started in this country. I am bringing in legislation with regard to minerals in the autumn. If that particular proposition goes through, I think that type of individual, in a proper case, will be dealt with, but Drinagh is not a proper case.
What about Skerries?
Skerries is not a proper case either. I believe there will be a cement works, but it will not be in Drinagh or Skerries. There has been no matter more definitely investigated than that of cement, and particularly cement in application to Drinagh. We are told Drinagh had been bought by people with intent to crush out the industry. If Deputies have still their suspicions about that, they can come to my office. I will let them see every file, and a reading of those files will convince them that there is nothing in the suspicion with regard to Drinagh.
Is the Minister aware that the owners of the cement factory in Drinagh are also connected with the British Portland Cement Company in Magheramore, and are putting a prohibitive price on Drinagh in order to bring the trade to Magheramore.
There is that allegation. If Deputy Cassidy is full of that suspicion let him come along and read through all the material about Drinagh and Magheramore and the whole Portland Cement Association. It will take him about three hours to go through the whole matter connected with it. I think he will go away satisfied that there is nothing whatever in the suspicion, and if he is not satisfied I will put him in touch with the very many people who have come here with intent to establish a cement business in the country. Let him try and convince them that there is good business in Drinagh. The first thing they satisfied themselves on was that no good could come out of Drinagh. Deputy Moore I think it was who had a suspicion that there was a belief that the trading community of Dublin had got so much hold of the Government that the tariff weapon had been blunted. To any person who talks about the tariff weapon being blunted I can only say that if it were blunted it was blunted by use; fifty per cent. of the tariffable articles coming into the country have been tariffed.
A DEPUTY
For revenue purposes.
It does not matter. I do not care for what purposes. If they bring in revenue they ought to give protection. Certain results have come from the imposition of tariffs; they are better than certain people would make out, but are not up to what people expect in certain instances.
The trading community in Dublin could do it.
If the trading community intended to stop tariffs and had considerable power, their power was in some way lost because it did not stop tariffs. Tariffs have been imposed on fifty per cent. of the tariffable imports into the country.
Deputy Briscoe talks of the Trade Loans Act, and said if I wanted to get some reason why it had not been used I had only to read the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I read that Report. I read a Report he issued the year before last, and that Report was under discussion in the Dáil when I brought forward the Trade Loans Act for extension. I stated I was going to neglect legal opinion as expressed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, because I believe he had nothing at his disposal to give him any correct legal opinion. I stated further that, as to the recommendations made by the Select Committee, I was going to disregard them if the House gave a Second Reading to the Trade Loans Act. After making that definite statement the House gave me a Second Reading, and the Trade Loans Guarantee passed without any division. I took that as a sign that I could go ahead on the lines I had spoken of. I proceeded on those lines, and I am ready to make my justification for proceeding on those lines whenever the Report comes up. I am not going to be terrified by anyone pointing to the Comptroller and Auditor-General as legal opinion about my going outside the four corners of the Act, when I am backed by the legal opinion of three successive Attorneys-General that I am completely inside the Act, and when I got the justification of the House last year after it was stated in such a way that I had been held up to odium by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. I consider the House is superior to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and it gave me leave to act in a particular way. At any rate I do not know why Deputy Briscoe brought that under discussion; why he asked why the Act was not successful, because if anything it means that Deputy Briscoe and others who sit with him on the Public Accounts Committee want to tie up the Act still more tightly.
I said at the outset that we would have an opportunity of discussing this item when the Report of the Public Accounts Committee came before the Dáil. I was trying to get from the Minister an indication as to whether he agreed that the Act in its present form could be worked in the interests of the community generally, or if it did not require some amendment in order to make it useful.
It can be worked in the interests of the community. By further amendments it can be worked with greater advantage. That matter will arise on the Act itself, but then the Deputy read portion of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's report that it was not desirable as used—I think that was the phrase used. That is the point of view of the Auditor-General that was quoted last year for the Dáil. I stated that I was going to use it in the same way if I got approval and, after I stated that, there was no division on the Second Reading. The matter referred to by Deputy Briscoe raises this point. Some other Deputy said a few days ago that the Civil Service should be cut down, and that if we had less red tape and paper methods, more work could be done. Who is responsible for the red tape in Government Departments? This Dáil. This Dáil insists upon a certain responsibility being put on certain people in such a way that there is this red tape. We can get rid of the red tape if the Dáil says in any legislation it passes "Very well, you can have a free hand." However, it happens that Deputies who complain of red tape in this House go into the Public Accounts Committee and show they are intent on tying up every Government Department in coils of red tape. You cannot have it both ways. You have to give some freedom. If there is going to be a rigid insistence on responsibility, and you are to have one man responsible for every act taken, then you are going to have red tape. Of course, the responsibility put on people in charge of a department is eventually the responsibility of the Minister. If there is any disposition in this House with regard to red tape, that too much red tape is being used and that there is too much minuting, that can be remedied, but it will be remedied only by the Dáil relaxing a certain amount of control and giving, in certain circumstances, to heads of departments or to Ministers, leave to act in a certain way. If the Public Accounts Committee is to insist rigidly on certain things being observed, the more insistent they are on a rigid observance of rules the more red tape there is going to be, the more minuting there is going to be from one Civil Servant to another, and the more delay there is going to be. The House has it in its own hands to relax all that and to institute another system.
Is the Minister aware that the Public Accounts Committee has done nothing but slavishly follow the Ministry of Finance? They have just agreed to everything the Ministry of Finance put up to them.
I am not arguing against the Public Accounts Committee. I say they have a certain duty thrown upon them, which they have discharged very efficiently. If anything they have discharged it too efficiently. Deputy Esmonde says that they have slavishly followed the Department of Finance. The Ministry of Finance is responsible for the expenditure of public money. It is responsible to the House for the expenditure of that money, and if the House allows the Minister some relaxation, the Minister will be able to relax his regulation in regard to other departments.
Is the Minister aware that it is hardly a question of regulations which have been passed by this House? These regulations have been handed down from the time of the British regime.
Can the Minister state when he expects to receive the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Road Traffic, and whether it will be circulated to Deputies?
I do not know when that Report is likely to be prepared. As to its circulation amongst Deputies, that is a different matter. I do not know that there is an established practice with regard to the circulation of Inter-Departmental reports. Certain conclusions, generally speaking, are available. There will probably be an occasion given for the discussion of the regulations. These regulations may necessitate legislation, and the whole matter can then be discussed.
Has an interim Report been issued, or is one about to be issued?
I have got no interim Report. I have got what seems to be an intelligent forecast of the Report, but I think the Report is in draft.
Has the Minister any control over the accommodation provided for first and second-class passengers on railways? There are some cases where the railway companies are extorting money under false pretences. A passenger is charged a first or second-class fare, and after he leaves the main line he finds that the first-class accommodation provided is worse than the third class on the main principal line. It would seem to be a case where the public ought to be protected, because as a general rule a passenger who takes a first-class ticket does not know what accommodation he is getting.
I would like to have a definite case put up, and I could then raise this matter with the railway company.
Do you want the name now?
The Deputy can supply it afterwards.
I know that from Ennis to Ballybrophy, which is a long distance, one has to travel in non-corridor carriages.
Would the Deputy pay more for travelling in corridor carriages?
Mr. HOGAN
The Minister knows what I mean. The distance from Ennis to Ballybrophy is quite long.
Is the Deputy aware that I have travelled as much as 120 miles in non-corridor carriages in England?
A DEPUTY
We are glad to see you have survived.
resumed the Chair.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 75.
Tá
- Frank Aiken.
- Denis Allen.
- Neal Blaney.
- Gerald Boland.
- Patrick Boland.
- Daniel Bourke.
- Seán Brady.
- Robert Briscoe.
- Henry Broderick.
- Daniel Buckley.
- Frank Carney.
- Frank Carty.
- Archie J. Cassidy.
- Michael Clery.
- James Colbert.
- Hugh Colohan.
- Eamon Cooney.
- Dan Corkery.
- Richard Corish.
- Martin John Corry.
- Fred. Hugh Crowley.
- Tadhg Crowley.
- William Davin.
- Thomas Derrig.
- Eamonn de Valera.
- Edward Doyle.
- James Everett.
- Frank Fahy.
- Andrew Fogarty.
- Seán French.
- John Goulding.
- Patrick Hogan (Clare).
- Samuel Holt.
- Michael Joseph Kennedy.
- William R. Kent.
- James Joseph Killane.
- Mark Killilea.
- Michael Kilroy.
- Seán F. Lemass.
- Patrick John Little.
- Ben Maguire.
- Thomas McEllistrim.
- Seán MacEntee.
- Séamus Moore.
- Daniel Morrissey.
- Thomas Mullins.
- Patrick Joseph O'Dowd.
- Seán T. O'Kelly.
- William O'Leary.
- Matthew O'Reilly.
- Thomas O'Reilly.
- Thomas P. Powell.
- James Ryan.
- Martin Sexton.
- Timothy Sheehy (Tipp.).
- Patrick Smith.
- John Tubridy.
- Richard Walsh.
- Francis C. Ward.
Níl
- William P. Aird.
- Ernest Henry Alton.
- James Walter Beckett.
- George Cecil Bennett.
- Ernest Blythe.
- Séamus A. Bourke.
- Michael Brennan.
- Seán Brodrick.
- Alfred Byrne.
- John Joseph Byrne.
- Edmund Carey.
- James Coburn.
- John James Cole.
- Mrs. Margt. Collins-O'Driscoll.
- Martin Conlon.
- Michael P. Connolly.
- Bryan Ricco Cooper.
- William T. Cosgrave.
- Sir James Craig.
- James Crowley.
- Michael Davis.
- Peter De Loughrey.
- Eugene Doherty.
- James N. Dolan.
- Michael Og McFadden.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Joseph W. Mongan.
- Richard Mulcahy.
- Joseph Xavier Murphy.
- Martin Michael Nally.
- John Thomas Nolan.
- Richard O'Connell.
- Bartholomew O'Connor.
- Timothy Joseph O'Donovan.
- John F. O'Hanlon.
- Daniel O'Leary.
- Dermot Gun O'Mahony.
- John J. O'Reilly.
- Peadar Seán Doyle.
- Edmund John Duggan.
- James Dwyer.
- Barry M. Egan.
- Osmond Thos. Grattan Esmonde.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- James Fitzgerald-Kenney.
- John Good.
- Denis J. Gorey.
- Alexander Haslett.
- Michael R. Heffernan.
- Michael Joseph Hennessy.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Mark Henry.
- Patrick Hogan (Galway).
- Richard Holohan.
- Michael Jordan.
- Patrick Michael Kelly.
- Myles Keogh.
- Hugh Alexander Law.
- Patrick Leonard.
- Finian Lynch.
- Arthur Patrick Mathews.
- Gearoid O'Sullivan.
- John Marcus O'Sullivan.
- Patrick Reynolds.
- Vincent Rice.
- Martin Roddy.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Timothy Sheehy (West Cork).
- William Edward Thrift.
- Michael Tierney.
- Daniel Vaughan.
- John White.
- Vincent Joseph White.
- George Wolfe.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Cassidy and G. Boland. Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Amendment declared lost.
On the main question I would like to know if there is any additional information available concerning the cinematograph film that the Department is going to have taken.
I am glad to note that that comes under Sub-head LL, the last sub-head.
Yes. I would like to know exactly what industrial works in the country are to be included in the film. Will the Drinagh cement works be included?
I hope not.
I take it that the purpose of this film is to enable trade representatives abroad to display to possible business men who might have a relationship with this country the advantages that would come to them from such relationship. Will it be sent to Russia? Will it show the red herrings which are so plentiful in this country, and that the Minister for Fisheries assures us the Russians do not buy? Will there be included in this film all the attractions that might be offered to a business man? Is it possible that the film will include a pictorial representation of the Executive Council, because if it does no one will believe the attractions? I would like to know exactly what purpose it is intended that this film should serve, and what exact business activities are going to be represented? Will they be agricultural, industrial, or will the film display the transport facilities that are now so obvious upon the roads? I would like to have some additional information about it.
I hope if the Minister is going to have a film of the Executive Council made that he will be quite impartial in the matter, and also have those on the Fianna Fáil Benches, including the number who were listening to Deputy Lemass. I have been filmed in the Parliament House of Australia, and I can assure the House I was sitting on the front benches for the only time in my life. I hope the Minister is going to show in this film productive activities——
Then he will leave out the Executive Council.
And not confine himself to the Executive Council. I imagine that the Shannon scheme would be suitable for a film; I imagine that agriculture should certainly be included. I have seen a good many of the films produced by the Australian Government. They are interesting, and I think films will be equally interesting here if we can get over the handicap of our climate.
I am anxious to find out if the Minister intends to put the findings of the Food Prices Tribunal into effect?
That does not arise on a question concerning cinematograph films.
Mr. HOGAN
It arises on the salaries.
We are dealing with the last sub-head now.
I was going to raise that question, but I found that this matter would involve legislation, and, therefore, I did not do so. I would have raised it if I had not been of opinion that our findings would not be carried into effect without legislation. Therefore, I came to the conclusion that it would be out of order.
As Deputy Lemass succeeded in getting the "drop" on the entire House——
He waited some time before taking it.
There was some delay before Deputy Lemass raised this point, and I indicated to the House what was likely to happen. All I saw was one Deputy rising.
If the Minister intends to do nothing as a result of the Report of the Food Prices Commission I submit that it would not mean legislation. I think that we are entitled to deal with it under Sub-head A.
Put down a question.
We are not at Sub-head A now. We are at Sub-head LL. When the Minister replied I put the question. It was made clear to-day that the Minister's speech on the amendment was to conclude the debate on the general questions of policy. I understood that while the Minister was concluding further points were raised and answered. When the division had been taken there was a pause and the only Deputy who offered to raise a point was Deputy Lemass on Sub-head L.L. We cannot go back now.
I am not replying on the food prices question now. With regard to the films the intention is to have available for our representatives in other countries a series of short films illustrating the more attractive features of life in this country. It was originally propounded by the Tourist Development Association that such a film would be useful, and from that point of view it was considered first. But afterwards we did get representations made, mainly by our representative in Brussels, that a film of a particular type which would be of interest to industrialists would also be of use. For that purpose a conference representative of different departments was held, before whom, through the kindness of the Film Censor, there was exhibited a film of the same type as is at present sent forth by Australia and by Canada. The departments interested in that conference were my own Department, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Local Government, the Department of Education, and the Department of Defence.
The first time this film was spoken of it was from the tourist point of view, and the people who proposed it suggested that they should have facilities to photograph certain places where business was being carried on. It is expected that the film will still mainly cater for tourists, but we will have the other side too. Of course, what will eventually appear I cannot say, but the discussions we had with other Departments broke down when it was discovered that, no matter how far this conference might go, and how far we might go in arranging for the production of the film, there was no money. Therefore we halted and came here to get the money. But there is a fairly good plan. There will not be an exhibition of red herrings, as the Minister for Fisheries might put them up, or as the Fianna Fáil Party might put them up here. With regard to the Food Council, I have already stated here that I was prepared to recommend the acceptance of the findings of the Food Prices Tribunal on certain points. I think I told Deputy Cooper, in reply to a question as to the matters we were prepared to introduce certain legislation on, that that was already under discussion. Certain matters that they have recommended will fall for settlement within the Merchandise Marks Act, and there is one other Act that will deal with certain matters. Certain others will involve consideration beforehand. But the one thing I did say was that I was not at the moment disposed to accept the recommendation with regard to a permanent Prices Tribunal. I do not say that that has been definitely turned down; this is only so far as our consideration has gone, but at the moment the money that would have to be expended on it seems to be out of all proportion to the advantages that would be likely to accrue to the country from it. But even that is not finally decided. I thought I indicated, when the question was asked, that the matter might better fall for discussion on a separate motion instead of having it raised on the Estimate, as there is really no part of the Estimate under which it would fall for discussion.
Could the Minister indicate his attitude with regard to some of the minor recommendations? I regret his decision not to set up this Tribunal, though I admit he is justified by the fact that the public appear to have no interest whatever in the subject. But there was a recommendation that tea should be sold at net weight. In 1922 a British Act to that effect was brought in, and tea is now sold by net weight in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. There was also a recommendation that a butcher, when delivering a joint to a customer, should also deliver a docket stating the weight of the joint and his charge per lb. These are small things; I do not know if the Minister has had time to go into them, but they are of some value, and I hope that they will not be entirely overlooked.
I think I indicated to the Deputy that I was prepared to recommend to the Executive Council the adoption of the recommendation with regard to short weights. They have accepted that since. How far they will go, whether they will go the length of the fullest point as to a regulation about the butcher delivering meat will, I think, all fall for discussion on the legislation when it is introduced. But the particular matter of short weight is going to be dealt with.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the question of the industrial inspectors in connection with the tailoring trade.
The Deputy has lost his opportunity on all these matters.
On a point of order: The amendment which was down in my name and upon which a Division has now been taken, concerned a matter of policy. I understood from previous experience in this House that following a Division on a matter of that kind the various sub-heads of the Estimate would be taken item by item. Deputy Lemass stood up first, and you allowed him to discuss a matter concerned with sub-head LL. I submit, with the greatest possible respect, that you should have taken the items one by one—A, B, C, and down to L, and that any Deputies who wanted an opportunity of raising different matters in the sub-heads would be entitled to raise these matters. Therefore, I claim that Deputy Broderick is quite in order, seeing that the usual procedure had not been carried out, in raising the point which he wants to raise.
My recollection is that you stated, when Deputy Lemass raised his point, that we were now at LL.
I submit that you could not know what Deputy Lemass was going to say until he mentioned the matter he wished to raise.
He looked up in amazement and did not find a single member of the Labour Party to say "Nay" to him.
The question is: what is the usual procedure? The usual procedure is not for the Chair to call a sub-head and ask: "Is there any point under A? Is there any point under B? Is there any point under C?" and so on. That is not the usual procedure, and in this instance it was understood, and I stated it yesterday, that the division upon this amendment would conclude the debate on general policy. Deputy Corish asked if that would conclude the whole thing, and I said it would not. But the usual procedure, which has been adopted to-day, is that a Deputy rises to make a point dealing with a particular sub-head, and if the sub-head is not sub-head A, the Chair gives warning that we cannot go back on that sub-head. In this particular instance Deputy Lemass rose, and no other Deputy rose. When Deputy Lemass made clear to me the point he wanted to raise which, as Deputy Davin said, we could not know anything about until he mentioned it, I indicated that the sub-head he was referring to was Sub-head LL, and that it was the last sub-head on the Vote. No protest reached me that any Deputy wanted to raise a prior question. Deputy Lemass, I am sure, would have given way at once if it had been indicated to him that he was taking up a sub-head so far down. That is what happened, and there is nothing unusual in it. The Deputy has not been deprived of any right which he ordinarily has. I allowed the question on the Food Prices Tribunal, but what I am not prepared to allow is that we should go back through all the sub-heads. That would be impossible. If the only point to be raised is by Deputy Broderick, we can take it if it does not occupy too much time. Not only has the usual procedure been followed, but there has in fact been an arrangement made by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges with regard to the time to be taken for Estimates. The time taken on this Estimate has exceeded the time allotted for it. I will now take Deputy Broderick's point on the understanding that I am prepared to take no other point afterwards.
The Minister in his statement yesterday told the House of the results from his industrial inspectors of workshops and factories. I wonder what are the results of their work as regards the retail and bespoke tailoring industry? Does the Minister want the House to believe that the industry is in as good a position now as it was twenty or thirty years ago? To my mind it is an industry that at the moment needs a good deal of looking after by an inspector from his Department. In Dublin it has been turned into a sweating industry. There is no Deputy who leaves an order with any firm of tailors in Dublin for a suit has a guarantee that portion of that suit is not sweated.
I have.
Mr. BRODERICK
The tendency now is that portion of the suits made in the majority of houses in the City of Dublin and other cities in the country is made by sweated labour. That system of sweating is even creeping in into the smaller towns in the provinces. I think it would be a great thing if the Minister would direct his inspectors to make an examination of the different workshops and tailoring shops in the Saorstát. The tailoring shops are fairly well ventilated, but what are the conditions under which garments are made where sweating is carried on? They are made in places that are bedrooms at night and workshops during the daytime. Such are the conditions prevailing in Dublin and other large towns in the Saorstát. There is another point to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention. As regards tailors working in this particular part of the industry, their numbers in their society have decreased since 1919 and 1920. The Minister said some months ago that his Department would be prepared to set up a wages board in connection with any industry where the society was not able to protect its members. Here is one where that might be done. There was a wages board to regulate conditions in this industry some three or four years ago, and I would ask the Minister to consider the possibility of re-establishing it. There is a wages board in the wholesale end of the industry, but not in the retail end. I would ask the Minister to give his earnest consideration to the points that I have mentioned. The workers in this part of the industry are suffering a great grievance, and I hope the Minister will do what he can to remedy it.
This raises a point that has been previously decided by the Dáil. The Deputy made a complaint under two headings. One is that there is no longer any machinery under the Trade Boards Acts in the retail bespoke tailoring trade. The other point seems to me to be a complaint outside that, that there is no inspection of workshops. The position is this, that the withdrawal of that particular trade from the operations of the Trade Boards Acts was done here openly in the House. It was done for reasons which, at the time, seemed sufficiently good to the House. The reasons given were, first that the application to it had never been made in this country until at a particular time when a Trade Board had to be established in any trade in which an application had to be made in England. The second reason was that the conditions under which the Trade Board machinery was applied was such as to render it most mystifying, and impossible to know what was happening.
There was one matter raised that even the Labour Leader, who was present at the time in the House, did not feel fully competent to discuss, namely, the question of the Scottish log as well as a whole lot of very difficult and technical matters which rendered almost futile the application of the Trade Board machinery. Thirdly, there was the big point that all Trade Boards Acts are only supposed to apply to trades where the workers are not sufficiently organised to be able to stand up to the employers themselves. The argument was put forward and accepted by the majority here that the workers in this trade were sufficiently organised, and it could not be said the conditions essential for the application of the Trade Board machinery were present in this case. At any rate, the House decided that the machinery of the Trade Board should be withdrawn from the trade. As to the Deputy's second point, if there are shops or factories in this particular business, they will be inspected in the ordinary way, but not inspected by Trade Board inspectors to see that Trade Board conditions apply, because there is no longer the application of Trade Board conditions to them. The machinery of the Trades Board to the retail bespoke tailoring trade which was definitely withdrawn by the House on a previous occasion, cannot again be applied to it until the House agrees to do so, and there may be a way of bringing it before the House.
Mr. BRODERICK
Is the Minister aware that the Trade Boards Acts are working satisfactorily in the Six Counties since the year 1919 and 1920? Our membership has been decreasing since that period here, and there is more need for the Trade Board now than there was at that time.
I do not agree.
Vote put, and agreed to.