Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 29 Apr 1936

Vol. 61 No. 13

Estimates for Public Services. - Vote 57—Industry and Commerce (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the motion: "That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."—(Risteárd Ua Maolchatha.)

General Mulcahy

I was directing my remarks last night particularly to this fact: that in this important question of industry, its development, and the development of the foundations upon which our present industries and our future industrial development must rest, public confidence is being definitely undermined and, in so far as the public are assisting in the development of Irish industry, they are being misled by the general line of deception practised by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Government. The Minister intervened in an interruptive kind of way, with considerable energy and in considerable volume, last night, simply to carry out the particular policy of deception about which I was complaining. In the matter of prices—I was dealing with the question of cement—I said that the Minister had informed this House that the import price of cement had gone up by 6/- within the last few months, and that it was for that reason that purchasers of cement in this country were being charged 6/- more per ton for cement than in November. The Minister said that he made no such statement and then developed it with the statement of what he tells us are the facts; and these are that the foreign importers of cement increased their price by 2/- a ton, but insisted that the sellers of cement in this country would sell cement at an additional profit to themselves of 4/-. Now, I want to stigmatise the Minister's intervention in that particular way, and his statement, as a further example of the deception that is being practised on the people of this country. The Minister made his original statement in regard to this matter on the 21st April, 1936 (column 1143, Vol. 61 of the Official Debates). The extract from the Parliamentary Reports reads as follows:

"Mr. Lemass: There has been an increase in the price of cement. The price of Continental cement has increased by 6/-, but that has got nothing to do with the institution of this licensing system.

"General Mulcahy: Why was that increase charged before it touched the ports?"

Now, that was not exactly the question that was in my mind. The question in my mind was whether that increase was charged before it touched the ports. Did the Minister answer that? No. The Minister continues as follows:

"I pointed out, when the Cement Act was under discussion, that this was the only free market for cement in Europe—the only country in which the various cement-producing countries were in competition, and that, in consequence of that, the price of cement was lower here than it was in any other country in Europe."

Subsequently (Col. 1147) I asked:

"Did the Controller of Prices give the reason why imports of non-British went up by 6/- a ton?"

I asked that question after the Minister had indicated that the price of cement was under review carefully by the Controller of Prices. The Minister's answer was as follows:—

"The reason was that cement would be supplied only on that understanding. The three producing countries from which we were getting cement. Denmark, Germany and Belgium, increased prices by 6/- a ton and supplied importers only on condition that it was sold at the price fixed by them."

The Minister, last night, denied that he had stated that the reason why cement prices went up by 6/- a ton was that the foreign suppliers of cement increased the price of their cement by 6/- a ton. Last night, he said that he never said such a thing— that the import price of cement had gone up by 2/- a ton and that foreign suppliers of cement had insisted upon those handling cement in this country putting another 4/- to that 2/- and pocketing the 4/- themselves. That statement was made on the 21st of April, and when we turn to the figures for the import of cement just supplied in respect of March, 1935, we find that the average price of cement imported in March, 1935, was 26/10 a ton. The average import price of cement for the whole year had been 26/4, but the average import price for cement in March, 1936, was 27/5—an increase, as against March, 1935, of 7d., and an increase against the average price for the whole of 1935 of 1/1; and yet the Minister tells us that 2/- was the increase. He goes back on his statement made the other day, which he now denies, and suggests that the import price of cement has gone up by 2/- and that foreign suppliers dictated to this country that they would not supply cement at, let us say, the increase of 2/- that the Minister mentioned, except the importers here pocketed an additional 4/-. Does the Minister resist the charge that he is carrying out a general policy of deception as to what is happening here, and that he is refraining from carrying out such examinations as are in his power to carry out through the Controller of Prices, simply because he does not want to disturb the forces that are at work increasing the prices of commodities to the public generally?

When we were discussing super-phosphates, the Minister said that the reason for the fall in the production of super-phosphates here was that there was an increase in the import of super-phosphates. The Minister subsequently denied that he said such a thing.

But when dealing with super-phosphates on the 21st April, 1936, as reported in column 1108 of the Official Reports, the Minister said:—

"In addition, the actual amount of fertilisers produced by Saorstát factories in 1933 proves nothing in relation to the consumption of fertilisers in 1933, because fertilisers were being imported in increasing quantities."

The fact was that the imports of super-phosphates had declined in the particular period that the Minister was speaking of from about 30,000 to 13,000 tons. The Minister, in dealing with the further assisting of the superphosphate industry in this country, told us that the reason why production in this country had gone down was because the imports had gone up, at a time when his own statistics showed that the imports had been reduced by half. The Minister also resists the interpretation of his statement with regard to the Spanish market for eggs —that it was more important than the British market and offered greater opportunities.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is not quoting that.

General Mulcahy

I quoted it last night.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy did not.

General Mulcahy

I quoted it last night and I shall quote it again. I quoted it in support of the Minister's contention that he did not explicitly say that. I said it was implied in his statement, but I said that, as far as his statement was concerned, he did not explicitly say it. However, the Minister wishes to have it read again. This is what he said on 20th February, 1936, as reported in column 999 of the Official Reports:—

"The second point is that the egg market in Spain is a valuable market which shows very great possibilities for the future."

On the 13th February, 1936, as reported in column 667 of the Official Reports, the Minister said:—

"This agreement with Spain opened up for the egg producers of this country a new and valuable market, a market which in the present circumstances is more valuable than the British market, a market that is likely to be permanent and offers considerable opportunities for expansion."

Although the Minister said that the market for eggs in Spain was, in present circumstances, more valuable than the British market, I went to the extent of acquitting him of explicitly stating that the Spanish market was more valuable than the British. But the Minister and his Party, through their newspaper publications dealing with the matter, carry out more explicitly the finally implied suggestion of the Minister, a suggestion intended to persuade the farming community that the Minister was making agreements that were going to provide them, even in time, with markets that would make up for the catastrophe suffered by the farmers in the sale of eggs, because the Government organ on the 13th February, following the Minister's statement and dealing with the discussion which took place on the matter, expressly states:—

"It could not be questioned that the Spanish agreement is one of distinct advantage to the Free State. It provides a new outlet for the egg trade which is more valuable than the British market, and not only that, but it has thrown up a market which promises to be lasting, not like the British which is a declining market because of the policy which confines it as far as possible to British products."

The Minister assisted at a conference in Ottawa for the purpose of carrying out the policy outlined in the last sentence there, and the things that are there mentioned as British products include Irish eggs. The Minister considered that we should have a grievance against somebody, other than himself and the Ministers who weat with him, for the low price that we got last year for our eggs in the British market as compared with Australian eggs. We got 5/11 per great hundred and the Australians got something like 11/4. On the statement of the Minister in this House, the Minister's Party boost the fact that we have established a very valuable market for eggs, a market which is infinitesimal in quantity compared with the market that we have elsewhere at the moment, and even more infinitesimal than the market that we lost, measuring that market by the fall in the income of Irish farmers from it, and also a market with this outstanding characteristic, that we get less in that market for our eggs than the Chinese get in the British market, although we have to send 1/7 or 1/8 after each particular quantity of our eggs there in order to get them into that market. We get 1/10 per great hundred less in the Spanish market for our eggs than the Chinese got in the British market for the whole of last year.

On these facts taken here and there I base my charge against the Minister, that he is carrying out a policy of nothing but deception. Irish industrialists and the Irish people cannot afford to be deceived at this stage of our industrial and national progress with regard to vital and fundamental things dealing with the proper utilisation of their resources and of the opportunities for developing those resources.

The Minister treated us yesterday to another litany of the new factories set up. I told him yesterday that we want a systematic statement of the classes of factories established, their general location, the number of persons employed in them, and the wages they are paid. The very fact that they have been established under the present type of circumstances makes it the more necessary that we should know from day to day what type of progress is taking place.

We discussed brushes the other day, and in this case, with a substantial tariff increased to 50 per cent. by the Minister, he had to announce that the brush industry was being hit by competition, a type of competition that he indicated in general terms, but not in terms that were capable of persuading the House. By passing a quota order here he surrounded the brush industry with a quota wall. The brush industry was an industry that was helped by a tariff under the previous régime, and did develop substantially under the previous régime. In 1924, when a tariff was first given for the assistance of the brush industry, the full-time equivalent of the employment given in the middle of that year was 120 persons. By the end of 1931 it was increased to 351. That was part of a general scheme where, over 19 different industries, carefully thought-out tariffs were applied and in a set of industries where, before they got the benefit of a tariff, 8,148 persons were finding employment—that is, there was employment for the full-time equivalent of 8,148 persons—there had been by the 1st September, 1931, an increase in employment by 13,078 persons to 21,226.

Now, under that arrangement of assistance to industry, it was possible to get and to give every six months the increase in the number of persons employed in these industries. But we are waiting even now for information as to the number of persons employed in September, 1934, in some of the main branches of industry in the country, and it is an outstanding thing that we are left in this position when one considers the increase in the staff of the Department of Industry and Commerce, the increased expenditure in that connection, and the fact that the Minister wants to stir up enthusiasm for and to give confidence in the development of Irish industry. The very fact that the foundations upon which Irish industry must rest—that is, the earnings of our agriculturists—are being so largely destroyed, with a prospect of continuing thus, is all the more reason why we should know where we are going in this matter.

The Minister told us we have 22 boot industries established, and five more are to be established this year. The fact is that some of these industries are of the get-rich-quick type, indicated by the results we have recently seen in Kilkenny. A boot industry there, at a time when our people have less money than ever they had and are spending less money on some of the necessary articles of life, such as boots, shoes and clothing, is able to declare a profit of, I think, 50 per cent—is able to pay a 25 per cent. dividend to some of its shareholders and put 25 per cent. into reserve. Are the five new boot factories that are to be established going to do the same thing? All the circumstances of this country would dictate that people who have money and are able to come in here and reap these quick profits should do it; but it is going, at some later day, when the continuing loss of income of the farmers reduces more and more the capacity of our people to buy the necessaries of life, to leave some of these industries unable to carry on. It will not matter to the people who have put in their money and got 25 per cent. dividend paid for a few years running, but it will matter to the operatives who have been brought in there and trained, and who look forward to having a settled and continuous existence derived from work in that industry. It will matter to them that the people who have put in their capital have taken their capital out, have simply picked up their tents and walked away, leaving them with or without the machinery, but at any rate without the capacity in the country, even in improved conditions, to support the 27 separate boot industries.

The deception of the Minister is carried on even by the type of litany that he gave last night and by the statement that five new boot factories are going to be set up. Why does he deal with the boot industry and tell us the great developments that have taken place and that are going to take place, and not discuss the huge profits that have been shown to be made by some of those in the industries out of the unfortunate people whose income has been steadily reducing? Only to-day, dealing with the statistics that have been published in respect of trade for March, the Government organ again continues to carry on the particular type of deception I speak about. I do not know where it gets the information from, but this passage occurs:—

"In that case it might have discovered that in 1931 we imported food, drink and tobacco to the value of £17,371,169, and that in 1934, the latest year for which complete detailed figures are available, our imports of these commodities fell to £11,447,593, or very nearly £6,000,000. It would also have found that as between these two years the imports of bacon alone fell from £1,288,534 worth to £682 worth, and that the imports of wheaten flour fell from £1,662,402 to £281,408 worth. In short, the gap left by the fall of £6,000,000 was filled by our own producers, who were able to supply our requirements to the extent of that £6,000,000, and had consequently less to export by that amount."

There is a falling off in the importation of certain agricultural commodities to the extent of £6,000,000, and the Government policy is to tell us that that £6,000,000 becomes £6,000,000 additional income to the farmers of this country. In so far as everybody knows that industrial prosperity and industrial development must rest on the income of the farmers, it deludes people by a statement like that.

In March, 1932, a body known as the National Agricultural and Industrial Development Association published a series of advertisements indicating how much both the development of industry and of agriculture had been neglected in the past. In the Irish Press of March 5th, 1932, it is indicated:—“We import agricultural products to the value of £16,000,000, all of which could be produced at home,” and it provides figures. These figures were provided in March, 1932, at any rate a month after the total figures in respect of the various items of imports of agricultural produce had been published by the Department of Industry and Commerce.

An examination of these figures shows that they refer in detail to the year 1929. A further examination of these figures shows that the imports of live animals, food of animal origin sources, fruit and vegetables, etc., declined from £19,380,000 in 1929 to £13,940,000 in 1931, or, if we include sugar and similar imports, by £5,098,000 in those years. We are able to state what happened between 1931 and 1935. Between that period there is a further fall of £7,090,000. The figure of £5,098,000 referred to was the fall between 1931 and 1934, and by 1935 this had fallen by the additional figure which I have given already. Will the Minister say that while between the years 1930 and 1931 the imports had fallen by £5,098,000, or by £2,549,000 a year, the farmers in 1929 and 1930 had that additional income per year coming into their pockets under the previous Administration?

Mr. Lemass

Will the Deputy give the point of all this?

General Mulcahy

I am coming to that. I do not know how the Minister is going to add, let us say, beef, cattle, imported tomatoes, lettuce, eggs and a number of other things like that. I am giving the information in terms of the information in which he and his Party argue. I would like to hear the Minister say what are the quantities of increased production that represent the increase that has taken place first as a result of this £5,098,000 worth of produce that was imported between the years 1931 and 1934. The Minister will not say that the drop in the import of these articles between 1929 and 1931 of £5,098,000 put every penny of that into the farmers' pockets or into the pockets of the general purchasing community in the State. He pretends, or he presumes to argue, that the cutting down that has taken place in the import of these items since 1931 has, by his great management and work, brought every halfpenny of that into the farmers' pockets. But the Minister ought to give up, both here in the House and by his Party and Press in the country, making a systematic attempt to delude the people with regard to the present situation.

The outstanding thing, so far as the Department of Industry and Commerce is concerned—and that is the Department responsible for watching every detail that might injure industry in this country and prejudice its development—has to say to the people is to try to delude them as to what is happening in regard to general production and, therefore, as to the earning capacity of the people in the country.

I have indicated to the Minister, and I persist in indicating to him, that the fall in the consumption or purchase of boots is very great, because the people have not the money to pay for the boots they want.

Mr. Lemass

In what year?

General Mulcahy

There was a fall of £256,619 in 1933, and a fall of £378,637 in 1934, as against the year 1931.

Mr. Lemass

But an increase in the actual number.

General Mulcahy

Yes, if you count in the year 1933 the use of 120,000 dozen pairs of boots or shoes, whatever they were, imported at a price, which I have since verified, of 1/6 per pair. I said last night I was not standing on the figure of something like 7d. a pair. The actual price was 1/6 a pair.

Mr. Lemass

Why should not that be done?

General Mulcahy

People would only wear such if they could not buy better.

Mr. Lemass

But somebody did wear them.

General Mulcahy

In respect of 1934 the total consumption of boots and shoes was 20,000 dozen more, but among them we imported 80,000 dozen pairs of the import value of 1/6 a pair. That class of boot and shoe, in quantities represented, at any rate, by tens of thousands of dozens, was a class of boot and shoe never bought by the people before. The Minister has the necessary machinery for verifying whether the increase in the year 1934 of 20,000 dozen additional pairs of boots and shoes, with the 80,000 dozen included in our consumption, denotes a better and a cheaper shoe for our people.

We had Deputy Moore a short time ago enlightening us upon this matter. I challenged him to pluck up courage in his rambles through his own constituency, when addressing some of the farmers there to ask anyone listening to him who had got a new suit of clothes since Easter, 1935, to put up his hand, and, also, to ask those who had got a new suit since Easter, 1934, to put up their hands, and the Deputy's answer was that he had not got a new suit himself since Easter, 1935. I have put before the Minister some figures.

Mr. Lemass

Not yet.

General Mulcahy

I am going to give them to him now. I tell him that the purchasing capacity of our people in 1933 is reflected in the fact that they spent £747,192 less on general clothing, exclusive of hosiery; and £294,000 less on hosiery. When we look at 1934, we find that the people spent £551,311 less on their clothing exclusive of hosiery, and we have not got the hosiery figures yet. In the same year we see a continuous fall in jams, confectionery and other sugar products and a steady fall in the consumption of soap and candles. There is a rise in the consumption of furniture and goodness knows that is not to be wondered at considering all the new houses built so plentifully throughout the country and the money spent upon them.

Mr. Lemass

May not that explain the fall in candles also?

General Mulcahy

What has the Minister to say about soap?

Mr. Lemass

We are making better soap. It lasts longer.

General Mulcahy

The Minister has an opportunity of finding out.

Mr. Lemass

I presume that the Deputy himself has had some experience.

General Mulcahy

I have met people who had. The Minister, if he has any interest in Irish industry, will not so lightly and glibly deal with the signs of the times that are sticking out from his own figures. We are not yet in a position to see what the increased wages pool in respect of 1934 amounts to. The Minister has recently provided us with amended figures in respect of 1933. Some time in the middle of 1935, we got particulars as to the number of persons employed and the total wages paid in those 26 industries which are dealt with in the census of production for last year. Those figures showed an increase of less than 2 per cent. in a wages pool of £4,250,000. The preliminary figures have been amended and that increase becomes about 3 per cent. The figures with which the Minister now provides us would indicate that, in 1934, there was evidence of an increase of 10 per cent. in the wages pool for 1931. He has given us information in regard to 21 industries and, in respect of those, there is an increase in the wages pool of £397,000. However, the industries dealt with in the census of production, though the largest and most important in the country, outside agriculture, cover only a comparatively small fraction of the general wages pool for industries and services throughout the country. According to the original census of production, the general wages pool, including services, amounted to about £11,000,000. The Minister is only covering, in his figures, about £4,000,000 of that sum. Take the case of the people who have been put out of business by the Minister's orange quota. The income lost by the people who were put out of the fruit business as a result of fixing upon one monopolistic channel for the import of oranges would take a substantial slice out of the increase in wages indicated by the 1934 figures, as published up to the present. The minimum estimable loss in wages of agricultural labourers since 1931 has been put at about £800,000.

Mr. Lemass

By whom?

General Mulcahy

By me, for one, and I invite the Minister to examine the figure and controvert it. He will not examine it because, if he examined it systematically, it would go above the £1,000,000 mark. That figure of £800,000 is based upon the figures provided by the Minister's Department. The Minister has had evidence, not only from Deputies in different parts of the House but from public bodies throughout the country, that the actual wages paid to agricultural labourers is in many cases one-third the figure he fixes. With a view to informing himself and better informing us about conditions in the country, I invite the Minister to examine the figures he has given us with regard to the fall in wages of agricultural labourers and to give us, with the assistance of the machinery at his disposal, an official estimate. The Minister told us yesterday that what is wrong with the turf figures for 1934 is that the Civic Guards do not collect them very carefully.

Mr. Lemass

I did not say that.

General Mulcahy

At all events, the Minister conveyed the impression that he would not stand over the figure as to the reduction in the amount of turf cut in 1934 as against the amount cut in 1931.

Mr. Lemass

I said that there has been a continuous reduction in the production of turf since 1921.

General Mulcahy

The Minister conveyed the impression that he was disparaging the manner in which the figures were collected.

Mr. Lemass

I said the figures should not be taken as representing the actual production in any one year but that they could be used for the purpose of pointing out the trend by comparing the figures of one year with those of another.

General Mulcahy

I am merely taking the trend of agricultural wages and I am dealing with the difference in the figures quoted by the Minister for 1931 and 1935 as indicating the fall. Local bodies, individual Deputies and people throughout the country disagree emphatically with the figures quoted by the Minister and consider that the fall in agricultural labourers' wages has been very much greater than is represented.

Mr. Lemass

Did they disagree with the figures for last year only or did they disagree with the figures for 1931 as well?

General Mulcahy

They disagreed with the amount of the fall as between 1931 and 1935, as indicated by the Minister's figures. The Minister should bear in mind that the rise indicated in the wage-pool in respect of these industries in 1934 is less than half the fall in the wages paid to agricultural labourers. It is remarkable that, for every £4 approximate increase in the wages pool, there has been an increase of £1 in salaries, wages and allowances in the Minister's Department, if you include the Industrial Research Board and the Turf Development Board. It is, therefore, time that the Minister got down more critically and more honestly to an examination of the general position in the country with a view to seeing that his responsibility for fostering and securing sound development of Irish industry is more effectively carried out.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would the Deputy formally move to refer back the Estimate?

General Mulcahy

I did so last night, Sir.

Mrs. Concannon

I intervene for a moment in this debate to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce to give sympathetic consideration—and, as we all hope, a favourable reply—to the petitions which have already reached him from the most influential and representative bodies in Galway with regard to the threatened taking over by the Great Southern Railways Company of the Galway Omnibus Company's service. The petitions, emanating from such authoritative sources as the Galway Urban Council, Galway Chamber of Commerce, Galway Harbour Commissioners, as well as one signed extensively by local residents served by the Galway Omnibus Company, will have, by their reasoned statement of a strong case, brought home to the Minister the fact that if he yields to Galway's wishes in this instance he will not be sinning against any of the principles underlying the Transport Act which he piloted so ably through this House some three years ago. That Act was designed, as I understood from the discussions in this House, mainly to do two necessary things: to save the railways from imminent destruction and to cut out of our general transport system wasteful and ruinous competition. If the Minister gives a favourable answer to our petition which has all Galway, not only to the last man but to the last woman, behind it, he will do nothing to defeat his own objectives as envisaged in the Act. This has been made plain by the petitions, but perhaps the House will understand the position better if I say something of the circumstances in which the Galway Omnibus Company came into existence. If that company are given a renewal of their licence the Railway Company will suffer no harm, and no one will be the worse, because the omnibus services are strictly defined by local needs and limited by a local boundary.

Shortly after the outbreak of the Great War, the old horse-tramway which linked Galway with Salthill went out of existence, and for a considerable time Salthill was left without any convenience in the way of cheap transport. We had nothing but outside cars, and Salthill suffered economic losses. To remedy that state of affairs a few public-spirited men and women in Galway and Salthill came together and formed a company to provide a convenient bus service. This company, from the beginning and up to the present day, never had as its first aim the securing of dividends for the shareholders, but the convenience of local residents. It was one of the early examples of self-help of which Mr. Tom Kenny cited many striking instances to the President on the occasion when he presented with characteristic competence and completeness Galway's case for an airport and Transatlantic terminal, and from the day Galway Omnibus Company was started Galway has never looked back. The company was free to provide a service which would take the most fatherly thought for the convenience of the users. Galway is a homely city, and everybody knows everybody else, and so the company knows when we like to have a bus to take us to Mass, to do our shopping, what time we want to go golfing or to the pictures, what time we wish to catch a train, to visit the hospitals or to send children to school.

Mr. T. Kelly

And the time of the next race.

Mrs. Concannon

The company gives us exactly the service we want. We are very proud of the Galway Omnibus Company as its service makes life in Galway so delightful that if I were to tell Deputies all about it there would be a rush to Galway next summer. I should like that to happen, as we would then show them the finest body of drivers and conductors in the Twenty-Six Counties. I am not speaking on my own authority on this. One of the biggest men in the motor world recently told me that he heard Galway praised at the last Motor Show for having the best maintained service in the Saorstát. That is largely due to the personality of the drivers and conductors. The drivers are men of great skill and of high character, and the conductors men of the greatest courtesy and efficiency. During the rush days of the summer season you will see them leading blind persons, people suffering from rheumatism, or women with babies across the roads at dangerous crossings. They are good tempered, and their help never fails. The people are under an obligation to them for that courtesy and kindliness which make Galway so delightful. For my own part I am under a deep debt of gratitude to the Galway Omnibus Company and I take this opportunity of acknowledging it. There is a bus service to bring me from my own gate every Tuesday or Wednesday to ensure that I shall attend this House regularly. The Minister might bear that in mind. The employees are practically all recruited from Galway, and that helps to solve a problem that exists in Galway as elsewhere, unemployment. But it also helps in another respect. As the Minister is aware, Galway was a great coach-building centre until the passing of the old aristocracy, and the days of coaches and carriages. The bus-bodies are built in a Galway factory, and the money spent in their maintenance and repair is kept locally. For these reasons, Galway, for which nothing much has yet been done industrially, has a special interest in keeping under Galway control this little local enterprise, and I hope the Minister, in consideration of its special circumstances, will not insist on the transfer of the licence when it expires next July, but will allow it to be renewed, and help the Galway General Omnibus Company to flourish for many happy years. I have been asked to read in this House a resolution that was passed by Galway Urban Council at a recent meeting, a copy of which was sent to the Minister:—

"The attention of the Council has been drawn to the proposal of the Great Southern Railways to apply to the Minister for Industry and Commerce for a transfer of the road transport licences of the Galway General Omnibus Company, and we desire to point out to the Minister that this company, formed for the purpose of providing a regular service between Galway and Salthill, is composed of several shareholders resident in Galway and Salthill who have a special interest in maintaining an efficient service, and the management is in the hands of a directorate who are closely in touch with the needs of the Galway urban area, and accordingly better able to judge of the local needs than a board far removed from Galway. Employment is given locally for the working of the service, the building of the buses, and the maintenance of the plant for the service. We are of the opinion that the creation of monopolies in transport and other industries is not in the best interests of the country. The transfer of the licences of the company is not for the encouragement of investment in local enterprises if they are to be liable to be taken over for the interests of larger concerns, and we would respectfully ask that no licences should be given to any company to carry on service in the Galway urban district except to the Galway General Omnibus Company."

I have, further, a letter from the Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce in Galway to the Secretary of the Great Southern Railways:—

"The Council of this Chamber, at their last meeting, had before them a copy of your letter dated the 18th ult. and addressed to Mr. Leech, Secretary of the Galway Omnibus Company. At this meeting it was unanimously decided to enter a strong protest against the taking over of the omnibus company by your company on the following grounds:—

1. The Galway company has not been run as a profit-making concern, but mainly to provide cheap and convenient transport facilities within the city.

2. The company understands local conditions and needs, and can serve these better than any outside organisation, however efficient it may be.

3. The people, who have 16 years' experience of the Galway company, are satisfied that in the interests of local transport a change is neither desirable nor necessary.

4. The Galway company, inasmuch as it only operated within the borough boundary, cannot have any serious effect upon the economics of the national concern."

Mr. Good

On previous occasions when this Estimate has been under consideration I have drawn the Minister's attention to the scarcity of employment for young persons, not alone in the City of Dublin, but in practically all the cities and towns in the Free State. I am sorry to say that the problem becomes more acute as years pass on. The reason we have been given for the scarcity of employment is that in the past there was a large element of emigration for that class which has since disappeared. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to a statement that was recently issued by the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Lyons, who said that they were looking forward to resuming immigration. He also said:—

"It is known that negotiations are taking place between the Government of the Commonwealth and the British Government for the provision of necessary assistance for intending immigrants to this country."

That is just a cutting I have before me, and there are other facts in connection with it. It is sufficient to say that the matter of emigration to Australia in particular, and to a somewhat smaller extent to other countries, is now assuming more attractive proportions for countries like our own, where there is a surplus of this particular kind of labour.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the claims that we have on Australia. In the most recent figures at my disposal, it is shown that from January to October in the year 1935 the Free State purchased from Australia goods to the value of £820,645 and that Australia purchased during the same period from the Free State goods to the value of £8,262. We purchased 100 times more from Australia than she purchased from us. In view of that serious adverse trade balance, I think the Minister can fairly claim that we in the Free State are entitled to a concession from Australia. That concession, at present at all events, might take the shape of permission to send them some of the surplus labour we have at the moment. If the Minister could do anything in that direction, I am satisfied that it would relieve an amount of anxiety and responsibility from parents and others interested in these young people. I am satisfied, from the amount of attention that has been directed to this problem, that it is really one that deserves immediate consideration, and I hope it will get that consideration from the Minister.

Mr. Nally

There are just a few matters to which I wish to refer before the Minister replies. First of all I should like to support the application which Deputy Mrs. Concannon has made with regard to the Galway Omnibus Company. There is no doubt that the Great Southern Railways Company has already too much of a monopoly in the transport of this country. Another matter to which I wish to refer has reference to the increases in freights and fares which the Railways Company has introduced in the last year or so. There is, I understand, at present before the Railway Tribunal an application by the Great Southern Railways Company with the object of increasing their freights. I should like to know from the Minister whether he is going to be represented before the Railway Tribunal when that application is being considered. I understand that the application which is coming before the Railway Tribunal means that freights are going to be increased fully 100 per cent. I think the Minister ought to be represented at the Tribunal and ought to oppose this application. It will probably be opposed also by the merchants and traders of the country. I have a scale of charges before me in respect to merchandise included under classes A, B and C. For a consignment not exceeding 14 lbs. in weight, the proposed charge for five miles is 9d., for ten miles 11d., and for 100 miles 3/3. You can just imagine a charge of 3/3 for carrying 14 lbs. of merchandise. There is another scale, Scale No. 3, under which it is proposed to charge 1/2 per 14 lbs. for the first five miles. The charge for 100 miles is 4/11. Just think of it—4/11 for 100 miles! With regard to horses, cattle and other live stock, I have the scales here, and I note that the company is trying to get permission to enforce a charge of, I think, 29/9 per beast for 100 miles. That is for cattle. That would mean a waggon rate roughly of £15, practically double what it is at present. I hope the Minister will take some steps to oppose this application before the Tribunal. I understand that it will come before the Tribunal early next month.

I also desire to refer to the proposed closing down of the Broadstone Station. I hope the Minister will do all in his power to induce the company not to proceed with the closing down of that station. Surely to goodness, when the railway company took over the Broadstone and the branch lines operated by the Midland Great Western Company heretofore, it did not take them over for the purpose of closing them down. I think everybody coming from the West will agree that to make Westland Row the terminus is not in the best interest of the city. I hope that the Minister, before he gives permission to the railway company to carry out these proposed changes, will look very carefully into the matter and do something to protect the interests of the public.

With regard to the closing down of the branch line between Westport and Achill, the railway company closed that line some time ago and then found that the roads were not fit to bear the extra traffic that was thrown on them. They had to open the line again, and it is understood that they propose to keep it open until the roads are steam-rolled. I hope the Minister will see that the railway company are compelled to operate that line. I understand that, when they took it over some years ago, they signed an agreement to the effect that they would run two trains each way per day over it. I hope the Minister will see that the railway company are made observe the terms of that agreement. The people in Achill cut and save a considerable amount of turf, and surely the railway company do not expect that the people will be able to take all that turf over the narrow bog roads. The closing down of that line would be a very serious matter for the people of Achill and of the County Mayo generally. I also protest against the closing down of the other line from Ballina to Killala. When the Midland Great Western Company handed that line over to the Great Southern they did not do so for the purpose of having it closed down. I have been told recently that the railway lines which were single-tracked from Athlone to Mullingar are going to be double-tracked again as the railway company find that it is impossible for a single-tracked line to carry all the traffic.

I have received a number of complaints from persons who have made application for unemployment assistance. They complain of the long delay that takes place in dealing with their applications. I must say that every time I wrote to the Minister in connection with these complaints, I got a courteous reply, but at the same time I think something should be done to speed up the work of disposing of the appeals that are pending. We have heard a great deal from time to time about the cement factories which were going to be established in the Free State. I hope the Minister will be able to get them established as soon as possible and get cement manufactured in the country. It was manufactured here before, and under modern conditions there should be no great trouble in starting a cement factory. In conclusion, I would appeal to the Minister to look into the matter about the railway company. I think he should oppose the application for an increase in freights to which I have referred. I have been told on most reliable authority, by merchants and others, that if the application were acceded to it would mean 100 per cent. increase in freights. That would be outrageous in view of the fact that the railway company have now a monopoly of both rail and road transport in the country. All competition has been wiped out and, therefore, I hope the Minister will not allow the company to do what they like. If they are not prepared to give reasonable treatment to the public, then I suggest to the Minister that he should proceed at once to license new competitors.

Mr. Brennan

The two cases referred to by Deputy Mrs. Concannon and Deputy Nally give one a fair idea of what a monopoly may mean and what, in fact, it does mean. These cases ought to give the Minister some food for thought. The Department of Industry and Commerce may claim that its work has been successful in many directions, but in my opinion it has achieved more success in establishing monopolies and rings, which are making profits out of the people, than in any other direction. We have been given a fair idea of that in the case referred to by Deputy Mrs. Concannon. One can understand a railway company or any other transport company making the case that they cannot succeed where there are too many people in competition for the same business, but in the case referred to by Deputy Mrs. Concannon there is no competition. The Galway people have always had their railway terminus in the City of Galway but as we have been told they have buses going farther back into the West. These bus services have been found to be very satisfactory. They do not affect the railway at all because it is not in competition with them. But, as we know, once you create a monopoly, you give those who are operating it the whip hand and experience has taught us that they will use the power when they have it. The startling announcement was made by Deputy Nally that the railway company, having got a monopoly, are now going to increase their charges. The Deputy's information on that point seemed to be well-founded, as he was quoting, apparently, from an authoritative document.

In dealing with this Estimate I would like to bring the Minister's mind back a bit. I will refrain from taking him back to the plan. I will, however, bring his mind back to more recent times, and remind him of statements he has made on occasions when he went down the country to take a prominent part in the opening of new factories. On every such occasion he took the opportunity of telling the agricultural community that the whole basis of the success of industry in this country depends upon the agricultural industry. That is true. As a matter of fact, on more than one occasion I opened my eyes when I read speeches reported in the newspapers to have been made by the Minister. They were speeches that might have been made by members of the Opposition. I would like to remind the Minister that it is not sufficient for him to make speeches of that kind. He should put the sentiments that he expresses into practice at meetings of his Party and of the Executive Council. It is not sufficient for the Minister, when opening a new factory, to express the hope that agriculture will prosper because agriculture is going to provide purchasing power for the people: to say that everything will depend eventually on the success or failure of agriculture, and then come back to Dublin, and neither in the Dáil nor at meetings of the Executive Council pay any heed whatever to agriculture or to the difficulties under which the industry is being carried on. Almost every commodity which the agricultural community requires, and which has to be brought into the country, is tariffed without any compensating advantages for that section of the people for whom the Minister expresses so much concern when he is speaking down the country. Recently a report was published of the profits made by a certain industry here that is protected by tariffs. Those people announced that they were able to distribute dividends to the extent of 25 per cent. Those things ought to make the Minister open his eyes, and ought to make him feel that if industries are to be established in this country they ought not to be established at the expense of the poor people of the country. If we are going to have industrial activity it ought to be sound activity; it ought to be sound enterprise; it ought not to look for profit beyond what it is entitled to; and it must be able to stand in competition with other people. It is manifestly unfair that the people of this country, who are mostly of the farming class, and have been very hard hit, must pay exorbitant prices for their everyday necessities. There is really no necessity for me to enumerate the disadvantages under which the people are labouring at the present time owing to tariffs. It does not matter what you take up in the way of the ordinary purchases of the people, they have got to pay tariffs on them all. If we want to get the figures in bulk, all we have got to do is to take up the returns from Customs duties, and we see there the amount which has to be paid in the first instance. Of course the amounts are largely increased when they are distributed over the people. £10,000,000 is no small amount to get from Customs duties in this country; it is a huge amount. Of course the customs have to be paid at the docks, and when the traders have to put down their money it is not the £10,000,000 they will charge to the people; the people will be charged much more than that. The traders have a cash outlay in the first instance which they are not accustomed to, and which they are going to get back with interest.

Another matter to which the Minister ought to direct his attention is the question as to whether or not some of the articles produced in this country are value for the money— whether they are able to stand on their merits. We are all most anxious that the name of Irish manufactured goods should be kept well above the average, but I am afraid if some of the output were put to the test it would not do that. The Minister and his Department, when there is such activity about the revival of industry, ought to be jealous of Irish manufacture and jealous of the manner in which it is turned out. I would advise the Minister that he ought to take particular care to see that the goods which are turned out in this country are able to stand the test. It is rather unfortunate, if we take the Minister's statement which sets out the number of factories established in this country, and compare it with the unemployment list as it stands to-day, that we find unemployment has not decreased to the extent one would anticipate. Those of us who go around the country have an opportunity of seeing the crowds at the employment exchanges. Perhaps we have been particularly badly hit in Roscommon, because neither the Minister nor his Government appears to remember that Roscommon is on the map. It was a live stock county, and has suffered more than most. The people of Roscommon produced and reared young cattle, and from the very beginning they were hard hit. In Roscommon, we have not had anything in return for the destruction of that business, and I know that in that county unemployment has been on the increase. Of course the Minister will probably say that there are times at which, according to the figures supplied by the employment exchanges, unemployment has been relieved there. That is of course when public works start, and when people in anticipation of the work, come in and register, but on the whole nothing whatever has taken the place of the live stock industry which has been ruined in that county.

I should like if the Minister would find time seriously to think about the statements which he makes up and down the country with regard to agriculture. I compliment him on them. There is no agriculturist in the country or no advocate of a settlement of the economic war who can make a stouter or stronger statement on behalf of agriculture than the Minister does, but he ought to carry that back with him and he ought to remember that agriculture is the basic industry of this country. He ought to remember that, no matter what energy he displays in endeavouring to establish enterprise or industry, he must have a purchasing public, and you cannot have a purchasing public if you have not a prosperous agricultural community. If the Minister would only endeavour to impress that upon his colleagues he might get something done for agriculture; he might get something done in order to ensure that he would have a purchasing public for the products of industry in this country.

Mr. McGovern

I listened to the Minister yesterday evening and I was glad to hear that he is getting on so well with his industry. We are all anxious to see industries getting a bit of an impetus because it is time that the country should be improved in that respect, but at the same time there are different ways of promoting industry. I am afraid the Minister has not examined the foundations upon which he has built some of those industries. When he builds them on a basis of 75 per cent. tariffs is that a sound foundation? I am afraid that, apart from the repercussions upon the community by increasing prices, it will induce some people to go into those industries and put money into them who will not be able to carry on. It is an invitation to inefficiency to start industries by putting on tariffs of 75 per cent. Industries should be built on a solid foundation, and no one should be encouraged to go into any industry unless he is prepared to compete with others. A great deal of Irish capital will be invested in those industries, and if the people are inefficient and unfit to make a success of them serious loss will be caused to the investors unless the Minister gives those inefficient people a monopoly. That would be a serious matter. Not merely would it be a serious injury to the people who put money into industry but it would injure the credit of the State. I would remind the Minister that the process of building industry should not be rushed. When those questions were before the Tariff Commission they reported, after careful investigation, what industries should be encouraged, whether they were likely to be an economic proposition, and the extent to which they should be supported by tariffs. That was a very wise course, and no one was induced to go in who had not the requisite amount of efficiency. I think the Minister should take a little bit more care. Even if he did not advance so fast with those little industries they would be more lasting and more permanent, and he would find in the long run that it was a sound course on which to proceed. Apart from that, the position is that, with the economic war and the general condition of agriculture, the people are not able to buy the products of these industries.

Deputy Mulcahy furnished the House with figures showing that much less of the commodities produced by these industries, such as boots, are being bought. I know that in County Cavan, the people are not able to buy the products of these industries and unless there is an improvement in the policy of the Government generally, the people in the country districts will soon be like the Abyssinians, going barefoot. Unless the agricultural community, as Deputy Brennan pointed out, are in a position to carry on and to buy the products of these industries, while the industries may prosper for a little while, they will eventually go down because all these industries must be based on the one principal industry of the State, agriculture. I should very much like the Government to co-ordinate all industries, including agriculture, and improve the position of them all, but if they advance one industry, or set of industries, at the expense of the principal industry, all will go down in a crash. Anybody who knows anything about conditions in rural Ireland knows that the people are not able to purchase the goods that are being manufactured. I have been talking to drapers in different towns and I find that trade was never so bad. At the same time, I know that there was never such prosperity for people dealing in old clothing. The purchase of new material is going down while the purchase of secondhand clothing is on the increase to an alarming extent.

That is the condition in County Cavan, I am sorry to say, and I hope the Minister will take a broader and a bigger view of the whole thing and that he will not continue to put on these extraordinary tariffs. Any industry which cannot be made an economic proposition with a 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. tariff at the highest—and I would say that 25 per cent. is quite sufficient—should receive very careful consideration from the Minister before he encourages it at all, because the country cannot afford some of these industries. I am as anxious as anybody to see these industries flourishing. Another matter to which I wish to call the Minister's attention is the location of these industries. How many industries have been established in County Cavan? It has one industry, agriculture, and that is actually smashed. Yet we have not got a new industry. We have some industries closed down there, and yet the people of County Cavan are paying in every article they buy to support those industries. Are they not entitled to some return? They have got no benefit from wheat, beet or peat, from factories or anything else. Yet they are paying, every day in the week, increases up to 50 per cent., 100 per cent. and, in some cases, 200 per cent., as I shall point out to the Minister before I finish. This is an aspect of the matter to which I should like the Minister to pay some attention. I think Cavan is entitled to some consideration. The people there cannot continue paying all the time while receiving nothing in return.

The Minister referred to strikes, and he said the Department had been engaged in settling something like 100 or 200 disputes. That is a consequence of the increased cost of living. The Minister, by travelling too fast and by making the tariffs too high, is increasing the cost of living. I think it is generally admitted that the cost of living is going up, notwithstanding the fact that agricultural produce is about half the value it was some years ago. The increase is so high on some manufactured articles that the general cost of living is on the increase, and an increased cost of living is equal to a reduction of wages. While the cost of living is too high, you will always have unrest and strikes, and if the cost of living was cut down to a normal point, these industries and everything else in the State would be able to carry on much better, and there would be much less unrest and fewer strikes and threatened strikes.

Deputy Good has referred to the adverse trade balance between Australia and this country, but if we deal with adverse trade balances generally, I think we will find that the adverse trade balance as between countries other than Commonwealth countries is much worse. All the countries outside of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are buying from us £1 worth for every £8 worth we buy from them. There is a trading basis of £1 to £8 and that is the disadvantage this country is at in trading with these foreign countries. I think the Minister should make some effort to bring the ratio nearer to equality. If trading cannot be carried on with these foreign countries, except on a basis of that kind, it is questionable whether it is any advantage to continue trading with them. I think there should be a ratio more nearly equal than the ratio of £1 to £8.

Another matter to which I wish to call attention is the question of railway rates to which other Deputies have referred. The position in our part of the country is simply scandalous. The Minister has given the railways a monopoly, and they have abused that monopoly to an enormous extent. When the Railways Bill was passed here the State remitted a couple of hundred thousand pounds—I do not know the exact figure, but the Minister will know it—and that was a big advantage to the railways in the first instance. They got the right to take over all their competitors' trade. That should have resulted in greater economy, and it meant a very great advantage for the railways, even if they were to continue the old rates of their competitors. They had the advantage of the monopoly, and that there would be no wasteful competition by reason of different carrying companies running on the same line, and they could carry on the business much more economically. There is no justification for the increase in rates at all. What are the facts? I have documentary evidence to prove to the Minister that, in some cases, the increase is as high as 200 per cent. For instance, bicycles were carried by the Autoway service, a carrying service established in Ballyconnell, for 2/6 each from Dublin. Now, the railway company is charging 7/6, or an increase of 200 per cent. Is that justifiable? Had that been done with the Minister's consent? I would like to know from the Minister what he thinks of it.

The Railway Tribunal is supposed to fix these rates if traders make application to them to do so. What happens is that the traders simply pass the increases on to the customers and say nothing about it. Perhaps these traders buy railway stock at the same time. Then they do very well. When the Minister gives a monopoly to those companies he should see that the monopoly is not abused. I have also figures to prove that in the carrying of other commodities such as paper, etc., there has been an increase of 100 per cent. over the previous charges. I do not know if the company have got the Minister's consent for these increases, but I understand that under the Railways Act the Minister has power to fix rates for certain classes of articles. This Act gives the Minister power apart altogether from the Railway Tribunal or whether the traders are doing their duty in calling attention to these charges, to fix the charges himself. The Minister can exercise his power and fix the charges for these particular articles where the railway companies are abusing the monopoly they have got. I hope the Minister will look after this matter because this, with the other profiteering, is adding further to the hardships inflicted upon the people down the country. I do not think that profiteering was ever so general as it is at the present time. In a statement yesterday the Minister said that he had not power to deal with charges of profiteering. But I wish to point out that in this particular instance in the case of the railways he has, under the Railways Act, power to do so. He can fix rates for certain classes of articles. I hope he will use his power, and I hope in connection with other matters where profiteering is going on that the Minister will also take steps to put a stop to it. If legislation is necessary he will have no trouble in getting legislation passed through this House. Of course, there would be no such thing as profiteering if there were no monopolies. The tendency of all legislation in the past few years is to create monopolies, and thus give those parties power to profiteer. They are taking full advantage of the power they have got. As a check the Minister should exercise his power in another way to see that these monopolies are not abused.

Mr. J.M. Burke

My remarks on this Estimate will be very few indeed, but I hope they will be to the point. I thoroughly agree with all that Deputy McGovern has said with regard to the railways. Having got a monopoly, the railways have curtailed services; they have increased passenger rates and they have increased freights and transport charges. I think if there is any power in the Minister that he ought to see that this abuse is duly and properly rectified. I see here in the Estimate, of which I have just got a copy, that there is set down an item of £15,000 for "mineral exploration." I should like to have some explanation from the Minister as to upon what and how this money has been spent. Has it produced any profit of any kind to the State? I see further an item: "The production of industrial alcohol" and there is a sum of £226,000 set down for that. I should like to know, and I ask the Minister for the information in no Party spirit, how this money has been spent? Has it produced a sufficient amount of alcohol of any kind even to kill a fly? I see, furthermore, items under "Turf Development Board, Limited," and very limited it appears to be. It costs a sum for this year of £40,000. In heaven's name, upon what is that spent? As far as my constituency is concerned—and it is full of turf bogs—I have never seen anything accomplished by this Turf Development Board in the district.

Last night I listened here to a very long and tedious debate on turf. I heard the Minister and learned professors talking about it. I ask the Minister here in the presence of this House can he tell me the difference between slán turf, shovel turf and hand turf? I am sure he has not the remotest idea as to the difference. Can he tell me the meaning of barrfhód or can he tell me what a "scrath" is? I listened here for two hours last night to a discussion on this subject by people who know nothing about it. I make an appeal to the Minister now and it is this: that some of this money ought to be spent in districts where turf can be properly developed, and not have it diverted to places where it is mis-spent and unprofitable. I see here on this Estimate the Industrial Research Council. What that is doing I do not know. I doubt if any person in the country ever heard of it beyond what he may have read about it in these Estimates. I see there is a great deal of money set down here under the head of travelling expenses. Travelling is, of course, a luxury for those who can indulge in it. Another matter to which I would like to refer is: fees and subscriptions to international organisations, and the sum set down is £1,210. Now, of course, £1,210 is an item of little concern to a person who can afford it, but it is a very important matter to a country or person who cannot afford it. I should like to know exactly from the Minister something about the organisations to which this money is donated —for that is the proper word, I think, to apply to it. That item does not seem to be bringing any good to this country or to anybody else. These few remarks of mine are made in no cavilling spirit. The Minister is a man for whom I have the greatest respect. He is a sane and sensible Minister, and I am sure he was in no way responsible for the Thunder and Turf Bill which was brought before the House last night——

An Ceann Comhairle

And disposed of.

Mr. Burke

Not entirely.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Second Stage was disposed of.

Mr. Burke

I am sure the Minister was not responsible——

An Ceann Comhairle

Therefore it does not arise.

Mr. Burke

The items to which I am calling attention arise in connection with the Turf Development Board, Limited. I am sure he was in no way responsible for that Bill—it was forced on him. I hope now, having taken the burden on his back, that it will prove of some interest and profit to the country—a thing that I doubt very much, although I do say, after having had a long experience of country life and knowing how turf was used in the old days in the fine old hearths of the country houses, that turf properly reinforced with a due mixture of coal and coke makes an excellent fire, even in the cities, provided that proper grates are available for burning it. With these few words I wish to conclude.

Mr. Morrissey

I take it, Sir, that it would be more convenient that any questions which may arise on this particular Estimate regarding employment or unemployment, and so on, will be left to Estimate 61?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes; that is, relative to unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance.

Mr. Morrissey

The last speaker has referred to the Turf Development Board. There is only one matter on which I should like to get some information in regard to that.

Mr. Lemass

I am a bit perturbed, Sir, with regard to your ruling. Do I gather from your ruling, Sir, that the question of unemployment is precluded from discussion now? I respectfully submit that what the Deputy has referred to is merely concerned with the administration of these Acts, and that questions relating to unemployment will be on this Vote.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Morrissey

Therefore, I am entitled to call the Minister's attention to his failure in regard to his promises on the question of unemployment?

Mr. Lemass

Do it now.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. Morrissey

I wish to call attention to the Minister's failure in regard to his promises—and the failure of the promises made by his President is just as glaring. I attempted to raise this matter some time ago on a Supplementary Estimate, and, if I may say so, with all respect, Sir, I was very gently held off by yourself—not that I blame you, Sir, in the least for that. The Minister was very anxious on that occasion that there should not be any reference to his own failure in that matter.

Mr. Lemass

I thought that the Deputy wanted to tell us the policy of his own Party in that regard.

Mr. Morrissey

When the policy of this Party is relevantly under discussion by this House, the Minister will be told about it; but the point is that when an attempt is made to saddle the Minister with his own responsibility he tries to shelve that responsibility. The Minister toured this country for two or three years asking the people to give him the responsibility and promising that, if he were given responsibility, he would solve the problem of unemployment; but now, when he has had three or four years of responsibility, he wants to know what is one going to do about the problem. Does the Minister think that he can get away with that?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Morrissey

That is what the Minister says, but perhaps he thinks that it is no harm to try it on. Of course, as usual, the Minister had the last word in the debate on the last occasion, and we know that when the Minister is completely ignorant of any matter he always tries to cover his ignorance up by bluff and sound and fury. That is quite his usual style here. But the Minister, who had told the workers of this country that within 12 months of his getting responsibility there would be no unemployment in this country, now says, when he is reminded, after having had that responsibility for four years, that there are more unemployed here than there ever was in the history of the country before, that he has a contempt for people like myself who, as he says, have no interest in the unemployment problem except for the purpose of vote-catching. This comes from the people on the far side who were so desperately anxious for responsibility in order to be able to relieve the problem of unemployment and who, according to the President himself, had a cure for unemployment such as no other people ever had. I am afraid that that is the kind of cure that Fianna Fáil mostly has—a cure such as no other country ever had thought of—and we have the fruits of it now!

When the Minister is speaking about his contempt for certain people, such as myself, in their efforts to cure unemployment, I should like to ask him can he measure what must be the contempt of the 140,000 unfortunate persons whom he promised to put into employment? Has he any idea of the contempt that those people must have for him and his Government? After all, what the Minister thinks about me—whether it is contempt or anything else—does not matter in the slightest. It does not get the Minister very far and it does not affect me in the slightest; but the effect of his policy and the policy of his Government on the unemployment problem in this country does concern us and ought to concern the Minister himself. I want to put it to the Minister that he has failed lamentably in this matter, and that he has not only added to the numbers of the unemployed in this country but that he has, through the other side of his policy, reduced considerably the standard of living of those who are in employment.

We heard a good deal of talk about strikes, and we heard a good deal of criticism outside this House about strikes and trade unions and about people going on strike. I want to say this—and I defy contradiction— that, as a result of the Government's policy for the last two or three years —and I shall not go back further than that—the purchasing value of wages in this country for a married man with an average-sized family has been reduced by anything from 5/- to 6/- per week. Then we hear talk about the Prices Commission. The Prices Commission and the Price Controller are powerless. So far as the increase in the cost of the necessaries of life is concerned, it is the Government, through regulations, or through Orders made as a result of legislation in this House, which is responsible. We know the people are paying from 6d. to 7d. more for flour than they were paying two years ago. We know that they are paying more for coal, for tea, for sugar, for tobacco, and for all the other commodities than they were paying two or three years ago. We know that all these commodities are considerably dearer, and does anybody wonder that men, who were already working at a comparatively small wage, have to go on strike for higher wages in order to keep up with the increased cost of living? Of course they have. It is just the old vicious circle again, chasing after higher wages in order to keep up with the increased cost of commodities. The people of this country are paying an enormous sum in order to back up the Government's policy of fostering Irish industries. Those industries were supposed to be started for the purpose of giving employment. I take it that that is the main reason for the development of industries in this country. The ordinary people are called upon to pay an enormous sum—a sum that they have paid already, and a sum that is out of all proportion to the amount of employment which has been given—but, notwithstanding all the factories that, we were told, have been started, and notwithstanding all the tremendous sums of money which have been expended, and notwithstanding the enormous tariffs, we are faced with the fact that the numbers of unemployed in this country have reached a figure never before reached in the history of this country. I know that that will be met by the Minister's usual reply, that we have a different system of recording the numbers of unemployed now, that there is an inducement to sign. I shall deal with that on Vote 61. I want Deputies to take this into account, that in the last census the number returned as unemployed was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 76,000. Nobody sought at that time or subsequent to that to put the figure higher than 76,000. Indeed, most people believed at the time that that figure was higher than the actual number of unemployed in the country. Let us take it that it represented the full number of unemployed. It was accepted by every Party in this House that, putting it at the best, that was the total number of unemployed people in the country. Last winter what did we reach? After all the tariffs, new factories, the heavy increases in the cost of living, etc., we had 147,000 registered as unemployed. The Minister shakes his head.

Mr. Lemass

I published long memoranda in order to teach the Deputy to understand the position but it was of no avail.

Mr. Morrissey

The trouble is that the Minister does not understand it. I am not saying that the Minister does not want to understand it. I am going to be charitable and say this—I have a note of it here—that the Minister's Department is too big, that its activities are too widespread, that there are too many avenues and openings for that Department to be controlled and understood by any one man. Most Deputies will agree with that. Anyone who looks at the list of Departments for which the present Minister is responsible, and who knows anything about the ramifications of the Department of Industry and Commerce itself, not to speak about unemployment, unemployment assistance, transport, railways etc., as well as dealing with orders, quotas, licences, tariffs which are being increased, reduced and altered every day in the week, will agree that it is impossible for one man to deal with all these things personally and to have a competent knowledge of all these things. The Minister could not have it. That is one of my points.

This fact cannot be gainsaid whatever memoranda the Minister may have published side by side with these figures, that during the last six months 147,000 people signed the register as being unemployed, as being available and willing to accept work. The Minister cannot get away from that. That represents double the number of unemployed returned at the time of the last census and that number is returned, as I say, notwithstanding the huge burden placed on the people to provide employment. We have to face up to this fact and the Minister has to face up to it, that he has made no impression whatever upon the unemployment problem; that there are to-day more people unemployed and looking for work with, I am afraid, less chance of finding it, than there were when he first took up office.

I should like the Minister to address himself to this when replying. Will he tell us what he believes to be the exact number of unemployed in the country? Will he tell us how he proposes to find employment for them? Will he tell us in what space of time he hopes to have them absorbed into employment, or has he made up his mind that we are always to have an unemployment problem in this country and this wrangle over figures as to whether it is 140,000 or 150,000? I do not care if it is only 80,000. It is too much, particularly after four years of a Government who were to find employment for them within 12 months, who had an unique cure of their own for unemployment. At the end of four years, we are entitled to be treated by the Minister, in his reply, to something other than the usual type of speech we get from him. He should give us a few facts for a change, instead of the usual thumping of the desk and trying to cover up ugly facts with a lot of sound and fury. He is not going to solve the unemployment problem by running away from the facts or the figures and he is not going to find employment by doing that. He ought to know that now. He ought to know now that it is not possible to solve the unemployment problem by brow-beating agriculture. That is the snag in the Minister's whole scheme.

The Minister said in a speech made at a dinner given some months ago by the Federation of Irish Industries, I think, that in the main we had to look to new industries to absorb our unemployed. I wonder if the Minister was serious in that. I can see no hope whatever of any serious inroad being made on unemployment in this country, except by developing and restoring the prosperity of agriculture. We will have to depend upon the land to absorb most of our people. I put it to the Minister that, even if industries were developed to the point that we were producing 100 per cent. of what we require for our own use, the factories would not be able to absorb the total number of unemployed. According to the Minister himself and his colleagues this is a growing problem, because if we are to take their statements here there are roughly 20,000 new employable people coming into the market every year, and the Minister is not absorbing anything like 20,000 per year into employment, and he knows it. That is a matter with which the Minister ought to concern himself.

In my opinion, the Government are only tinkering and playing with the matter. The President announced immediately after the coming into office of the Government that he was setting up a committee for devising ways and means of finding employment for the unemployed. He announced that Deputy Hugo Flinn had been appointed chairman of that Inter-Department Committee and that it was the business of the committee to submit schemes of work which would be of use to the nation and give the maximum amount of labour. That is over three years ago. Yesterday, in answer to a question put by me regarding the activities of this particular committee——

Mr. Lemass

I suggest that this matter should be raised on the appropriate Vote.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister a moment ago insisted that I should raise the question of unemployment on this Vote.

Mr. Lemass

This is a question of the activities of the Board of Works.

Mr. Morrissey

This is not the Board of Works. This is a special committee set up by the President, with Deputy Hugo Flinn, Parliamentary Secretary, appointed as chairman.

Mr. Donnelly

When was it set up?

Mr. Morrissey

Three years ago.

Mr. Donnelly

What was the date?

Mr. Morrissey

Does the Deputy want it for any particular purpose?

Mr. Donnelly

Yes.

Mr. Morrissey

Will he tell us the reason? The Deputy will not succeed in putting me off in that way.

Mr. Lemass

I desire, Sir, to inform you formally that I have nothing to do with Public Works.

Mr. Morrissey

It is not a question of public works. If he listens to me the Minister will see the relevancy of this. This is what I was told after three years: "The third interim report has been received from the Inter-departmental Committee, and this, with the two previous interim reports, is at present under consideration by the Government.

Mr. Lemass

It is an inter-departmental committee on public works.

Mr. Morrissey

I am suggesting that the Minister has a big say in this matter, and a big responsibility.

Mr. Lemass

I am prepared to make a statement at the right time, but I submit now that matters relating to public works should be raised on the Public Works Vote.

Mr. Morrissey

This has no relation to public works.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is referring to the Inter-departmental Committee dealing with public works.

Mr. Brennan

On unemployment.

Mr. Lemass

No, on public works.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister is responsible for solving the unemployment problem in so far as it is related to the Department of Industry and Commerce, not otherwise. I understand that this Inter-departmental Committee has inquired into the question of public works, which do not come into the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Morrissey

I am submitting that the Minister is primarily responsible for the finding of employment for people in this country. The committee to which I have referred was a special committee set up by the President——

An Ceann Comhairle

Not by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Morrissey

——and a chairman was appointed—I have already referred to him. Reports have been submitted by this committee to the Government, of which the Minister is a member, and I submit he is the member primarily responsible——

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Morrissey

——and I am charging the Government, through the Minister—it is a matter of collective responsibility—and the Minister, I repeat, is primarily responsible.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy, surely, sees the fallacy of that contention. If a Minister could be charged, because of collective responsibility, with all activities of the Executive Council, there would be no termination to the Estimate for any Department.

Mr. Morrissey

Very well, Sir, I will not read further. I can well understand the Minister's anxiety not to have the matter stressed.

Mr. Lemass

I am quite prepared to discuss the matter, but at the proper time.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister is always anxious—he was just as anxious on the last occasion—to try to keep us from discussing the facts that are there. One outstanding fact is that there was no action taken as a result of the investigations of this committee which has been sitting for three years. I think there were three interim reports issued. The Minister did not even promise to take action following the operations of that committee—and all this from a Government that did not want any committee set up because they had a plan thought out which was going to absorb all the unemployed in the country and would absorb even a greater number. The plan was so carefully considered that they actually brought the figures of those who could be employed down to one. We were told that this plan was going to be so successful that there would not be enough unemployed in this country to fit into the machine and we would have to send to America to bring back many of those who had emigrated.

We were told that this Government would provide employment for 84,601 persons, and now we have 147,000 unemployed. That is the position of the people who had everything planned when they were going to the country some years ago, when they were looking for the votes of the unemployed and the hungry people. What of the man who has talked about contempt? Can he conceive the contempt that these people feel for himself and his Government—the Government that told them they had a plan ready to put all of them into industry? Even after a special committee of their own sat for three years investigating and issuing reports, there is still no plan, and the fact is that there are more unemployed in the country to-day than ever there were before. There is no plan forthcoming even now, and we have no statement from the Government as to how all those people are going to be absorbed into employment.

I would like to hear the Minister addressing himself to those matters and telling us how he hopes to solve the problem or what are his plans for putting the unemployed into employment. Let him not concern himself about his particular views with regard to me or anybody else on this side of the House. What he thinks of us does not matter very much; nobody is concerned about it; nobody thinks two hoots about it. We are, however, very anxious to hear from the Minister what he is going to do for the unfortunate people who are unemployed. They, too, are anxious to hear when there is going to be some attempt to bring into relation to the enormous amount of money that is being spent in the attempt to provide employment the numbers who are anxious to secure employment.

There are other matters which will probably arise more relevantly on Vote 61 (Unemployment Insurance and Unemployment Assistance). There are many other matters in connection with the question of employment that I could deal with on this particular Vote, but there is very little use in referring to them here because I could almost give word for word the reply which will be made by the Minister.

There are certain matters arising out of this Vote on which I would like to get some information. So far as I can ascertain, there are about 300 lorry owners in this country who, for one reason or another, have failed to secure merchandise licences from the Minister's Department and, as a result, they are prevented from using their lorries for hiring purposes. That is a very definite hardship on these people. Many of these men were hard-working and by thrift they saved enough to purchase a second-hand lorry. Later they were able to get better lorries. They depended on these lorries to earn a livelihood. Now, if they put them on the roads they are prosecuted and fined. Is the Minister in a position to do anything for them? Could he enable them to continue using their lorries and permit them to earn a living in the only way they have available at the moment? I do not want to go into the matter very fully now because I realise that to a certain extent the Minister's hands are tied. I would, however, like him to consider the matter with the object of seeing if anything can be done.

With regard to the inspection of factories, the Minister may recollect that I raised this matter three or four years ago, and I suggested at that time that he had not a sufficient number of inspectors to do the work in the way in which it should be done. He was rather short with me at the time and very sharp and he assured me he had as many inspectors as he wanted and if there were any more required they would be got in time. We knew at the time there were not enough and, as a result, the necessary inspections could not be carried out. I trust the Minister will now take whatever steps are necessary to have factory inspections carried out satisfactorily. It is a matter of very great importance, particularly when you are dealing with new industries where there are likely to be accidents more frequently than in old-established factories where the men have been working for a number of years and are accustomed to their duties. The factories that have come under my notice are run in an excellent fashion and every care is taken for the safety of the employees.

If one were to believe 25 per cent. of what one is told about the conditions in industries, they would certainly seem to be in a bad way. I hope that whatever steps are necessary will be taken immediately to have a very full investigation made into the conditions existing in the different factories. I wonder is the Minister in a position to tell us whether there have been any recent inquiries or developments in connection with the Slieveardagh coal mines in Tipperary? I am aware there were certain people interested or making some inquiries. Is the Minister in a position to inform us whether there has been any advance or any likelihood of people coming to carry out work in that district? There is a good deal of anxiety in the district because there is a great deal of unemployment there, perhaps a higher percentage than in any other part of the county. For that reason people are anxious to know whether there is any likelihood of any early development there.

Mr. McMenamin

This in my opinion is the most important Vote taken in this House other than that of the Department of Agriculture. In my opinion these two Votes are those that primarily concern the country. The one is interdependent on the other; they are both interlocked. Deputy Morrissey said that the Minister had made no impression upon unemployment. I think the Deputy was unfair to the Minister in saying that. I am afraid he did not look closely at this Estimate. In the year ending 1931-32 the total expenditure in this Department was £102,151. The total cost of the Department now is £455,245. Deputy Morrissey tells us that the Minister has made no impression upon the question of unemployment, but there we find a difference of over £350,000 which is an increase in salaries and wages. Surely that would solve some portion of the unemployment problem. I take it it would pay £1 a week to quite a considerable number of people, and thus reduce the number of unemployed by that amount.

Deputy Morrissey was very aggressive towards the Minister. I am not going to be that. I rather pity the Minister. He is in an utterly impossible position. I think the country takes it that if there is any man that could make a success of the Department of Industry and Commerce the Minister is that man. But he is in an utterly impossible position, as I have said. It is hard to say whether in one year or 20 years his policy will result in complete failure. He is rushing about like an animal in a cage trying to find an outlet of escape here and there. But the fact is that the basic industry of the country, namely agriculture, has been strafed, and as all other industries are depending on that it is clear that all his efforts will end in failure. The Minister cannot solve the unemployment problem. On the occasion of the Budget statement three years ago I said we were being treated to a policy of increased taxation and decreased income. When you have such a policy as that you strike at the root of employment in every country. Many people have been put out of agricultural employment in those years. I wonder will we get those figures. Agricultural unemployment is piling up. There is nothing on the land for any young man to do. There is no young man to-day who wants to remain 24 hours on a farm. He does not want it known that he is working lest he might lose a few shillings a week from the unemployment bureau. That is the whole problem. That is what is making the Minister's position in seeking for a solution of unemployment utterly impossible.

In 1932 the Minister promised to solve this problem in 12 months. In four years the figure of unemployment has increased to that mentioned by Deputy Morrissey. I am inclined to go with the Minister when he says that the present form of registration may mean the taking in of a lot of people that would otherwise not be there. Take the figures at the last census. There was no compulsion on anybody at that time to write down whether he was employed or unemployed. If he wrote down he was unemployed he was not getting the dole, and at that time 76,000 people put themselves down as unemployed. The assumption is that there are a considerable number of people now whose names should not appear on the unemployed register. The number of unemployed was put down at 150,000 during the winter.

Mr. Lemass

Does the Deputy know what the actual number is?

Mr. McMenamin

It is between 140,000 and 150,000. Will the Minister go to any of the people who come to the labour exchange to sign, and tell them that they are employed? I know people who walk nine miles to and from a labour exchange, and all they receive is 1/- per week. What condition is this country in when a man will walk 18 miles to and from a labour exchange in order to sign his name, so that he may get 1/- a week? Surely that is not going to solve the question of unemployment, no matter what defence the Minister may put up.

Mr. Lemass

Who is the person who walked nine miles to a labour exchange to draw 1/- per week?

Mr. McMenamin

I can give many instances. They are the worst cases I know.

Mr. Lemass

I defy the Deputy to produce one such case.

Mr. McMenamin

There are thousands of other cases.

Mr. Lemass

Will the Deputy name one man who walks nine miles to a labour exchange to draw 1/- per week?

Mr. McMenamin

Yes, certainly, I will give more than one case. I know, as a matter of fact, the trouble in the Minister's Department is this unemployment question, and I think the whole position is futile and impossible. The Minister would have to spend the whole of his life walking up and through his Department looking after the interests of those people if he tried to do anything to solve this question. The sum that would be required to solve the unemployment problem is so utterly impossible that the Minister would not be able to get it. Finance would not give it, and could not give it. Sixteen years after this country has been functioning through its own National Government, we find people who previously never got a penny from anyone, did not owe a penny to anyone even under a foreign Government, have to walk nine miles to get 1/- a week, and that is the way the Minister is solving the unemployment problem.

Mr. Lemass

Who is this man?

Mr. McMenamin

When the Minister goes to the country let him try to tell the people what the truth is about this situation, whether it is popular or unpopular. These are the penalties of improper propaganda. The Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, are amongst those who have sown the wind, and now they are reaping the whirlwind. Ministers go up and down the country taking salutes from the military in different districts, but it is merely a mockery and an insult to the thousands of unemployed people in this country. People are invited to come to some country town to see Ministers taking the salute.

Mr. Donnelly

And they all come.

Mr. McMenamin

Have the Executive Council any idea of what is the psychology of young men in this country who do such a thing? What do they think the psychology of people is when they come into a country town to see the salute given to a Minister when some of them walk eight or nine miles each way to a labour exchange to sign their names to get 1/- a week? The Government have no solution of this problem. The cost of the Department has increased from £102,000 to £455,000. Deputy Morrissey has told the Minister that he has made no impression on unemployment during that period, and the Minister cannot deny that. Yet, this is what his Department is costing—an increase of £353,000. If the Minister were a director of a company and came before his shareholders with a return of that kind, I wonder what the shareholders would say. The general taxpayer is, of course, a dumb animal. The Minister thinks that he can pile load after load on his back and that there will be no breaking of the back. I hope that Deputy Donnelly will speak on this Vote and that he will tell us how the plan on which, he got votes has been carried into effect. Will Deputy Donnelly go to the country, produce the plan to the young men and say: "Here is the plan on which I asked your votes in 1932. We have carried it into effect. We have put into employment every employable man in the country. To-day there is not an unemployed person in the State, and I ask for a renewal of your confidence"? If the Deputy made that kind of speech, I wonder what the result would be or whether there would be any torches.

There is an increase in respect of all these items. I should not mind that if there were anything to show for it. In 1931, £7,000,000 was collected in Customs duties. Last year, £10,000,000 was collected on a smaller amount of goods. What we are doing is piling up taxation and trying to stave off the evil day. None of us is to say anything about the position. It is treachery to say anything about it. It is treachery to face a fact. There is no use in ignoring the issue. This problem of unemployment is going to continue until the policy of the present Government is changed or until the Government is changed and some hope is given to the young men. I should like to hear from Deputy Donnelly what he has in mind for the young men. Where in the Free State would Deputy Donnelly get a job for ten young men at £2 per week? I challenge him to do that. I myself have tried and failed. That is the condition of affairs to which we have reduced the young people. It is shocking to think of the condition into which the country has got. There is no prospect for the young people on the land, which should keep them in frugal comfort. No young man wants to stay 24 hours on the land if he can get away from it.

Every Deputy who keeps in close contact with his constituency is getting letters from farmers' sons asking him to get a job for them somewhere. Some of them do not wait for a reply. They throw a few clothes into a bag and set out for Dublin with £2 or £3 in their pockets. When that money is spent, they have to go back. I am sure that other Deputies have the same experience that I have. I represent a rural constituency and live in Dublin. On that account, some of my constituents think that I can make jobs for them. I wish to say publicly that I cannot do that. I have travelled Dublin from morning till night looking for jobs for young men. I was utterly unable to get a job for a young man at 30/- a week. In these circumstances, one sometimes regrets that one is in public life at all. The Minister should take his courage in his hands and direct a reversal of the policy of the Government, especially the external policy with regard to agriculture. Until he does that his troubles are going to increase from day to day and the only end will be disaster.

Mr. Donnelly

I am glad that Deputy McGilligan is here because I should be prepared to make a slight bet that he has brought the plan into the House.

Mr. McGilligan

No. I have another one this time, entitled: "More and more money."

Mr. Donnelly

In case the Deputy should be short of a plan, I went to the trouble of bringing in a plan submitted at the last Fine Gael Ard-Fheis dealing with industry, unemployment and so forth. It is an endorsement, more or less, of the plan of the Executive Council.

Mr. Morrissey

Is it as bad as that?

Mr. Donnelly

The industrial and unemployment end of it is certainly the most interesting thing I have come across for a long time. Deputy McMenamin says that I could not make any suggestions as regards the cure of unemployment. So long as I have this Fine Gael Plan, I can—since Deputy McGilligan uses our Plan against us— make suggestions. Here is the suggestion of Deputy Morrissey's Party for the cure of unemployment, as set out in Section 5, sub-section (c):

"Carry out relief works and large scale public works of intrinsic value to the community; if necessary, absorb the able-bodied unemployed in a reconstruction corps for carrying out useful public works on a national scale."

That savours of Germany, in my opinion. I do not know whether or not Fine Gael wants labour settlements or labour camps. It is obvious from the look of astonishment on Deputy Morrissey's face that he knows nothing about this programme. If he were at the Ard-Fheis, he allowed this proposal to pass without even a word of comment. That is the Fine Gael cure for unemployment. Ours is the establishment of industry and the carrying out in every way of the teachings and policy of Arthur Griffith. I never thought I would live to see the day when such a frontal attack would be made on any Government here—I do not care what Party constituted the Government—for trying to carry out the policy of Arthur Griffith. Not only that, but there are cases in which industries started in certain towns have been politically ambushed by members of other Parties, who call them "baby farms" and "sweating dens." Nevertheless, the Minister for Industry and Commerce is carrying on. Deputy McMenamin said that after 16 years of home government a man had to walk nine miles to register for a shilling at a labour exchange. Here is the view which obtained in 1922, when the present system of Government was being put into operation, as stated by the late Mr. Arthur Griffith: "They in Ireland had since the time of his boyhood been struggling for every little thing—struggling to get anything in the way of national education, struggling for powers to develop the country, increase their trade and protect their industry, and, in 25 years, they had been able to do very little because they were without legislative power. They had legislative power now; they had absolute control over their own money, and absolute control over every artery of trade and commerce, and taxation was at their disposal to use in any way they thought right for the development of the country." It is unfair and anti-national—I do not care what Government is in power—to say one word by way of criticism against any body of men attempting to put that policy into operation.

Mr. McGilligan

Irrespective of the consequences?

Mr. Donnelly

There can be no bad consequences from the development of native industry.

Mr. McGilligan

Do you say it is wise to do that irrespective of the consequences?

Mr. Donnelly

There can be no bad consequences from the development of Irish industry. There was no industry in the constituency I represent four years ago. The Minister has been responsible for establishing some industries there since he came into office. There was one factory established at Edenderry, and I believe a prospectus will be issued shortly for the establishment of a factory in the capital of that constituency which will give employment to 200 people. Is there anything wrong about that? Is there anything wrong in the Minister saying that the policy of the Government in agriculture and industry was interlocked? Was there anything wrong in the Cooley area of County Louth in setting up alcohol factories to relieve the agricultural community there? That is what I believe by the development of industry. I believe in tackling the question from all angles. With all respect to Deputy McGilligan I assert that it is anti-national and that it is not right to try to prevent the development of the country on these lines. Take the programme of the Fine Gael Party as submitted to their Ard-Fheis. After looking at that programme, I wonder why this criticism comes from the opposite benches. Item No. 4 dealing with industry says:

"Encourage the development of new and existing industries suitable to our needs and resources by every efficient means, giving existing tariffs every chance of justifying their continued imposition, since it is obvious that neither in agriculture nor in industry can the country afford sudden successive revolutionary changes in policy, and established industry still requires statutory security.

"Provide machinery in conjunction with representatives of both manufacturers and workers which will secure due regard for the interests of the consumer and taxpayer in respect of cost of living and scale of taxation."

There are a couple of other items that I need not read because they are non-controversial:

"Plan, as far as possible, our national economic life with a view to increased industrial efficiency and harmony by the organisation of agricultural and industrial corporations with statutory powers, assisted by industrial courts and leading to the formation of a National Economic Council."

Why the criticism? Do Deputies opposite still subscribe to that? The programme continues:

"Improve the condition of the workers by the establishment within these corporations of contributory schemes for family allowances, death benefits and retiring pensions."

The main thing was "to encourage the development of new and existing industries suitable to our needs and resources by every efficient means." In view of that programme, unanimously passed by the Ard-Fheis of Fine Gael, why all this criticism? Why the attack by Deputy Morrissey on the Minister this evening? The Deputy said that it was impossible at present to cure unemployment.

Mr. Morrissey

I did not say that.

Mr. Donnelly

I think you did. You said "under the present régime."

Mr. Morrissey

Yes.

Mr. Donnelly

And going on present lines.

Mr. McGilligan

That is an important addition.

Mr. Donnelly

Have not attempts been made at Clonmel, at Nenagh and at Thurles? I would like to see the Deputy going to any of these three towns and making the speech that he made here this evening.

Mr. Morrissey

Certainly.

Mr. Donnelly

I know that Deputy Morrissey has another trump card up his sleeve. He was the first to let it out one Sunday afternoon at Nenagh that a loan of £3,000,000 should be floated and that it should be divided between agriculture and industry. That means £1,500,000 for each. Why not float a loan and invest the money in some of these industries? Would not that be the obvious thing to do? If any persons will do that their names will go down in history and be covered with glory. As a matter of fact the Deputy would outdo Deputy McGilligan. He would kill this Government with kindness while Deputy McGilligan would kill it by a verbal attack. These Deputies are anxious to get a list of the new industries that have been started. I hope Deputy McGilligan has brought "the plan" and that he will read it again. That is one thing this Government has done since it came into office, it has given a list of new industries established and the number of people absorbed as a result of their development. I do not want to be severe on the Party opposite. I regard a number of the speeches that have been delivered on this Estimate more or less as a waste of time. There should be criticism naturally, but every moment that is wasted is keeping back the activities of the Department.

Mr. McGilligan

Do you believe that?

Mr. Donnelly

I certainly believe it. I believe the average working man down the country would rather hear of some grant or of some industry being established than to read the speeches of Deputy Morrissey, Deputy McGilligan, of myself or even the Minister. They are tired of that. What they want is to have the goods delivered. They are getting the goods, and every moment that that is delayed is not satisfactory to the people. It is a grand thing, and there is a kind of tradition about it, to be able to attack the Government. I would love to be on the Opposition Benches sometimes, just to have the gratification and I suppose the pleasure of criticising. All Irishmen by instinct are anti-Government, but I never met any person like Deputy McGilligan who was formerly a Minister, who, instead of being constructive was so keen on demolishing a case. That is why I am delighted he is here this evening. I want to hear some of his destructive work, but I cannot reconcile that type of criticism with a person who had to do constructive work in the past and in the same Department. Deputy Morrissey discovered a mare's nest. He was ruled out when he referred to the interim report on unemployment. Does Deputy Morrissey say that anyone in this House believes that unemployment can be solved overnight?

Mr. McGilligan

You people did.

Mr. Donnelly

I am glad Deputy McGilligan reminded me of that, because I read an interview given by Deputy MacEoin to the Boston Herald shortly after he arrived in the United States in company with a then Minister —I think it was Deputy Desmond Fitzgerald—in which the Deputy told the interviewer that unemployment was not particularly troublesome in the Free State. That was nine years ago. We are in office for four years. What happened during the other five years? Did all the unemployment take place since? Deputies on every side are willing to admit that there are people at work now in certain towns who were not in employment when this Government came into office. I advise Deputy Morrissey to look up that interview in the Boston Herald that was given by Deputy MacEoin in which he said that there was no such thing as unemployment in the Saorstát. One would imagine that it was only since this Government came into office that unemployment became a serious factor. There was always a certain amount of unemployment here.

Until we get ourselves properly on our feet and until this country is allowed to develop along the lines which this Government is trying to put into operation, there will be that unemployment. I do suggest that it would be much better for Deputies to give some constructive ideas to the Minister as to how to solve that problem than to repeat speeches which have been given here for the past four or five years. Anybody can go down to the Library and see that these are the very same speeches that have been delivered for a number of years on this Estimate. Let us consider this concrete proposal: Here is a certain amount of money which the Minister for Industry and Commerce wants. Is he to get that money or is anybody going to say that he should not get it? One could quite understand if some Deputies got up to say that there is not sufficient money in this Estimate. I could quite understand an argument like that but I cannot understand this carping criticism that goes on when at the same time Deputies know in their heart of hearts that this money is necessary and that the only fault to be found with the Estimate is that it is not large enough. I do not want to go back to the ancient past or to go through all the items of the Estimate but there is one thing which I should like to say to the Minister. I suggest to him that something should be done to wake up the Prices Commission and to make it function a little better.

Mr. McGilligan

Oh, now.

Mr. Donnelly

I may as well say that as any other Deputy.

Mr. McGilligan

Why not bury the thing?

Mr. Donnelly

Well, even so, perhaps I am going to the funeral with as little mourning as Deputy McGilligan.

Mr. McGilligan

Agreed.

Mr. Donnelly

We are agreed on that. I might as well say it as any other Deputy.

Mr. McGilligan

Remember they were given an impossible job.

Mr. Donnelly

That may be, but at the same time it is the duty of the Government in office to face what may seem impossibilities and to try to remedy them. I sincerely hope that the Minister will deal with that matter. I do not think there is anything else I want to say on this Estimate. I do not want to go into it in detail. I brought in a number of quotations which I intended to read but I shall read them on some other occasion. I do say this, in conclusion, to Deputy Morrissey. I am afraid there was a little show of vindictiveness on his part, particularly in the energy and the emphasis he put into his arguments as regards the Minister notwithstanding the fact that no county has gained more as the result of the industrial activities of the Government than County Tipperary. If I might refer to one other county that has benefited considerably since the industrial movement has started, I would point to the County Louth. That is one county in which the majority of the people have been political opponents of the Government. Two-thirds of their representatives are numbered amongst the Opposition. I do not see any of the Louth Deputies here now but I defy anybody to go to County Louth now and to say that, industrially or agriculturally, the county is not better off than it was before the Government came into office. A number of boot factories have been started; there is to be an alcohol factory in Cooley, and a number of trade loans have been given to firms in difficulty. All this has happened since the Government came into office. That did not show any sort of political bias on the part of the Government.

Sometimes one feels indignant towards the Opposition but at other times one is inclined to be sympathetic with them. They have my sympathy on occasions and I shall give you the reason for that. I know that there are men in the Opposition who think exactly and who are thinking at the present moment exactly—and I would particularly mention Deputy Brennan as one—along the lines of the quotation which I gave a few moments ago from Arthur Griffith. I know there are good Irishmen on the Opposition Benches. I know that Deputy O'Neill is not 100 miles away from the sentiments of that quotation. I know that there are many others who believe in the development of Irish industry and who gave many years of their young lives, in the days when we were all young and when ours was the voice crying in the wilderness, to assist that development. You have my strong sympathy for this reason. I know that Party discipline, and perhaps also a false sense of allegiance to one's Party, make men who do not believe that there is anything wrong in this policy get up and protest against it. For that reason there are some Deputies on the opposite side who have my sympathy. As regards Deputy McGilligan, Deputy McGilligan was born to criticise. Deputy McGilligan always captivates this House when he gets up to speak. I am delighted that he is here this evening, and we all hope that he will tell us what he thinks about the Government's policy, not only in summary form but in detail. I would also ask Deputy McGilligan to say why he should have made that little interruption—"regardless of consequences". If there were to be bad consequences in this country as a result of industrial development, as a result of preaching the gospel which we carried about in our pockets throughout the country long ago, then Sinn Fein, in the days away back, propagated a gospel in which none of us believed.

Mr. McGilligan

I should like to intervene immediately after Deputy Donnelly's last statement. He has made so many points that require an answer that it is hard to know exactly where to start. His use of the quotation from Arthur Griffith, however, affords one jumping-off ground. I do not believe any man, writing in his own time, has such foresight that his gospel must be taken for all time. Arthur Griffith himself, before he died, made to the late Mr. Kevin O'Higgins a vehement protest against people using what he described as propagandist articles. He said in developing that argument that he had written, as he often had written, in the most extreme fashion when there was an abuse which he wanted to correct. The abuse in this case was the way in which English industry was deliberately strangling any effort to get industry going in this country, and he admitted that the articles which he wrote were propagandist, and violently propagandist.

Mr. Donnelly

When?

Mr. McGilligan

He admitted it in a conversation with the late Kevin O'Higgins. It is inherent in the articles that Mr. Griffith wrote that they were propagandist. It is clear from every line of them, and Arthur Griffith himself, were he alive to-day, would be the last man to say that a person was un-Irish because he did not believe in what Arthur Griffith wrote in 1914. I read recently a dictionary of the New Deal in America in which a cynical American said that a definition of un-American nowadays was one who did not agree with the person speaking. That is Deputy Donnelly's definition of un-Irish—a person who does not agree with him from time to time. Even though many of his writings had merely a propagandist value, there were few men who gave us so many good ideas in his own time as Arthur Griffith. Deputy Donnelly says that he was in favour of the development of industry irrespective of consequences, and that there could be no ill consequences from the development of industry. Supposing this country had to pay through salaries and taxes, in order to aid a young industry, a sum of £500,000 a year, and that that merely secured employment for 25 persons, would Deputy Donnelly think that the development of such an industry was good for this country? Clearly it would be bad. I do not think there are circumstances which would justify the employment, say, of 25 people for an annual tribute, paid in taxation, of £500,000. If Deputy Donnelly can get that exaggerated view of what might happen in industry into his head he will find it easier to understand some of the arguments which are sincerely put up from this side of the House against the present policy. May I say, in passing, that it amused me to hear Deputy Donnelly speaking of the false sense of Party loyalty in this House. I have only heard one man here confess that he was unwillingly driven into the Party lobby, and that was Deputy Donnelly himself. Only, he said, for the Party loyalty which he had succumbed to on a particular occasion——

Mr. Donnelly

That was the University Vote.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy did reveal that he had gone against his better judgement on that occasion. It will be time enough for the Deputy to criticise people on this side when a confession of that type is made from this side of the House. I am against the present type of industrial development because I think it is not doing good. It is taxing the people of the country beyond what they can stand, and is going to set back a proper tariff policy. Will Deputy Donnelly agree, or will he not agree, that there are different ways of developing industries in the country? I think he came to the root of the matter when he said that the Minister ought to liven up the Prices Commission, and I suggested it should be buried without honours. I think in their excuse it ought to be said that they were given an impossible task. There has been no machinery found in any part of the world, outside war conditions, capable of fixing prices. May I refer again to the writer I quoted a short time ago? As far as America is concerned, this particular cynic has described price fixing as a government scheme for putting up prices at a level which everybody, except the consumer, can afford. There is a certain element of truth in that, as far as America and some other countries are concerned, where they are blind to what happens the consumer. Their only idea is to lift prices. They get the hope that in the lifting of prices and of scattering purchasing power you will get the wheels of agricultural industry started again, and that people will get the money to enable them to bear the extra prices. But there is a lag in that which depends on the extent of the time period and the sufferings of the consumers who are made pay these heavy, exorbitant prices.

I set up as an example against what is being done at this moment one item. When we were a Government we decided to make a tariff experiment with regard to boots and shoes. We believed it would raise prices in this country. We found that our fears in that respect were justified. We made calculations, and we thought that the extra cost to the people of this country would be about £350,000. We said that it was not fair to make the people of the country suffer to that extent, small as it was; so we looked around for something which would equalise the burden that we were putting on the people. We had to get something equal to the amount that would be imposed on the people on whom the various taxes would fall. We got an equable alternative. We made the obvious calculation that most people who wear boots and shoes drink tea, and that most of those who drink tea wear boots and shoes. We took off the tea tax, which amounted to £350,000 exactly. Now let me put that lesson a bit further. The tariff was a moderate one. As a moderate tariff it was eminently successful. It got people into employment at once, and, being low, it kept prices low. Prices were, in fact, raised by manufacturers who are only too anxious to take every advantage of a tariff, but we equalised the burden on the people by exempting them from the tea tax.

You do not need a Prices Commission for that. We put the tariff at a point and said: "Let prices go to whatever is the amount under this that will enable Irish-made boots and shoes to be sold under the price of the English importations. Let them raise the cost to the consumer; we will give away with our right hand what we are taking with the left. We will leave the position much as it was before, but with this difference, that we will get people into employment."

We had no such foolish machinery as the Prices Commission, machinery that was doomed to failure from the start, machinery that never should have been set up for operation here if anybody concerned in the project of keeping prices low had even surveyed half a dozen countries and found out how they deal with prices. When tariffs came, immediately there was an increase in the cost to the consumer. Except in war time, there has been no successful effort at fixing prices by a prices board.

Let me speak a little on that. Look at the folly to which this Prices Commission was reduced. Has Deputy Donnelly ever pondered over the ridiculous position revealed by the Prices Commission in their report on flour, where they solemnly say that they had made a series of calculations which, I am sure, were based on very correct information. They calculated that on flour selling at a certain price there would be a certain profit which they considered a just profit to the manufacturers, and then they continued: if flour is sold only at that price there are certain millers in this country who will go out of production. They are not efficient enough to manufacture and sell at that price. They must be kept in being. Why, I do not know. They must be kept in being was their conclusion. The Prices Commission found themselves in that particular dilemma, and they decided to resolve it in this way: The men who can produce at a certain amount are making more than what we think to be a just profit; take from them and divide it amongst those who cannot manufacture and sell at this price that we consider to be a just price. Phrase that generally—take money from the efficient people and pay off the inefficients.

That is the solitary report, the sole monument to the wisdom of the Prices Commission on any project sent to them. Of course it was not followed out. It is all very well to get a report of that type, but even the folly of Fianna Fáil stopped short at penalising people for being efficient by making them keep the inefficients. If that had been allowed to develop, the natural tendency, of course, would have been to put a premium on inefficiency, and efficiency in milling would have slumped, and I do not know how many years it would have taken until you had reached a completely bad state with regard to milling in the country.

Prices cannot be kept down by this sort of machinery. Only in war time can efforts of that kind be successful, and there are many publications which show how those put in charge of such price-fixing machinery operated in war time. The conclusion come to, I think universally, by the people operating such machinery in war time was that you must act irrespective of persons. You say to yourself that everyone is making so much profit from the production of the raw material to the production of the finished article, and that if you hit a man here and there along that line he is not being too badly hit in the long run.

Only under those conditions has it ever been said that price-fixing machinery of the artificial type can be successful. How then is the consumer to be protected? We have to remember that the consumer must be protected. I sometimes do feel aggravated when I read of the activities or the paradings of certain—and I stress the word "certain"—of our industrialists here. Of course, the difficulty in speaking of this subject is that it is so easy to misrepresent. If one speaks critically of a certain group of Irish industrialists, or industrialists who operate in a particular way, it is so easy to make it appear that the words had a universal application. I have this feeling about Irish industrialists, that if I thought they were all as bad as I think some of them are they would probably have to be supported, because there is only a certain number of people in business. There is a limited number who have a certain tradition of industrial activity in the country, and they have got to be kept going if we want to extend the field of their operations and to get other people into that field with them. But there are some Irish industrialists who are doing just the same type of thing that was described as war profiteering during the Great War. Look at the chance they have got. Instead of 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. tariffs, I suppose it is a low average to put it at 60 per cent.

What is a tariff in its essence? It is a licence given to a manufacturer to charge up to within 2 or 3 per cent. of the tariff that is given to him. Any manufacturer operating with an 80 per cent. tariff knows he can charge, say, up to 70 or 75 per cent. He can shelter himself behind a 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. tariff wall, raising his prices. In its essence, a tariff is completely and definitely a licence to manufacturers to charge higher. If that charging higher is done unnecessarily it is fleecing the public. Deputies of all Parties, speaking in this House, use the phrase that they would rather see the unemployed in this country getting work than getting the dole. It is proper phraseology with a reservation. I do not believe in making people work unnecessarily. I think that is mistaking the means for the end. Work is only a means; it is not an end in itself. Although we are definitely generations away from reaching the point, let us suppose that we are at the point where the present production had outrun the present demand, then there is an immediate case for reducing the hours that every worker has got to work. I see no virtue in keeping people with their nose to the grindstone whether it is necessary or not. But with that reservation it is a sound doctrine that people ought to be made work for money instead of having money given to them.

Undoubtedly, in this country all workers are—through unsought and unmerited necessity put upon them— forced to take relief moneys, and in this House we speak sometimes with horror and bated breath of the unfortunate worker who gets relief. I often wonder whether, at those ceremonial dinners which industrialists and commercial men indulge in so often, they ever consider that they are in receipt of public relief also, and some of them do not deserve it. A tariff is as much relief as is the payment of unemployment assistance to the working men who cannot get work. If the worker cannot get work he deserves the money that will keep him from destitution. If an industrialist gets a tariff, and does not spread a bigger purchasing power through the community, he is pocketing what was meant for others.

Mr. Moore

Surely in pocketing the money he is diffusing it?

Mr. McGilligan

That is probably his answer. I do not believe, as a member of the consuming public, in being charged dearer for certain articles while a group of manufacturers who have no right to do so make a profit for themselves beyond a certain limit out of the sacrifices which I, as consumer, have been forced to make. I do not believe that is what tariffs are for. I do not believe that the Minister would seek to justify a tariff here by standing up and pointing to, say, 3,000 industrialists and their families who have been made wealthier, although those 3,000 industrialists and their families are, as Deputy Moore says, going to diffuse some of that wealth. What tariffs were put on for was to give occupation, not to 3,000 industrialists and their families, but to 30,000 or 40,000 workers.

Mr. Moore

And to keep Irish money within Ireland.

Mr. McGilligan

That is a very secondary consideration. The Deputy would not justify tariffs to a group of workers in his own constituency by saying: "We have taxed you as consumers. There is no extra work in this constituency through tariffs. There are extra profits being made by manufacturers. They are spending that money and they are keeping the money in Ireland. I want you to pay your bit extra on boots and shoes and clothing in order to keep the money in Ireland, but there will be no more money for the workers." Would the Deputy use that argument?

Mr. Moore

How can the money be kept in the country without being available for the workers?

Mr. McGilligan

Is the Deputy so simple as not to understand? We had an example recently of an industry down in Kilkenny which declared a dividend of 25 per cent. I believe it carried forward to reserve at least another 15 per cent. They had made from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. profit in the year. How did they make it? By charging high prices for boots and shoes. Does the Deputy think that that is allowable, and that a tariff which allows a firm to make 40 or 50 per cent. profit in a year's trading is a good tariff? I am glad that Deputy Moore interrupted, because we have got to get those things clear. If industrialists—mind you, I am not speaking of all industrialists; I have got to give that warning again; let me put it hypothetically and say: "if there are any industrialists"—who are making money out of tariffs, that is to say, making money out of the extra prices which tariffs allow them to charge, and are not giving extra employment, but are flattering themselves that they are giving public benefit by pocketing the proceeds and spending them themselves, then I condemn that as a performance. I think that is profiteering, and I say it ought to be put down.

Again, to come back to the matter which Deputy Donnelly mentioned, a Price Fixing Commission will not settle that. The Deputy agrees with me that the Prices Tribunal has failed to settle that. I remember an occasion here early in 1932 when Deputy Corish put down a motion that the Government should take care that the fruits of all tariffs should be passed on to the workers, and I remember speaking against the motion on the grounds that it was an ideal but it was impossible. But if we do not come somewhere near the realisation of that ideal, then tariffs have failed. I want to make a point in this connection that I made previously in an agricultural debate, and I suggest it is a matter that Deputy Donnelly might consider in relation to his particular criticism and condemnation of the Prices Tribunal. I always give them the apology that they could not perform the task they were given to do; it is not because of weakness in the individual; it is simply that the job could not be done. I asked previously in this House how it has come about that, almost without exception, tariff policies are condemned in countries where Labour Governments rule. Even when Labour Parties are in Opposition and are in strength they condemn tariff policies. There is one notable exception—Australia. I think Australia as an exception very definitely and glaringly shows up the reason why there is so much Labour opposition to tariffs. In Australia there is a Wages Board. It is manned by a majority of those interested in the employees, and that being the case, the increased cost of living can almost immediately be met by an increased wage.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again later.