I am sorry that the ruling already given prevents me from joining with Deputy Hogan in referring to the question of unemployment insurance, but there are some other matters to which I am anxious to call attention. I would like to ask the Minister what is being done by the different labour exchanges throughout the country in the way of notifying people in remote areas of vacancies in employment. On any occasion that I have visited small labour exchanges, that could be made of real value to the people in remote areas, I have seen the same list of vacancies hanging up from January to December. I have never heard of one person who was put in touch with employment through the means of these exchanges. I am not surprised at that because the whole machinery connected with labour exchanges is unsatisfactory. In the small districts branch managers are paid wretchedly and it is not likely that they can be expected to take an intelligent interest in their work. I want also to call attention to the need for more facilities in the matter of registering for unemployment benefit and for employment.
In Committee on Finance. - Vote 56—Industry and Commerce (Resumed).
I think that will arise on the Estimate for Unemployment Insurance, No. 60.
Mr. Murphy
Very well; I shall have another opportunity of referring to it. In the course of the Minister's statement he referred to the Trade Loans Act. I want to say that my experience of one particular application in connection with the Act has been satisfactory. We have at the moment, in a remote portion of West Cork, some hundreds of men employed at Allihies copper mine. The promise which that industry gives as a result of the assistance from the State is very good. In that connection something more might be done by the Minister to make the work of the company in that district easier. The question of transport will largely enter into the success of the industry. In the improvement and the dredging of the harbour, a scheme for which has been prepared for a considerable time, the Minister might with profit to the Department, to the countryside generally and to the people interested in the enterprise, assist in providing through the means of his Department a fund that will give proper facilities for the shipment of the copper which has to be transported from the mine.
Some years ago we had in West Cork an industry that was of very great importance, the barytes mines. It is a very sorrowful reflection today that they are all practically dismantled. The difficulties which led to the closing down of the mines were numerous. In one particular instance the mines closed because of something that happened during the trouble when a quantity of explosives, used in the ordinary way in connection with the work of the mines, was taken away. I would like to know what steps the Minister's Department has taken towards exploring the possibilities of getting that industry revived. I know that for some time there were difficulties by reason of the state of the market and by the fact that barytes was being brought in from Germany at a low cost. I have reason to know that there has been some change in the situation since, and I would like to know what the Minister is prepared to do in that connection, because generally what I feel is that the Department has not done anything very radical or very useful towards promoting industry or towards bringing people in this country, and people with capital outside, into touch with each other with a view to their mutual advantage. As an instance of that I might mention that we have, at the moment, near Skibbereen, an English company working at stone deposits which are apparently valuable. I understand that the stone is being taken from Crookhaven over to a number of cities in England to be used by the local authorities there. It is very strange that it took enterprising English people to discover the value of this stone. It is rather a sad position to find that people in this country have not been able to make any use of stone of that kind or to find, through the agency of the Department, what possibilities there were in that direction.
I would also like to see the Minister's Department taking a hand in the execution of small marine works. I think it would fall properly to the Department controlled by the Minister. While we will have another opportunity of raising the question of the failure of another Department to do anything in that connection, I think, in view of the fact that a particular branch of the service is in charge of the Minister, work of this kind might be undertaken by his Department with very good results. In places in the country where industries are in a bad way at the moment, and where very suitable buildings and good possibilities exist, I would like the Department of the Minister to be a great deal more active. In my constituency a distillery, one of the many in the State affected by legislation and by other things, is about to close down. The last few men in the Bandon distillery will be paid off in a few days. There is a very up-to-date plant there. There is a very good building which, if it will not be used for the industry it has housed up to the present, could be utilised for other industries in future. If the Department intends to pay any attention to the representations made to it, I would like to hear what it proposes to do. It might be possible to suggest to another Department a very appropriate use for that particular building.
I am disappointed that nothing whatever has been done by the Department to tackle the question of unemployment generally. I believe we will have another opportunity of raising that matter, and perhaps it would be better to defer what we have to say in that connection until a more suitable opportunity arises. I put these suggestions to the Minister in order that some effort will be made to convince the people in the country that the Department can be of real value to them; that the services of the Department will be reflected in a useful endeavour towards putting people with capital outside the country in touch with the possibilities for the expenditure of that capital in the country; towards improving the facilities for transport, the condition of a good many of the piers and harbours, and other portions of that particular service which come within the control of the Minister.
I am not satisfied that the Minister has been getting any better as he grows older; his Department is as much a failure now as it has been during the years since we came here. Year after year practically the same criticisms are offered, and I do not know what hope there is of improvement in the future. There is certainly very wide scope for the Minister to improve, and I suggest, as regards the matters I have mentioned, as well as other matters that have been mentioned in the course of the debate, that the Minister might very usefully employ the machinery of his Department in doing something.
I did not intend to speak in this debate, and were it not for the ingenuity of Deputy Hogan I would not be able to put to the Minister the questions I want to put to him, because they have relationship to or a bearing on the Shannon scheme. I do not intend to speak on the Shannon scheme proper, but I want to ask the Minister if he can explain to the House how it is that he is able to disregard completely the 1927 Electricity Supply Act. Section 105 of that Act deals with the transfer of certain properties from the Board of Works to the Shannon Board, through the Office of the Ministry for Industry and Commerce. Sub-section (8) of that section specifically and distinctly states that no Order made under this section shall come into operation until it has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and has been approved by resolution of each such House. I know that the Board of Works have handed over to the Minister for Industry and Commerce certain properties in Killaloe, near O'Brien's Bridge. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has proceeded to demand possession of certain properties there and to evict from a certain position an official of the Board of Works. I have the correspondence here in connection with the matter. Does the Minister admit or deny that?
I am acting under the 1925 Act, not under that Act.
I am discussing the 1927 Act.
It does not apply.
So the 1925 Act supersedes the 1927 Act. Is that what the Minister wants to make out?
No. I am not acting under the Electricity Supply Act of 1927 in connection with the point to which the Deputy refers, but under the rights given to me under the 1925 Act, in regard to water rights and so forth. Under certain conditions, I am given power under the 1925 Act and it is on that I am acting.
The Minister is not given power under the 1925 Act to take possession of properties and hand them over to the Supply Board. He is not given powers to submerge land of a certain acreage.
I am, distinctly.
It is dealt with distinctly in the 1927 Act.
I could not have carried out the scheme unless I had power under the 1925 Act to submerge land.
Then the sections of the 1927 Act do not apply at all?
Certainly, they do, but not in this instance.
What I want to refer to is the position of employees of the Board of Works whose services are being dispensed with without any consideration at all, and whose property is being taken over without compensation. This matter is dealt with in the 1927 Act and not in the 1925 Act. Perhaps the Minister will take the Act and read it.
Which Act?
The 1927 Act. Will the Minister quote the '25 Act where he has power to dispense with the services of employees?
I am not dispensing with anybody's services at the moment. I am taking certain rights of property. I can do that under clause 3 of the Shannon Electricity Act, 1925.
I am given a series of powers there which run in a number of lettered paragraphs to the letter N. Under these I am allowed to do anything and everything incidental to these powers.
Is the Minister permitted to dispense with the services of a lock-keeper without making provision for compensation or alternative employment?
I have hardly ever a right to do anything without certain rights of compensation arising.
You can throw down teachers' houses.
I am not allowed to pay them, though.
The point I want to make is that the Minister has already interfered with an officer of the Board of Works. I want to know why is it that compensation has not been fixed in the case of the lock-keeper at Killaloe.
What have I done to the lock-keeper at Killaloe?
You have taken his position from him, and you have submerged his 26 acres of land.
I am allowed to do that.
But you are not allowed to do that without giving adequate compensation.
That question will arise.
I think it would be better if the Deputy made his case and let the Minister reply afterwards.
I am not putting this for the purpose of making any points against the Minister. Deputy Hogan has pointed out in one case where the Electricity Supply Board or the Minister can take upon themselves all rights irrespective of the rights of the people in conjunction with property or possessions which they hold, and the people can wait for three or four years for some settlement of their claims for compensation. I would ask the Minister at least to give an assurance where livelihoods are being taken away from people that they will be dealt with immediately. Men like this lock-keeper at Killaloe, whose position and property are taken from him, cannot afford to wait three years, until the Minister's assessors come to a conclusion as to what they are to get. The same thing applies to people who wake up in the morning and find one of these poles stuck in their front garden and an offer from the Minister of a shilling a year rental for it. The President was a member of the old Dublin Corporation, and I think he will agree that when the Corporation took over premises if the person affected did not agree to a reasonable figure there was arbitration, and both sides got fair dealing in connection with it. In this case, the Minister just goes and plants a pole in a man's garden and he gives him a shilling a year for it. The specific clause in the 1927 Act dealing with this item does not count, because the 1925 Act governs it. I do not think that that is really the sense in which the Act was passed by this House. It is a very long Act, and all these clauses were put in for some purpose or other.
The next thing I want to refer to is the subject matter of the answer given to the question which I put to the Minister to-day in connection with public safety and the Shannon scheme. It is the first time in this country that a Department of State can undertake work outside the control of the Government. We have evidence of two deaths in a period of ten days, and it is evident that precautions of some nature are necessary. The Minister turns around and tells us the story of the days when railroads were first established and people hurled themselves in front of charging express trains. The public generally want an assurance that some effort will be made to give consideration to some means whereby the public generally will be protected against such occurrences. It is all very well for the Minister to get up and excuse abuses to certain sections of the community when certain accidents occur. The Minister is responsible for the safety of the people in connection with this scheme. Deputy Anthony pointed out that there would appear to be some laxity in the Department that is responsible for the examination of machinery, particularly where there was loss of life due to defective machinery. I would like the Minister to give an assurance to the House, while it might be too expensive to put up barbed wire fences around each pole, that he will consult with the engineers of his Department to see if it is not possible to do something to insure some measure of safety for the public at large.
I asked a question yesterday in connection with the annual statistics and returns from the Electricity Supply Board. The Minister replied stating he had authorised the Board to join the first and second together and to give the report of the returns for the two years together. I contend that the Act, if we are to understand it at all, and if any interpretation can be put on it, specifically states that the Board shall in each year make these returns. I do not say that they can be put to the House in that particular year, but I would like the Minister to assure the House that such returns will be made every year. Does he contend that it is within his right, under this Act, to use his own judgment and authority to give instructions to the Board which are in exact opposition to the sense of the sections of the Act? I do not want to go into any more details for the present. I would like the Minister to be less dictatorial in his attitude with regard to the community at large arising out of the extraordinary powers he seems to be able to interpret from the various Acts, particularly the '25 Act. I have made a study of the 1927 Act. I will have to sit up a few more nights late to study the 1925 Act and compare the clauses of the two Acts to see where they dovetail into each other.
I would like, before concluding, to ask the Minister if there is any foundation for the suggestion that the non-completion of the agreement entered into between this State and England, by the non-payment of £600,000 into a joint fund, has brought about the impossibility of a reciprocal arrangement on the insurance fund. If that sum is paid into a fund reciprocal arrangements with regard to unemployment benefits could be entered into. That is to say, an Irishman unemployed here having credit in England could be paid here. I do not suggest at the moment that it would be a good policy to pay that money but, in view of the fact that all other payments under the 1926 agreement have been paid, the Minister might state whether that is so. It has been suggested to me that that is the reason.
I again have to complain with regard to this debate which I regard as a valuable opportunity of listening to Deputies, if they are seriously-minded in this whole matter, suggesting industrial improvements in the Free State, that instead of suggestions of a practical type I get nothing but vague complaints. One thing has approached the concrete more definitely this evening than at any time before and that is the new plans with regard to transport, with which I shall deal later. At the opening of the speech made to support the amendment that this Vote should be referred back, we had from Deputy Lemass two comments that I can only consider ill-natured on his part. One was as to officials lying down on their jobs. The Deputy is long enough here to know that that is not the way in which business is conducted. If there is anybody responsible for people lying down on their jobs it is the political head of the Department and not the officials. If there is any official malingering it is the fault of the Minister who is over him.
It is the Minister I was referring to.
The Deputy started off with certain people who were earning big salaries. With regard to the last portion of his remarks, one had to conclude that there were certain officials lying down on their jobs.
I included the Minister.
I hope it will not occur again that that phrase will be used. There are people who stand here for criticism and there are other people who are prohibited by the conditions of their employment from taking part in discussions as to how they do their duty. They are as much at the mercy of the Minister who does not present their case clearly as they are at the mercy of the Deputy who discusses them when they are not in a position to reply. I would like to ask Deputy Lemass, if he is referring to the salaries of certain people in this Department which he himself describes as a far-reaching and most important Department, one whose activities enter into every sphere of national life, if he thinks it is sound comment to say here that there are people here who are in receipt of salaries over £1,000 a year and afterwards, as was indicated by Fianna Fáil speakers generally, say that the duty of the officials of his Department should be that of going around to see where industry should be started, where there is a chance of development, to find out what is wrong with our industries and to start new industries. The man who is paid less than £1,000 a year is not going to remain long in the Department of Industry and Commerce, if as Deputy Lemass believes, he is capable of carrying out these duties and of discovering opportunities towards advancement. We are told that there are numerous opportunities waiting for development if we can only get the people who are willing to use them. I do not think there is going to be a successful service run on the basis of no payment of more than £1,000 a year.
I am not sure that the publication of a report like that which the Department of Local Government publishes is going to save me from many of the criticisms passed here, because the Department of Local Government when they do publish the report deal almost entirely with what is scornfully described as routine duties. If I were to publish such a report I would certainly clear up a lot of misunderstanding in regard to what has been described in a scornful and disdainful way as routine duties, but it is not going to save me from criticism because those people, who are only paid for carrying out certain statutory duties, are not, in fact, taking on their shoulders much more in the way of duties of a non-statutory type. I could ask factory inspectors and officials of certain types when making visits to certain places in connection with their statutory duties to spend the greater portion of their time in investigating possibilities, in getting information, in getting in touch with people who are likely to use that information and in trying to get people agitated into industrial activity. These are duties that they could actually and definitely claim they are not being paid for—duties not laid upon them by statute; but the performance of their routine duties is criticised by Deputies.
The enactments that the Department has had to bring forward this year were referred to in a critical mood by Deputy Lemass. He said there was a certain number of measures declared by me to be necessary and not yet introduced, such as a Minerals Bill and a Merchandise Marks Bill. Then we heard from the Deputy the rather usual comment, that there were quite a large number of other Bills which he could not remember that had been promised and were said to be required but had not yet been seen. I do not know what they are. I have committed myself, as far as I can remember, to a Minerals Bill, a Merchandise Marks Bill, and a Workmen's Compensation Bill for next session, and hereafter I said it may be found possible to deal with the question of insurance. I have never promised that for any early date.
You have quite a number of others.
It is a question of being precise. After saying I had promised A B C D E F G H I J measures, I was told of two, and the tag was put on that there was quite a large number of others said to be necessary and promised but not yet brought in. I searched my memory, and I do not know where quite a large number of other Bills was promised. I have no memory of it whatever.
Did the Minister not promise to give legislative effect to certain recommendations of the Food Prices Tribunal?
I did not, except in so far as they will be dealt with under the Merchandise Marks Bill. The Deputy has complained of the production of the unemployment figures. He says that when produced in 1929 they are no good, as they refer to 1926. Of course, they will be good. They will be good if only for this reason: that for the future there is a frame-work established into which any further collection can fit, and it will be a much easier matter to deal with in the future. At the same time even to get the 1926 figures now is very useful. I am told by the Deputy that it would be found probably more wasteful to have employed a small staff for three years in this matter of the Census figures rather than a big staff for one year.
I ask Deputies, who are concerned about statistical information being provided, to nominate deputations so that they could be shown around the statistical office, and get explained to them its working, because it is only when one sees the machines and gets a realisation of how the cards are dealt with that one can realise that that sort of statement is completely absurd. The piling up of clerical staff in the statistics office would have meant an inappreciable amount of extra speed with regard to getting out returns, because there is a bottle-neck through which all these returns must pass. There are two or three officials at the top who have to deal with the rather mechanical work done by the clerical officers and the machines. These people at the top could not be trained for that work inside of six years. The newest of them has been about five years in training for the work, and it really would mean an extension of the head staff rather than any increase in the clerical staff to get these returns out any earlier. I again repeat that I am simply going to leave these returns to the judgment of the public when finally brought out. If anybody thinks there is undue delay, I ask again people who have that feeling to come along and be shown around the office and pursue inquiries as long as these inquiries do not impede the work of the office. I do not at all doubt what the judgment would be if that inspection is made.
Deputy Lemass holds that prior to the setting up of the Tariff Commission the Government had been acting freely and well. He spoke of thirteen groups of industries as having applied for a tariff of whom only four have had their applications heard. He committed himself to the comment that probably the rest might be heard in about ten years. There is a proper occasion for considering the question of tariffs. I only want to make this comment: There is not one single case of undue delay that can be made against the Tariff Commission. There is quite a number of cases of undue delay which can be made against applicants for not putting in applications in the proper way and for not answering rebutting evidence when put up to them. Any one of the cases that the Deputy talks of can be examined in the light of relevant dates, and the statement made as to the cause of the delay could be answered by the people concerned in the application. If it is going to take ten years to hear the rest of the cases to come before the Commission, then the blame has to be put upon the applicants much more than on the Tariff Commission. That is my answer to the query: "Why not appoint two Commissions?" The Tariff Commission have to my knowledge only found themselves on one occasion, for one short period of time, prevented by other duties from dealing with applications ripe for consideration. If there had been two sets of men sitting instead of only one they simply would be sitting idle.
I want to query—I want to do more than query: I want to protest against the type of phrase Deputy Lemass used with regard to the attitude of my Department—officials or myself—towards industrialists. He said that it was one of complete hostility. Will he get any group of industrialists to come openly and say that the attitude of any official whom they have met has been one of hostility? I should like to get some group of industrialists who will say that, because I should like to get examining into the situation in which hostility, active or passive, was displayed towards any industrialists in this country. "They are treated as crooks," was the Deputy's other phrase. We got an explanation of what that meant. It was merely a picturesque, although a very irresponsible, phrase for what the Deputy went on afterwards to explain—that these people have to make their own case in a great many instances. I even deny that. I say that I can get evidence from a great many industrialists who have applied for various types of aid, some of whom have got the aid and others of whom are still seeking it, and a great number will say that their case was sometimes made for them by officials of the Ministry, and that is only as it should be. There is no case, or if there is I should like to hear it, of any group of industrialists who will say, with regard to the Department officials or myself, that the attitude has been one of hostility to industry.
Similarly Deputy Lemass said that I had been very badly stricken by the idea of rationalisation, and that I was glad to have small industries disappear if they were replaced by one large one. He went on to say that he personally did not want the conditions here of English industrial towns, and that we should rely upon local concerns to supply local needs. I have never indicated any absolute preference for the big business over the smaller one. I have had it borne in on me, in a great many cases, that in order to compete with outside firms that big business—mass manufacturing that has to be taken relatively to the needs of the country—is necessary. It is all very well to have an aim with regard to small local concerns put forward from the point of view of the amenities of life and health, but simply to say that one is in favour of big industries, of big grouping of industry rather than small disconnected units, does not mean that you want industrial towns like those in England or in America. It is quite possible to have conditions entirely different, even although one would have a grouping of industries. But I have never expressed any preference and I do not know where that criticism came from.
I should like to pursue further the Deputy's reference to certain people in this country interested in certain industries who were afraid to come along and make application for a tariff or for help—for a tariff particularly—because of the fact that if a tariff were granted the industry itself as operated in this country or the industrialists themselves would suffer. Of the examples he gave, I know of only one case, that of agricultural machinery, in which an application for a tariff was made to me, not to the Tariff Commission. On the matter of trade loans, the Deputy's line is that banks do not give to industry here what banks in other countries provide. I think they do. I admit the German banks do more, but, leaving them out, the banks in this country, on the whole, have done more than the banks in other countries ordinarily do. In most other countries there is something other than banks of the type we have here, which provide money for industrial purposes. But, again, that whole matter was examined by the Banking Commission, and they recommended as a temporary expedient, and to get over certain temporary difficulties, that we should cease to operate the Trade Loans Guarantee Act, that it never should operate again once the commitments we had were cleared up, but that we should finance the Industrial Trust Corporation and that we should guarantee their shares. In a sense that is what has been done, to some extent, recently, and that course can be pursued when it seems that the Industrial Trust Corporation wants help in that way.
The Deputy criticises me for not holding firmly to my 1924 attitude towards the banks, when I took the attitude, that Irish industrialists hold strongly, that Irish banks could and should do more, or that there is a lot that they could and should do towards helping industry. I cannot hold to my attitude in 1924 in face of the facts presented since. A tremendous number of applications came to the office and eventually to me. I could trace the history of these in relation to banks. I formed a very sound appreciation of the attitude of banks towards propositions put before them. I wonder would Deputies be amazed to hear that one of the reasons why certain banking institutions in this country are not in as healthy a position as the others, or as they might be, is that they lent money too freely to bad concerns.
To industry?
To industrial concerns, most decidedly.
Productive industry?
Yes. I cannot hold to the attitude I had without having any great evidence, acting merely on certain suspicion, when evidence has accumulated in the meantime. It may be that I have got one side of the case presented to me, and that I have not seen enough of the other side to form a proper judgment; but I think that, owing to the particular Department for which I am concerned, it is only natural to expect that I do get an opportunity of seeing both sides of the case. I would say deliberately, in agreement more or less with what is implied in the Banking Commission's Report, that there is no fault to be found with the banks, constituted as they are, for the action they have taken with regard to productive manufacturing concerns in this country.
I am told by the Deputy—and this is a frequent phrase used by him— that the Department should take up an active rather than a passive part in all this; that occasionally there may be a man with a good idea, and that he is only helped after he has overcome tremendous obstacles. I wonder what are the obstacles referred to? In the context of the Deputy's speech that phrase occurred after he had been speaking of the Trade Loans Act. I wonder has it any reference to that Act? Is it considered, for instance, to be an obstacle in an applicant's way, or is it considered to be helpful to him, to say: "You have not provided according to our best estimate sufficient working capital for that concern. If you start you will be only able to operate for a certain period, and after that period you will not have sufficient stock or sales to keep money circulating back to you and you will go on the rocks." Is that an obstacle or is it a help? Similarly, is it an obstacle or is it a help to say to a man who comes with a proposition for the building of a factory in this country: "You have no idea of building conditions in this country; you have set down a certain sum for a particular type of building; we think that ought to be increased by 70 per cent., but we do not ask you to take our opinion. We ask you to get statistics, to take figures which we will give you as to wage conditions in the building trade and as to the price of material, and make up your own mind whether or not the amount set down is sufficient." In the end they have always to remember that we have the say as to whether or not there is enough, and we ask them to take our figures and consider them, and, generally speaking, after that type of objection is raised, we find an amendment on the lines suggested. I do not know what are the obstacles put in applicants' way. There have been many queries as to whether applications came within the scope of the Acts. That is necessitated by the fact that the transfer of the moneys eventually has to come under the review of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and there has to be legal advice taken. Outside anything that is done on the question of getting an applicant to realise that an application in a particular form is not satisfactory, and trying to get it put into a better shape, there has finally to be the judgment of the Advisory Committee, composed mainly of business men, as to whether or not the application, in its final and perfect shape, represents a good business proposition. I do not know of any complaint. I should like to hear of a complaint made in a particular case of what are called obstacles thrown in the way of an applicant, so that we could examine what they were and find out if they were the type of thing which I suggest— pointing out that there is not sufficient working capital, or a query to find out where the sales were going to be and what the marketing organisation was to be like. Although sometimes there may be a ready market, the whole thing may depend upon the fact that the product has to be sold in an area which is under the operation of a ring, that the ring has to be broken, and is not likely to be broken by a small manufacturer starting here.
As to transport, the Deputy gave a lot of figures and details with which I am not concerned at present, except one thing. The Deputy did say that one would expect that management and supervising expenditure would be cut down much more than maintenance or repairs. I do not think that remark could be made if the Deputy appreciated the situation that the Great Southern Railways as now constituted walked into. A number of unamalgamated concerns operated previously on their own, each having very big provision made in the way of extra locomotives and rolling stock generally, and provision made upon a big scale with regard to the maintenance of track generally. It was therefore quite ordinary, I think, under the amalgamated circumstances to look for a very big reduction on the maintenance and repair side. I am taking that to include the rolling stock, because I think it does. On the question of the reduction of management and supervisory expenses I had that point raised in an acute form, and had figures queried, and I do not think there is anything to be cavilled at in the way in which expenditure has been reduced by the Great Southern Railways Company between the different sides of their work.
The question was raised of the reduction operating between the higher grades of employees and the lower grades. I find that the reduction is between twenty-five and twenty-eight amongst the higher grade officials, amounting to about ten per cent., and on the lower grade the reduction is sixteen per cent. When one considers the relative numbers in comparison, the difference in the percentage is not so great. Particularly again one must remember the Great Southern Railways Company took over the concern, and took over the employees of six or seven previously dissociated concerns, and they had to make changes in their staff. If the Deputy raised the point—and I suppose it was meant to be raised—that there was too much money being spent on management, that is a case that I have always held should be made to the directors of the railway by the shareholders. We have tried to regulate the matter so far as there can be regulation on one side. Short of taking over the railways, we have no say in regard to what moneys are spent on the management side. I do say that if expenditure on the management side upon review showed itself to be extravagant or to be grossly unfair in relation to the expenses elsewhere, then there would be a case for inquiring into that, possibly with the threat if inquiry brought out facts substantiating that there was gross extravagance that the management would be reduced and that there would be a facing up to the situation. But no such gross mismanagement has yet been shown.
I am trying to get to the principle of Deputy Lemass's speech on transport. At one time I though a phrase of his meant distinctly that the Deputy was definitely for the railways and against the road vehicles. I caught the phrase from him that road traffic ought to be regulated so as to feed into the railways. The sentence that followed seemed to me to indicate that he was arguing that that was the only road transport that should be allowed. That would be definitely putting the railway system in the main position, only allowing road vehicles to operate in so far as they feed the railways. Later on he said that the Executive Council were engaged in a ramp to drive buses off the roads. That seemed to me to be swinging round to the idea that buses were not being fairly treated. Later on I gathered from him that if his Transport Board was set up, the road vehicles would be given eighteen months' notice; they would be told that after eighteen months no bus services would be allowed except what would be controlled by the Transport Board. I did not gather that compensation would not be paid to buses which survived after the eighteen months. I wonder what would be the attitude of bus proprietors were they put up against a proposition of this sort; would they be content to suffer under the ramp which the Executive Council is engaged in to drive them off the roads, or would they accept the simple statement that after eighteen months they would not be allowed on the roads, Which will they consider the greater ramp? Anyway, where is the ramp?
The Deputy says that there are no data in the possession of Ministers on which to base an equitable taxation of motor vehicles. That fell for consideration elsewhere. I indicated twice when speaking on Estimates, and I hinted at it to-day, that there were certain data. Has this matter really been given fair consideration? Is it fair to deal with the matter in this way, to say that the roads in 1914 were not subjected to much wear and tear from the point of view of transport, that the roads in 1914 were good enough for the transport of that period, but that the outlook now as compared with 1914 has completely altered; that there is an entirely new system of transport with which the roads of 1914 could never deal, and that in order to cope with that traffic the roads must be reconstructed? Is it unreasonable to expect that the amount contributed to the upkeep of roads now should be increased in proportion to the extra charges demanded on all commodities as compared with 1914? The reconstruction and maintenance of roads nowadays is naturally more costly because of the higher cost of labour and materials. The extra cost is due to the damage caused by motor vehicles on the highways and the construction of roads so as to make them fit for motor vehicles. Considering all that, is it not a fair conclusion to draw that motors ought to pay all the extra expenditure necessitated over the 1914 figure? I make a distinction in regard to the 1914 figure because it is largely upon that figure that various computations were made with reference to the increased cost of living and in that respect it is expected that the contribution towards the maintenance of roads on the part of the rate-payers should be increased in proportion. I think on the whole there are sufficient data on which to form definite opinions.
The Deputy pointed out that it would be necessary to distinguish between the motor vehicles causing most damage to the roads and those vehicles which do least damage and it should be possible, he said, to make the vehicle causing the most damage pay most. So far from there being a ramp to put buses off the roads, there is a ramp to prevent buses tearing up the roads. I am not satisfied that the taxation on buses is yet properly regulated. I think they still do more damage than they pay for. I think that the amount they contribute through motor taxation to the Road Fund is not enough to meet the cost of making the better roads that have to be provided in order to enable motor transport to utilise them safely.
The Deputy has outlined a plan for dealing with the railway situation. It is something that may not be described as nationalisation although it is something very near it. The Deputy made a statement about purchase and he pointed out that there would be some tribunal to assess the cash value of stock and to pay railway bonds. The Oireachtas would provide a central fund to pay these people, and there would be a National Transport Board on which there would be represented only railway users and the Government. The railway employees were not mentioned as having a place on it. It was vaguely said that the Government would have certain powers to prevent undue burdens being put on the State. What are the undue burdens anticipated? It is on that very point that the whole plan would work out to be good or else completely inadequate. Under certain circumstances the plan suggested might mean 16,000 extra civil servants. It would mean that that number would be added to the present list. I do not imagine the Deputy had in mind making the railway employees civil servants in the ordinary sense of the term. With a Transport Board on the lines indicated by the Deputy and with his other suggestions carried into effect, how these people could be prevented from assimilating themselves into the Civil Service, I cannot see. Over and above that, there is to be a railway tribunal to establish fares and such things as routes, because passenger services and road services will come in afterwards. What is the difference between that and nationalisation? Of course, we would have to have all the details worked out before we could arrive at any opinion on the matter suggested. In considering the plan, has the Deputy studied what has happened in regard to railways in Belgium and Germany within the last ten years? I do not think that an investigation of what has happened there would lead anybody to believe other than that it is approaching pretty closely towards what is called nationalisation. We would have to see this plan in detail before it could be properly criticised.
Deputy Byrne went very much on a phrase which I assumed was to be meant as a quotation from myself. The phrase was that the Trade Loans (Guarantee) Act has failed. It has not failed. I never said it failed and I will not admit it has failed. I said it had exhausted its utility. I said it cannot be said to have failed; it is rather that the people for whom it is provided have failed to make adequate use of it, seeing that for over four years £1,000,000 has been at their disposal and only £400,000 has been guaranteed. On long term credits I would again fall back on what the Banking Commission said, and simply indicate that action on the lines of what the Banking Commission recommended will be taken if and when the circumstances show it is warranted.
Deputy Anthony raised a very serious point with regard to two cases of accidents where a factory inspector could not be found. I happen to know of the two cases, because they were brought to my notice, and an investigation was made. In each case it has been established that the factory inspector was absent from his office, but he was on other inspections. If it is suggested to me again that there should be more factory inspection—if the House thinks that, and if the incidents that have occurred were common incidents, then one would have to move towards getting more inspectors. With the limited number of inspectors at my disposal I cannot promise to have the odd six thousand workers who come under the Factory Acts in the Saorstát supervised as well as the same type of people are supervised in England, where there is a much bigger staff to deal with the matter. If factory inspectors are appointed in greater numbers, Deputies must remember that it is going to add to the number of officials and to the number of salaries; it is going to add to the number of officials earning salaries and performing what Deputies in this House invariably like to describe as routine duties, the insinuation being that the routine duties bring no benefit to anybody. We aim at approximating our standards and number of inspections to the conditions existing in regard to factories in Great Britain, but with the staff that I have, and until better organisation is worked out, it will not be possible to do it. Even at the moment it is not possible to have inspections on the same lines or as often. The matter of unemployment and census returns had better be left over until the other Vote comes before us.
On the third point raised by Deputy Anthony as to international labour conventions dealing with legislation with regard to the safeguarding of life and limb, I think a convention on those lines is being discussed at the moment. I know that when we began to survey our existing legislation on that particular line we found it was very much in advance of a great number of countries that come under the international labour organisation. I know that the convention is being discussed. There were certain points of great difficulty raised, and these are being elucidated. When we get a convention in a clearer form it will then be seen how far we will have to introduce legislation in order to become adherents. On the whole, we are very definitely in advance of the majority of countries on the question of accidents and the safeguarding of life and limb.
I earnestly hope that any industry that may ever come to this country will never get into the hands of Deputy Carney. He supplied us with a list of industries to-night— and it is really amazing how he supplied such a list—which have already been investigated here, and which were found to be of very little use. He dealt with such things as calcium carbide, cyanamide, steatite, cement and industrial alcohol. A select committee sat for three weary years waiting to find out people who could bring forward anything that offered even a chance of experimentation in the matter of industrial alcohol. In the end we had to drop a £1,000 offer. Seven or eight years ago there was an investigation made of the gypsum deposits in Monaghan. If anyone wants information as to the gypsum deposits they can have that information quite readily; but as to getting that material out and marketing it in the place where it really should be marketed, that is an entirely different proposition. It is a proposition which we cannot get any firm to take up commercially. As regards steatite, I confess I know very little about it. If Deputy Carney's phrase is correct, the material can easily be had here, and it can be worked so cheaply here that we would be able to save freight from America. If that is so, I am surprised the people are so lacking in enterprise as not to have started the industry.
Of all the things that have ever been investigated and brought before the notice of home industrialists and foreign industrialists, cement would, I think, take the biggest place in my Department. We can tell Deputy Carney, or any other Deputy who is anxious to know, where there are cement deposits. There is no necessity to have a geological survey with regard to the deposits required for cement because we know there are deposits and we know where they are. It is mainly a question of working the deposits and getting a product which will compete at a rate even approaching a competitive rate with the cement that is brought into the country. Cyanimide and calcium carbide are matters that have also been investigated and on which I can supply information in a very definite way to anybody who inquires. The development of calcium carbide depends upon what I said previously. It is a matter of forcing one's way into an expert business, because it is really an expert business. It is a matter of forcing one's way into combinations governed by the operation of one or two rings inside which one could only break if there was something in the way of very easy development here. I do not think the industry could be developed here at a rate sufficiently cheap to ensure success.
I asked the Deputy about the building of houses with Portland stone and Mountcharles stone, and he wanted to know if there is any building under Government control or financed by Government money in which Mountcharles stone was used. I would like details with regard to the price of Mountcharles stone and its utility. The Deputy developed a strain of rhetoric at that point, and he left me without the question being answered, and the same happened with regard to granite paving sets.
Clare people and their compensation do not afford me any more trouble than people in other parts of the country with regard to the compensation they are getting under the Shannon scheme. I would like to deny definitely and clearly the statement of Deputy Hogan that the Land Commission as a whole value land at a higher figure than my valuer. I would like even to deny it with regard to Clare land in particular. As a matter of fact, I am conscious that on one part of the Shannon scheme I am being rooked steadily with regard to the payment of compensation for the acquisition of land. The only difference between the rest of the country and Clare is that Clare wants to rook me at an exorbitant rate and I will not stand it. The Clare people have the same type of agreement as the people in the neighbourhood. We have ways of investigating and finding out the value of land. We have auction returns, and there is the fact that those sales were voluntary sales while in this case it is compulsory acquisition. We have the Land Commission way of estimating values, and we have our own valuer's estimate, and his estimate is being accepted. By far the great majority of people who have had land taken from them have not raised objection; but there are certain recalcitrant people from Clare and, as long as they adopt that attitude, we say that there is no way of dealing with such people by bargaining.
If they want arbitration there is a way, I think, they can get it. I do not know what arbitration would give them. I do not know what awards they will get eventually, and I do not know that they will get an award any more speedily by arbitration than by a process of agreement. I know that for every case there will have to be a strictly legal form, which would be different to the rough-and-ready form of agreement.
Does the Minister suggest that arbitration would take three years?
Most of my agreements have taken a very short time as regards arriving at a calculation of the sum to be paid for the lands. There is a certain amount of time spent in the paying over, and that arises because of the difficulty that is so often encountered in this country where people in possession of land are unable to give proper title. The question of kelp was raised. As far as I remember, the case to which Deputy Kilroy, and previously Deputy Clery, referred depends upon what is the exact title of the landlord originally to rights with regard to seaweed, and what is the precise form of the order vesting the land where the land has been vested in certain new proprietors. That is a matter that more definitely falls to the decision of the Land Commission than it does to me. I have been in touch with the Land Commission people trying to get them to send an inspector down to work out that particular problem. So far I have failed to get an answer from them, the case made for the delay being that they have so much work of another type in hands that it is only when an inspector of a special type is sent to that area that the problem will be decided. It is really a legal question. On that I can only get some sort of an ex-parte expression of opinion from the Land Commission officials. That, however, will not end the problem, if a particular owner tries to prevent certain people crossing his land in order to get seaweed. As to the amount that will have to be handed over to him, that, of course, would have to be litigated on.
The question of clay likely to be useful for potteries, was referred to. The particular area to which Deputy Kilroy referred was the area mainly for which I asked for a vote last year of £1,000 for the purpose of getting certain boring operations carried out. Boring operations have, in fact, been carried out, and as a result we have a good idea of what is to be found there, but that does not, as some Deputies think, end the problem. The question then arises of trying to get someone to form a company to develop an area, and get the deposits marketed in a commercial way. The area to which the Deputy referred was investigated two or three years ago by an inquirer from the coast of Brittany. He went down there and carried his investigations to a certain point, after which the Department took it up. More recently there looked to be a chance of development which has not come about yet.
Deputy Cassidy had a lot to complain about in connection with the trade boards. He complained that a chairman from outside the 26 County area is operating on a number of boards. I do not know how many. It may be four. We took the trade boards over as originally established. That particular gentleman is a man of considerable ability and skill in these matters. His judgment has hitherto been found to be very accurate, fair and impartial on these trade boards. I have never had any question raised as to his partiality, or to his incapacity in conducting these boards. I cannot even understand the Deputy raising that point, but if he wishes I will discuss it with him. The Deputy seems to think that it is a peculiar situation to have a Six County chairman over a Twenty-Six County board. I have explained how the situation arose, and I do not propose to disturb a chairman who is acting in a very good way. The Deputy wanted to know what steps were taken to have trade board minima rates paid. The Deputy went on to describe the steps that had been taken, the implication being that those employed in the shirt-making industry in Donegal were not being paid the trade board minima rates; that after reports had been made inspectors were sent down, and that the proper wages are now enforced. The other complaint was why were the officials told to keep secret information with regard to certain firms, or was it of their own volition? I want to say that there is a definite obligation on officials in my Department, or rather there is a Departmental rule, not to convey the results of their investigations with regard to one firm to any other firm. We do not want rivals in the same industry in a particular area to know all the ins and outs of the business of another firm.
The question that I asked was why were these names kept secret, even from the members of the trade board.
There is no obligation to give the information to them, nor do I see that any useful purpose could be served by giving it. As to the setting up of a district committee under the Trade Board Acts, I did that at the instigation, not of some person who has affected the Deputy's imagination, but at the instigation of certain clergymen in Donegal, who represented to me, and I believe there is a certain amount of accuracy in it, that if the trade board rates were enforced as the minima rates at the point laid down originally, it would mean that there would be no business for out-workers in the County Donegal. Their attitude was that if the work for these out-workers disappeared there it would be worse than a reduction of 5/- in the case of old age pensioners from the point of view of the money brought into particular areas. There is no question of sweating and no question of trying to protect sweaters. There is the question of trying to get the district committees to look into the conditions that operate in country areas as compared with the towns, and a determination on that will be attended to in the ordinary way.
As to the request made that I should expedite the report in connection with the Killybegs Harbour, I cannot give any promise on that. The report will deal with a number of other harbours, and I can assure the House that the report of the tribunal is being prepared as fast as it can be, and there is no avoidable delay. Deputy Murphy referred to the carrying out of certain small marine works in the country. I do not think that falls to my Department. As to the possibility of exploiting the barytes in the Deputy's area, that has been taken up many times. We have been in communication with the proprietors and with the people interested, without any great success.
I cannot answer all Deputy Briscoe's questions, but I would like to say this to him in summary, that I cannot take, irrespective of people's rights, property from them. If I take property from them I must pay compensation. The way in which people will achieve compensation is laid down in either the 1925 or 1927 Act. I would ask the Deputy to bear this in mind, that most of the powers I have got with regard to the Shannon scheme arise under the 1925 Act. I only, incidentally, get powers under the 1927 Act. That Act empowers the Electricity Supply Board to do certain things. On the matter of joining these reports together, I do not, even on the Deputy's reading of the section, believe that I have done anything illegal in asking them to present at the same time reports for 1927-28 and 1928-29. I was horrified to learn that someone had pulled the Deputy's leg to the extent suggested in the last question, which had something to say about the payment of £600,000 into a fund, which apparently I had agreed to do, and that the nonperformance of that agreement was preventing certain arrangements regarding unemployment. That is a fairy tale. On the question of accidents I dealt with that to-day. I think that proper provision has been made with regard to these accidents. There have been two deaths already, and in one case the coroner's comment was that this young man had no business to be climbing the pole, on which there was an indication of the danger incurred by doing so. That is the case in which the Deputy was trying to make out that a child was involved. As far as I recollect, the phrase used by the coroner was "this young man."
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Broderick, Henry.
- Buckley, Daniel.
- Carney, Frank.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cassidy, Archie J.
- Clancy, Patrick.
- Clery, Michael.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamon.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Fahy, Frank.
- Flinn, Hugo.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- French, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick J.
- Goulding, John.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kent, William R.
- Kerlin, Frank.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Maguire, Ben.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
- Smith, Patrick.
- Tubridy, John.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Aird, William P.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Carey, Edmund.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Marget.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Connolly, Michael P.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Crowley, James.
- Daly, John.
- Davis, Michael.
- De Loughrey, Peter.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Dolan, James N.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Dwyer, James.
- Egan, Barry M.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
- O'Reilly, John J.
- O'Sullivan, Gearoid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis J.
- Hassett, John J.
- Heffernan, Michael R.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Henry, Mark.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Jordan, Michael.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Law, Hugh Alexander.
- Lynch, Finian.
- Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
- McDonogh, Martin.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Murphy, James E.
- Myles, James Sproule.
- O'Connor, Bartholomew.
- Reynolds, Patrick.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
- Thrift, William Edward.
- White, John.
- White, Vincent Joseph.
- Wolfe, George.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.