Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Feb 1939

Vol. 74 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 57—Industry and Commerce.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £10 chur íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1939, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála, maraon le hIldeontaisí-i-gCabhair.

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £10 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1939, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

As Deputies will have noted, there are three sub-heads under which additional provision is necessary—Sub-head J, New York World Fair, 1939; sub-head L, Minerals Exploration, and sub-head N, Prices Commission. I shall deal with the three items in order. In connection with the New York World Fair Vote, the additional provision arises firstly from an increase in the amount necessary to provide Irish pavilions at the Fair and, secondly, from the fact that portion of the total payment which we anticipated would not be necessary until next year will fall to be met in this year. That is, in a sense, only a book-keeping transaction and the corresponding amount to be voted for 1939-40 will be reduced in consequence. The plans made for our participation in the New York World Fair provided for two pavilions. The first, which has a floor space of 5,000 square feet, will contain exhibits of an historical and cultural character and exhibits showing development in Ireland in the economic, educational, social and other spheres during the past 15 or 16 years. The shell of that building has been placed at our disposal by the Fair authorities, but the Irish Government must bear the cost of interior decoration, the provision of transport, the installation of exhibits, staffing and experts' fees, lighting and other operating charges. The expenditure under this heading is estimated at £15,000.

The other pavilion, which has a total floor space of 9,000 square feet, is being devoted to trade interests. It will contain, in addition, a comprehensive tourist information bureau and exhibits covering industrial products for which there is an actual or potential market in the United States. Part, and in two or three cases the whole, of the cost of the exhibits in that pavilion will be borne by the firms concerned. Even so, the public expenditure in respect of the second pavilion was estimated at £35,000, made up of £11,000 for the construction of the pavilion itself and £24,000 to cover the cost of decorating, staffing, transport, insurance, lighting and other operating charges. Altogether, the expenditure in respect of the two pavilions was originally estimated at £50,000. The Estimate of £11,000 for the cost of constructing the second pavilion has, however, been exceeded. Although the Estimate originally made by the Department's architectural advisers, on the basis of the approved design, was well within that sum, the actual cost of the building will amount, on the basis of the contract which has now been signed, to nearly £21,000. That excess must necessarily involve some revision in the total cost as originally estimated. It is now estimated that the total expenditure will be £62,400, rather than £50,000.

As I explained, since the Estimates were framed it has transpired that in addition to making provision to cover the extra cost of the second pavilion, provision will also have to be made in the current year to meet an expenditure which it is now felt will come within the course of payment within the year and not during next year, as anticipated originally. It is, therefore, necessary to make provision for a sum of £37,400, that is £17,400 in excess of the original Estimate. It is hoped that a sum of £25,000 will be sufficient to cover all the expenses during the year 1939-40. The total cost, as I have stated, will not exceed £62,400, but contributions from firms, who have rented space in the trade pavilion, are expected to yield £2,400, making the net cost of Ireland's participation £60,000. The contributions from these firms are not being credited against the cost of participation but are being treated, as Deputies will notice, as Appropriations-in-Aid.

The increased expenditure for minerals exploration arises also under two headings. In the current year's Estimate, provision was made for the expenditure necessary to carry on a scheme of exploration of gypsum deposits in the Carrickmacross-Kingscourt area. The work began in February last and is expected to be near completion at the end of this financial year. The work comprises a number of borings which are being carried out by an Irish firm under the supervision of a resident mine manager appointed by, and responsible to, my Department, and acting under the direction of a firm of consulting mining engineers employed by us. The amount provided in the Estimate, £5,500, was intended to cover consultant's fees, travelling expenses, mine manager's salary, boring expenses, analysts' fees, land damage compensation and other incidental charges. The additional provision is required as portion of the programme which it was hoped to have carried out by the 31st March, 1938. The total estimated expenditure is now given as £8,500, £3,000 of which was provided in 1937-38 and the balance in the current year. The actual expenditure amounted approximately to £400 only, and it is necessary, that of the unexpended balance, £2,600, a sum of £1,000 should be revoted in the current year, as supplementary to the amount of £5,500 already voted. I may say that the results of the borings to date have been highly satisfactory and there is every reason to believe that the final results of the investigations will prove that in that area—Carrickmacross-Kingscourt—there is an extensive deposit of high-grade gypsum suitable for use in a variety of industries.

The second item of new expenditure under this sub-head relates to the proposed grant to the firm of Messrs Flemings' Fireclays, Ltd., towards the cost of borings for coal to be made near the Swan, Athy. That firm holds a lease under the Mines and Minerals Act of 1931. The available geological evidence warrants the assumption that seams of anthracite coal underly the strata in the area of the company's lease. The company claim, in fact, that the area is the centre of a coal basin and that the thickness of the coal seam at the outcrops indicates that a reasonably good seam will be found in the centre of the basin. The Department's geological advisers are uncertain that the underlying seams will be found to be of workable thickness, but they agree that this can only be established by means of sinking boreholes, and, in fact, it has been long contemplated by my Department that any exploratory scheme in connection with the minerals of the northern part of the Leinster coalfield would include the sinking of a number of bores in the area now held by Messrs. Flemings' Fireclays, Ltd. In the circumstances, I am disposed to assist the company to explore the coal deposits of the area, all the more so because, if some workable thickness were discovered, I understand that the company, who are already established on the site, propose to develop the deposits. The question of the proposed grant has accordingly been discussed tentatively with Messrs. Fireclays, Ltd. It has been made clear to the company that the whole cost of any exploratory work carried out would not be borne by the State, and that the only acceptable arrangement would be one under which the expenses would be shared by the company on a contributory basis. As a result of these discussions, an arrangement has been come to whereby some three boreholes will be sunk. These will be sufficient to dispose of the difficulty at present felt by the Geological Survey. There is no intention of sinking, at Government expense, boreholes such as would be necessary for large-scale investigation of the commercial possibilities of the coal in the leasehold area. If these are undertaken, they will have to be at the company's own expense.

The third item relates to additional provision in respect of the staff of the Prices Commission. As Deputies will remember, the Prices Commission (Extension of Functions) Act was passed last year, and necessitated the provision of additional staff for the Prices Commission in consequence of the additional work given to them. That additional provision of £4,025, with an additional £170 for incidental expenses, is being made under this Supplementary Estimate. I do not know if any Deputies would desire to have a review of the work done by the Prices Commission.

If they do, I say that in accordance with the provisions of the Act their report will shortly be available. It has been prepared, and is now being examined with a view to publication and submission to the Dáil. It is a full report giving a complete account of the activities of the commission in all sections of its work during the course of the year.

Sir, I had a difficulty with regard to this Estimate. The net amount which it is proposed to vote here is £10, but the passing of the Estimate gives Parliamentary sanction for the expenditure of £4,025 and £170 additional in respect of the Prices Commission. I would have wished to move to reduce this Vote by £4,195, but as the Vote itself set out £10 I had a difficulty in putting down a motion to that effect. It did not even help me to be told here that we were going to save, on—of all things in the world— industrial alcohol, the sum of £21,185, so that I am constrained to oppose this Vote. What the Minister has said with regard to the money which is required for the New York World Fair makes the matter easier for me. He tells us it is purely a book-keeping matter, and I am quite sure he will be able to deal with the New York World Fair even though we vote against this Estimate. I want to oppose any further expenditure on the Prices Commission until the Minister tells us that the Prices Commission is going to deal with those matters that are of the first and the gravest importance to the people. I consider that the price of flour and bacon, and the absurd and unnecessary profits which are being made by the flour millers and by the bacon curers, are things that bear very harshly on the people, and are things that should be attended to with priority over a lot of matters with which the Prices Commission are dealing. We understand that the Prices Commission has recently concerned itself with reducing the price of motor cars. Evidence given before the Banking Commission suggested that there was a prima facie case for dealing with that, but even the price of motor cars can wait until the flour situation and the bacon situation, among others, are dealt with. In 1934, we had a report from the Prices Commission on the price of flour. Since then, the position with regard to the price of flour, and the profits that are being made unnecessarily and unreasonably by flour millers, have gone beyond the beyonds. In the report which was signed by the Prices Commission in July, 1934, and published in February, 1935, the Commission which examined into the price charged for flour then show and repeat at various stages of their report that they examined very closely into the matter. At page 32 they say:—

"We are of opinion that the prices charged for flour in the Saorstát are unreasonably high."

If the Deputy does not mind my interrupting him, I should like to ask you, Sir, to what extent we are, on this Estimate, entitled to discuss the prices of particular commodities. The Prices Commission has certain statutory functions to perform. Would it be in order, A Chinn Chomhairle, for the Deputy on this Estimate to discuss the price of motor cars or flour or other particular commodities, and if so, to what extent?

Before you reply, Sir, might I put the point that we are here asked to vote £4,195 for additional staff for the Prices Commission, and I am opposing the granting of that unless we get a definite assurance from the Minister that the money which is being voted there is going to be supplied first to deal with the question of the price of flour and bacon. If the Minister can assure us on this point, then I have no objection to passing this money, but, if the Minister cannot assure us on that, I want to put very briefly and not in any way elaborately a number of points before the House to induce the House to support me in that matter, and force the Minister by our attitude to deal with those questions.

As regards the point raised by the Minister, this is a Supplementary Estimate for a very small sum in comparison to the main Vote for the Department. Questions of policy and detailed questions of administration are normally raised on the main Estimate. It is not customary on a Supplementary Estimate to enter into the details, for the obvious reason that it would be impossible for the Minister to have before him the data necessary for a reply. If the Deputy wishes to put briefly one or two points, well and good, but a detailed discussion of the prices of bacon, flour, motor cars and other commodities would obviously be irrelevant on a Supplementary Estimate for £10.

Sir, may I submit that the Deputy is not going into a detailed examination of the Minister's main Estimate. He is merely giving reasons why this additional money should not be voted for a particular small Department under the Minister's direction. I submit, Sir, that the Deputy cannot argue his case unless he is allowed to do that. It would be quite a different matter, I submit, if on a Supplementary Estimate he were going into details covering the work of the Department of Industry and Commerce. The Deputy is not doing that.

There is no difference between what the Deputy has now suggested and what the Chair has said. If the Deputy desires to refer to certain items, basing his argument for refusing this Vote on those items, he may do so. But it is obvious that to discuss the details of the prices of bacon, flour or all other commodities for ten years back would not be legitimate.

That is agreed.

I propose to put before the House about four items taken from this report. I propose to put before the House the increase in the price of flour as sold across the threshold of the millers since this report was printed; what that means in increased money to the millers as a lump sum; and what was given to the farmers for increased production of home wheat during that particular period—a simple set of figures. I propose to go back no further than 1934 on bacon. I will be briefer when dealing with bacon than with wheat. The Prices Commission after what has repeatedly been said to be a very close examination in July, 1934, said:—

"We are of opinion that the prices charged for flour in the Saorstát are unreasonably high."

Lower down on page 32 the report says:—

"The virtual monopoly at present enjoyed by the Saorstát flour milling industry necessitated from our point of view the fullest possible investigation of the subject."

On page 33 it says:—

"On the facts before us we are satisfied that the deliberations of the three price-fixing groups, all the members of which are, we understand, members of the Irish Flour Millers' Association, represent agreement and combination for interfering with free competition."

Hear, hear.

Then on page 35, after giving what ought to be a reasonable formula for fixing a reasonable price for flour, they point out that in 1935, what was actually obtained by the millers represented a contribution of £34,640 over and above profits to which they were, in our opinion, entitled. They make the statement that the unreasonable profit of £34,640 was made in respect of the quarter ending March, 1934, above what the Prices Commission fixed as reasonable profit on the sale of flour. The Census of Production figures show that the millers, for the year 1934, would have been satisfied to dispose of their whole production across their thresholds and to receive 10/4 per cwt. In 1935 they were asking 12/7 per cwt., in 1936, 15/- per cwt., and in 1937, 18/3 per cwt., so that between the years when they were getting these unreasonable and excessive profits the price of flour across the thresholds of the millers went up from 10/4 per cwt., to 18/3, or an increase of 7/11 per cwt. Between 1934 and 1937 the production in the country ran to 6,400,000 cwts.; 6,800,000 cwts.; 6,800,000 cwts. and 6,670,000 cwts., respectively, so that there was not any considerable variation in production.

But when we take the figures that the millers asked for the production that they pushed over their thresholds, we find that in 1937, with a gross output of 6,700,000 cwts. they asked for £2,922,000 more than they asked for the 6,410,000 cwts. they produced in 1934. In 1934 they used 184,000 cwts. of home-grown wheat, and that was increased to 1,159,000 cwts. of home-grown wheat in 1938. The farmers got from the millers an increase of £1,775,938 for home-grown wheat that the millers took in 1938, over 1934, but the millers got, for approximately the same production as in 1934, £2,922,000. With the base as £34,640 for one quarter in 1934, that continued, so that the millers got £1,146,000 more in 1937 than in 1934 for approximately the same amount of production. Whereas the farmers benefited by £1,775,000, a small group of millers benefited by £1,146,000, I submit that there is no more urgent question to be gone into by the Prices Commission than the question they left at the stage portrayed in the report. I want to know from the Minister why he sits so acquiescently over that situation, when every household is suffering from the excessive cost of flour?

Coming to bacon, I have repeatedly pointed out how the consumption of bread has gone down, and how the consumption of bacon has gone down. The consumption of bacon has gone down by 25 per cent. What is the history of bacon prices as far as the curers are concerned, compared with 1934? In 1934 the curers would have disposed of their bacon, hams and gammons across their thresholds at 79.5s. per cwt.; in 1935, 76.4s.; in 1936, 82.5s., but in 1937 they asked for 103/- per cwt. Fantastic figures have been quoted from time to time, and figures have been used in the street that in ordinary conversation would be regarded as fantastic about the profits being made by curers, but the figures that have been used are facts that have been disseminated in conversation and put before the House by men who know what they are talking about and who are "close in" in the business of curing. While we are voting additional moneys to build up the Prices Commission machine we are not told that anything is going to be done by the Prices Commission to deal with the curers' situation, and to deal with the prices position that has taken one-quarter of the amount of bacon that used to be consumed by the people off their plates. The Minister has in no case shown that he interfered in this particular way, or that he interfered to curtail the profits of the flour millers and the bacon curers. The additional profits taken by the curers are taken out of the farmers' pockets on the one hand and the consumers' on the other hand. The Minister is aware from the figures that his Department have recently put together and reviewed——

Where did the Deputy get the figures?

From the Minister's own Department.

From the report of the Prices Commission.

The Minister must be aware that these figures are in the Department and were circulated.

I circulated a report of the Prices Commission.

I am giving the figures, and if the Minister does not like them that way I will put them this way. The Minister's recently issued Departmental figures show that in June there were 42,807 fewer men employed in agriculture than in 1934.

We have the prices going up here and the profits being accumulated into the pockets of curers and millers, to mention only two classes, at a time when male employment in agriculture is going down year after year to the extent that, in 1938, it is 41,187 male people below the figure for 1934. That is that. As I say, until the position is brought about that the Minister is forced to tell the House that he is going to put the machinery of the Prices Commission, or some part of the machinery, on to dealing with the questions of flour and bacon, the prices that are charged for them and the profits that are being made by, as far as the millers are concerned, what the Prices Commission call a "virtual monopoly," I am against this House voting any additional bit of money for the machinery of the Prices Commission.

Sir, in regard to that part of this Vote which is intended for the Prices Commission, I would like to underline some of the observations made by Deputy Mulcahy. Deputy Mulcahy has referred to the price of flour. Take bakers' flour. Into that flour most of the millers in this country put no Irish wheat at all. They use for the manufacture of that flour Manitobas and Pacific wheats, which they are at present being paid 1/- a sack to buy and store in this country. Out of precisely the same wheat, frequently out of precisely the same cargo of wheat, Messrs. Rank manufacture flour in Liverpool and in Limerick and Cork. The wheat carried into Cork and Limerick is converted into bakers' flour and sold to our people at about 39/- a sack to day. The same wheat, the other half of the cargo, is carried on to Liverpool and there manufactured into bakers' flour, and sold to the people there at 21/- a sack.

Again on a point of order, Sir, are we to have a discussion on the price of flour or the provisions for the Prices Commission?

On the administration of the Prices Commission.

Yes. The Prices Commission, although their attention has been directed repeatedly, in this House and in public, to that plunder and robbery of the Irish people by the great milling combines of this country, have succeeded in persuading the Minister for Industry and Commerce to take no steps whatever to put an end to that robbery and plunder.

I am prepared to answer for my actions and policy on my Estimate. Have I got to answer for them now?

I say that no money should be voted on this Vote for the Prices Commission unless the Prices Commission can discharge their functions. If the Prices Commission cannot stop the highway robbery of the consumers in this country then I do not know what the commission is for. Is it to conduct academic debates behind closed doors with the very people who are plundering the public or is it to intervene and stand between the suffering consumers in this country and the flour barons who are robbing them every hour of the day? My understanding of the functions of the Prices Commission is to expose the plunderers so that those charged with the duty of doing so may bring them to book and make them disgorge their plunder. Far from that being so, the plunderers are called in and told, "You are not plundering them enough. Put another shilling a sack upon flour." The Minister himself here told us that, with all the information set before this House to-day by Deputy Mulcahy in his possession, he recently sent for these men and said, "You are not charging the people enough. Put another shilling on." And they did it.

That is obviously ministerial policy.

Certainly, if the Prices Commission can make no more impression upon the mind of the Minister than to recommend him to send for the plunderers and inform them to plunder more, let us have an end of the Prices Commission.

I submit that what I do on the recommendation of the Prices Commission is a matter for which I am responsible, a question of policy for which I am prepared to answer at the right time. At the moment the question is only whether £4,000 should be voted for the Prices Commission.

The question is whether a certain amount of money should be granted for salaries for the Prices Commission. Certain Deputies are opposed to granting that money. In giving their reasons they should not survey the general policy of the Minister.

If this money, then, is to finance a body known as the Prices Commission and that that is to serve as the rag of decency wherewith the plunderers in this country cover their nefarious transactions, the sooner we tear that rag of decency off the plunderers the better, and I object to voting £4,000 to provide a rag of decency to cover the iniquity of these plunderers. I am directing the attention of this House to the plunder that is going on at this instant moment and asking the House to tear the rag of decency provided by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to the Prices Commission for the plunder—to tear it away and to let the true facts stand forth. The Prices Commission has not effectively prevented the robbery of our people by the flour combine in this country. The flour combine, notwithstanding the Prices Commission, is getting out of our people approximately £1 a sack more for flour than they are getting for the same flour which the same people are selling to Great Britain. If they are manufacturing, as I believe they are, 2,750,000 sacks of flour in this country, they are robbing our people to the tune of £2,750,000 over and above a fair margin of profit, and that is what a lot of people forget. But, let us state our case conservatively, let us give them, as a make-weight, £750,000 a year. They still stand convicted of robbing the people of this country of £2,000,000 sterling per annum. Look at the Deputies of this House who are supposed to represent the people. They sit like pillars of salt while the people are robbed, and glory in it. It is a pity Deputy Allen is not here to get up and tell us what a boon he has conferred upon the people by co-operating in that highway robbery.

It is not customary to challenge a Deputy who is not in the House.

Is there any Deputy in the House who will defend him?

Perhaps one of his colleagues will defend him.

The Deputy took good care to speak when Deputy Allen was not in the House.

It is a pity he is not here to explain to this House and the people why money is being voted in this House in order to enable the flour combine to rob the people of this country of £2,000,000 per annum.

I leave that and I pass on to the subject of bacon. Deputy Mulcahy has given statistics for bacon. I challenge the bacon manufacturers, if they dare, to produce their profit and loss accounts to this House. That is all. I want nothing more than the profit and loss accounts of the several bacon factories in this country to be laid upon the Table of the House, and that in itself will settle the whole question. I said before, and I now repeat, that I put £200 into a bacon factory four years ago or five years ago. For the last three years I have got magnificent dividends out of it and last Christmas I got 900 shares for my 200 and I am still getting good dividends. That is being taken out of the hide of the Irish people. I told you that four years ago. I told you three years ago. I told you two years ago. I told you a year ago, and I tell it to you now, and it is being taken out of the hides of the Irish people with the connivance, help and protection of the Fianna Fáil Party.

The Deputy must deal with the Prices Commission.

I will, Sir. Seeing that the Prices Commission have not stopped it, they are either absolutely inefficient and useless, or their representations to the Fianna Fáil Government have been absolutely ineffective. In either case, it is perfectly useless to go on spending money on it. If, with the Prices Commission sitting there, the bacon trust and the flour trust, in their continued existence through the Prices Commission, can continue to plunder the Irish people, what is the use of voting money for the Prices Commission.

Messrs. Henry Denny cure about 50 per cent. of the bacon of this country. I ask for nothing but the production of their profit and loss account. Let the country see the figures. Let us see their profit and loss account for the last five years. Many of the units of the bacon trust, or at least that one which does by far the greatest part of the curing in this country, is primarily an English-Danish concern. I ask them to turn up nothing but the profit and loss account on the activities of that firm in Ireland, and let Deputies compare the profits which the Prices Commission allowed the farmer to make on pigs, the price which the Prices Commission allowed the bacon curers to charge the consumers of this country for bacon and the profits which the Prices Commission permitted the bacon trust to make for the last four years. If Deputies will examine that and nothing else, the case we are making requires no advocacy in this House. But they never have examined it. They have never even bothered to look at the results of their own folly, and the Prices Commission have signally failed to bring the consequences of their own folly to their attention. God knows, if the Prices Commission cannot make the folly of the Fianna Fáil Party, it is high time we abolished them, because if they cannot do that, they could make nothing manifest.

The reputation of the Prices Commission is so disreputable and futile that it is almost a waste of breath further to expose it, but there are two other matters I want to mention. What is the procedure employed by the Prices Commission? Have their activities, in so far as they have taken place at all, been designed to set a premium on inefficiency and to penalise efficiency? Is it true that, when the Prices Commission made very necessary inquiries into the prices charged for Irish assembled motor cars, they went to the highly efficient men, who were doing a good economic job, and said to them: "You must cut your prices down," and brought those people down to a very modest margin of profit; that they then went to the inefficient fellows, the fellows who were making a mess of the assembly work they had undertaken, and said to them: "You are making a mess of your job. It is, therefore, costing you far more to do your job than it ought, but, in those circumstances, I guess you had better take your profit," with the result that the inefficient man was left with a large margin of surplus profit to finance inefficiency, which he could pocket himself if he chose to remedy his own inefficiency, while the efficient man, who was doing a good job, was cut down to the lowest penny of what they considered to be a fair profit and was left with no margin at all other than what he could earn by maintaining the highest possible standard of efficiency?

I have no complaint with that standard being set for all manufacturers. I have no complaint if the Prices Commission say to manufacturers: "Firm No. 1 is doing its job efficiently. We have fixed a reasonable price which will give him a fair margin of profit and that standard is going to apply all along the line and every firm is going to have its profit assessed on the basis of efficient operation, operation as efficient as that of Firm No. 1," and then let the inefficient fellows stand or fall. Let them reform their own operations or get out of the business. What I strongly object to, however, is that a premium should be set by the Prices Commission on inefficiency and that the inefficient man should be allowed to charge the consumer in this country a far wider margin of profit than the useful and efficient industrialist is allowed to take on his work. I believe that to be the case, and, if it is, it ought to be remedied.

I wonder how many members of the Fianna Fáil Party adverted to savings on sub-head M of this Supplementary Estimate. I do not believe that a single one of them knows what it is. I will tell them.

Savings made under a sub-head do not throw open that sub-head for discussion.

May we not discuss the propriety of sending the industrial alcohol scheme up the spout so precipitately?

I do not know what the Deputy is referring to.

Sub-head M in the original Estimate represented an increase of £25,247 on the appropriation for the production of industrial alcohol. It was made the occasion of a long speech by the Minister——

The Chair's ruling was very clear. The fact that savings have been made on a sub-head does not entitle Deputies to discuss that sub-head.

Mr. Morrissey

May a Deputy not ask how the saving is to be made? Would a Deputy be in order in asking the Minister how it is to be made?

Not according to established practice.

Mr. Morrissey

A Deputy would not be in order in asking how the saving is made?

He might ask a question, but no discussion could result.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not suggesting that it should, but surely a Deputy is allowed to get from the Minister how he has saved, or hopes to save, this amount of money?

I submit that the matter does not arise at all on this Supplementary Estimate.

It will arise on the other Estimate.

Mr. Morrissey

Is the Minister serious in that statement?

I am quite serious in making that statement.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister suggests that no statement should be made and that the House should vote money blindly without any explanation?

The House is not being asked to vote any money under sub-head M.

The House is asked to consent to the abandonment of the excess appropriation outlined in the original Estimate for industrial alcohol.

The House is not being asked to do so.

The Chair will not allow industrial alcohol to be discussed.

I want to know from the Minister how he proposes to effect savings on sub-head M. I see no scope for savings on that sub-head. Am I permitted to say that?

I submit that the House is not being asked to take any decision whatever in relation to the sub-head. The Deputy is merely treating your ruling with contempt.

The Minister's submission is both impertinent and absurd, but the savings on sub-head M——

May not be discussed.

Would it be in order under that ruling to ask why a certain alcohol factory has never gone into production?

It certainly would not.

The whole unsavoury question is, fortunately for the Minister, buried by the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle.

In accordance with long established precedent.

The Deputy can raise the question at the appropriate time.

The Minister is extremely fortunate because, in the interval between now and the time when the matter properly arises, he will be able to buy a gas mask. He will want it. The last matter I want to raise relates to the World Fair. The Minister says that one of the pavilions, which I am glad to hear we propose to set up, is to be devoted to industrial products. He said that part of the exhibition was designed to inform the American people of the industrial progress of this country in the last 15 or 16 years. I note that since the production of the "March of Time," our propaganda has become somewhat amended. The House will remember that on the last occasion on which industrial progress was outlined to the American people, it was in the "March of Time." I attended the picture on that occasion and I was greatly edified by the innuendo therein contained, of the Taoiseach being connected with the erection of Trinity College and the establishment of Guinness's Brewery. I see now that our history and achievement are to be pushed back by about 15 years. Now, while it might be all right to put the Prime Minister's books back that far, I trust that we may depend on other recollections. I have no doubt that the imagination of the Minister for Industry and Commerce will give rise to a very pleasing display of work that has been achieved, but, in order to check up on his historical recollection, perhaps I might remind him that there are more reliable sources than his memory to rely upon in order to avoid any confusion between Queen Elizabeth and the Prime Minister.

Now, Sir, having corrected the historical aspect of our display, I think we can come down now to the kind of things we want to see displayed in the forthcoming New York World's Fair. In that connection, I am primarily interested in the products of the Gaeltacht, and I apprehend that if we make an adequate display of Gaeltacht products in New York— should they be successful—that display will evoke a considerable volume of orders. Now, if these orders cannot be filled, and if an impression is broadcast through America that although the products of the Gaeltacht are very good, they cannot be delivered, infinite damage will be done. I think everybody here will realise that—because a good name lost is extraordinarily difficult to recover. I, therefore, put it to the Minister that now, at once, there should be consultation opened up between his Department and the other Departments concerned, such as the Department of Lands, which, I think, is responsible for the Gaeltacht, the Department of Finance and the Department of Agriculture so that any materials that are on display at the New York World's Fair can be had as soon as possible, and that no matter what lines of merchandise we determine to figure on as Gaeltacht products there should be some kind of committee set up at once—not necessarily composed of civil servants, but of people who have experience in connection with the production of handicraft work and also with some knowledge of marketing and the requirements of markets, particularly the American market in this instance —to deal with this question of putting our products on the market and afterwards supplying the possible demands of that market.

I went so far as to impress on the Minister for Agriculture the difficulties that lay ahead, accentuated as they are by the difficulties that particularly exist in West Donegal with regard to hosiery. Entirely apart from the Party to which I have the honour to belong, I sent a memorandum to the Minister for Agriculture, without consulting anybody, dealing with a particular kind of plan I had in mind whereby Gaeltacht industries might be marshalled with a view to making them commercially successful. I do not say that my memorandum is, necessarily, the way to make these industries successful, but at least my memorandum contains some thought of a considered plan to deal with the Gaeltacht industries. In that connection, I should like to emphasise this: that it would be better to show nothing from the Gaeltacht industries at the New York World's Fair than to make a great display of Gaeltacht industries and then not to be able to deliver the goods when orders come for them. If we cannot arrange for adequate deliveries, prior to the Fair, I think it would be better not to make any display there at all. It would be better, in my opinion, to take steps later on to feature Gaeltacht industries by some other method on some other occasion, so long as you can ensure the adequate fulfilment of orders. I say again that nothing could be more fatal to Gaeltacht industries than to get the bad reputation, which is all too common in commercial circles, of displaying good stuff and then not being able to deliver it.

I submit, Sir, that this does not arise on this Vote. I suggest that this matter would arise more appropriately on another occasion.

Surely, Sir, the forthcoming New York World's Fair is very important in this connection.

There is relevancy in what the Deputy is saying in connection with the stall at the New York World's Fair; and also in the Deputy's suggestion that certain steps should be taken with regard to the representation of certain industries there.

Well I submit, Sir, that that discussion should take place in the debate on the main Estimate.

The point is that the Minister does not know, and cares less, what happens in connection with the Gaeltacht.

I submit that this is a matter for the main Estimate.

I suggest, Sir, that the Minister is endeavouring to switch attention from this matter. The average man does not know very much about it, and might break his leg or die of starvation if he ever got into the Gaeltacht. The Minister's ideal is a factory back of an industry, but I suggest that there is much more in such things as the Gaeltacht industries represent—and those who live in the country know it—than some of the rabbit-warrens of factories for which the Minister is responsible.

What has this to do with the New York World's Fair?

The Minister wants all his industries and factories to be sacred to the fly-by-nights.

The Deputy may not discuss the industrial policy of the Minister on this Supplementary Vote.

I understand that the Minister says that one of the pavilions at the New York World's Fair is going to be devoted to the display of Irish industrial products. What does that mean? I should imagine the first preference should be given to the hitherto despised native Irish product, but I should venture to say the first preference will be given to the fly-by-night Irish industries and that the poor, wild and despised native Irish products will get the backward position, and then the fly-by-night industries can come bleating to the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Agriculture, looking for more support and asking that more ginger should be put into them.

Only one Minister is responsible for this Vote, and the Deputy may not drag in two other members of the Executive.

Surely, Sir, the Minister connected with the Gaeltacht is responsible for this matter, but it seems that the whole business is now being handed over to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It seems to me that, instead of Irish industries being represented, anybody from the back streets of Dublin will be able to get representation at this exhibition. I do not mean that I despair at all of Irish industry, but I do mean that I have not much hope that the representatives of Fianna Fáil from the Gaeltacht will make sufficient agitation about it. I hold that they ought to be agitating now to ensure that a proper organisation is set on foot to get the fullest possible benefit that can be got for the Gaeltacht industries out of the New York World's Fair. If they do not agitate now they will get nothing. They should take example by their colleague, Deputy Dowdall, who tells his colleagues—the industrialists of this country—to howl, and howl now.

The Deputy must confine himself to the Estimate. A general political attack on two or three Ministers is not in order.

I suggest to Fianna Fáil Deputies representing the Gaeltacht that if they ever want to get anything for their own people they ought to start howling now.

I wish to raise some other questions concerning the activities of the Prices Commission. I notice that there is roughly a 40 per cent. increase in the amount for salaries for that commission. That, as the Minister has stated, denotes increased activity. I should like to ask the Minister if he can give us any idea along what lines those activities are to be directed. We are, of course, all sympathetic with the idea that profiteering should not be allowed and, in so far as that is an aspect of the Prices Commission's work, I have nothing to say. But there seems to be an uneasy feeling amongst the members of the public that there is to be a new era introduced and something in the nature of rationalisation in industry introduced by the Prices Commission. I should like to ask the Minister how far its activities go beyond fixing what, in its opinion, is a fair price for a commodity, and can methods of trading in this country be altered by order of the Prices Commission or in accordance with its rulings. This is a question of policy in connection with the Prices Commission which is causing very great anxiety to members of the community.

There is another aspect in connection with the Prices Commission's activities and that is, on what basis it is supposed to work. Is the Prices Commission to be used as a penalty for efficiency? In other words, are manufacturers, who are making what the Prices Commission consider substantial profits or excess profits, to reduce their prices without any consideration of the circumstances under which they are made? I should like to suggest an instance to the Minister. If a manufacturer could point out that, although he had the benefit of a tariff here, he was manufacturing within 10 per cent., say, of the prices prevalent on the other side of the water, would that be a justification for the Prices Commission reducing his ratio of charge to his customers? It seems to me that that would bring in its train a feeling that once the manufacturer had become really efficient he would be attacked by the Prices Commission. Would that mean that other manufacturing concerns who are, say, charging 100 per cent. more than the prices which obtain on the other side of the water will be immune from interference owing to the fact that their profits do not go beyond a margin which would render them open to attack by the Prices Commission?

The Minister may think that that is a small point, but it is a very serious point for the people who are manufacturing and trying to be efficient. Remember, that efficiency is not brought about just by haphazard methods. It is the result of very hard work and, in a lot of cases, of expending very considerable sums of money. Are we to feel that a manufacturer, once he has become efficient, lays himself open to attack by the Prices Commission, and that it does not matter what price you are charging as long as your profits do not bring you into conflict with the Prices Commission? I ask the Minister to deal with these two points when replying, because they are both serious points, one for the manufacturers and the other for the people engaged in other branches of industry.

On the last occasion upon which the work and activities of the Prices Commission were discussed in this House, the Minister said he would duplicate the commission or increase its personnel if he found it necessary to do so and if the work justified him in doing so. I should like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the present part-time Prices Commission is doing its work as expeditiously and efficiently as he expected, or whether he proposes to appoint a full-time commission, or to increase the existing number of the Prices Commission. There is a feeling that prolonging the work of the Prices Commission unduly is to the detriment of industry to a certain extent. The sooner, in my opinion, the Prices Commission finishes that part of its work which has been delegated to it as a result of the recent trade agreement with Great Britain the better it will be for those engaged in industrial activity and for everybody associated with industrial development, whether on the workers' side or on the employers' side. I dare say it can be assumed that the staff of the Prices Commission is recruited through the usual channel of the Civil Service Commission, but I should like to know whether the inspectors for whom additional money is being provided in this Supplementary Estimate are also to be recruited through the same channel, or whether they are to be appointed by the Minister without reference to any selection board of any kind.

I am glad to note that in the Supplementary Estimate provision, by way, I presume, of Grant-in-Aid, is being made for further investigation into the question of the mineral deposits in certain areas in County Laoighis. The sub-head states:

"Grant to Flemings' Fireclay, Limited, towards the cost of borings for coal, near The Swan, Ballylynan, Laoighis, £1,000."

I would like if the Minister would give us some further information with regard to the area in which the borings will take place. "Near the Swan," County Laoighis, might mean near anywhere unless there is a definite geographical boundary laid down. There should be an understanding between the Minister and the people who are to get these Grants-in-Aid.

With other colleagues of mine in this House in previous Dála, for a number of years, I have been trying to encourage the Minister and his Department to pursue this matter for which provision is now being made. Within the last year representations on these lines were turned down, because, in the opinion of the Minister and his advisers, no good purpose was to be served by spending money in this particular way. I want to know now is there any understanding between the Minister and the people who are to get this grant as to the conditions under which this money is to be spent? Is there a definite geographical boundary laid down for the borings? Can I have an assurance from the Minister, who is asking the House to pass this Vote, that in apportioning this money it will be laid down that trades union conditions will prevail in the expenditure of the money? The word "grant" means that this money will not be subject to investigation by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and, therefore, it is very necessary that the geographical boundary of the area in which the borings are to be carried out should be clearly understood by the parties concerned. There should also be a clear understanding as to the conditions under which the money is to be spent, especially as regards conditions of employment. Will the Minister say whether the borings will be carried out in the Luggacurra area, where the local people believe that there are mineral deposits to a very great extent? I do not profess to have any technical or professional knowledge with regard to matters of this kind, but these are the things that should be understood definitely before grants of this kind are passed by the House.

It is always a very difficult matter for a Minister bringing an Estimate or motion before the House to foretell how the discussion will develop. We have been accustomed to various rules of order here which limit discussion to certain terms. But recently I notice that members of the Opposition have evaded or negatived these rules——

I suggest that that is a distinct attack on the Chair.

Now there have been rules——

The Minister made frequent submissions through the Chair while members of the Opposition were speaking and these submissions in every case were ruled against. No member of the Opposition was ruled out of order. I suggest, Sir, that the Minister's suggestion that members of the Opposition had succeeded in evading or negativing rules of order is a reflection on the Chair and should be withdrawn.

I meant no reflection whatever on the Chair. If any attention had been paid to my remarks it would be seen that my words conveyed no reflection on the Chair. The practice of the House can change from time to time and the procedure which controls debate and discussion here may vary with the passage of time. I did say and I repeat it, that the rules of procedure and practice which allow the Minister to know in advance how the debate would develop have been changed. The result is that the Minister cannot know what papers and documents he should bring with him, so that it is now impossible to know in advance and to be prepared in advance for what the Opposition may bring forward. One might toss up a penny 100 times and not once would it be found that the subject which was to be raised had been thought of in advance. On this Estimate we have been discussing a variety of subjects which, in my opinion, have little direct relation to this Motion. I was prepared to be asked here whether the Prices Commission have investigated the matter of flour prices and published their report on it and whether the Prices Commission have investigated bacon prices and published their report on it. Deputies were fully aware of that; they were anxious to take mean advantage of the lenient ruling of the Chair and made statements on matters with which they knew the Minister would not be prepared to deal. I am quite prepared to discuss the price of flour; the report of the Prices Commission of 1931 and the action which the Government took on it. That would be an appropriate matter for discussion, and notice should have been given of it to the Minister. I am quite prepared to deal with the bacon question or with any other question. Deputy Dillon has been advising members of this side of the House to do a certain amount of howling. Any subject on which the Deputy wants to howl I am prepared to come here and debate. But I suggest that common decency and common courtesy should suggest that some intimation of the matters which are to be discussed or which the Deputies want to have discussed should be given to the Minister in advance. I know Deputy Mulcahy was talking a lot of nonsense about flour prices. I have not here with me the reports and the records which will allow me to demonstrate that he was talking nonsense on that very question. I have not the documents here, but I know he was talking nonsense.

Does the Minister suggest that the figures I was using are not the figures taken from his own reports and documents?

I know certainly they were, but the Deputy does not understand the figures. Let the Deputy listen to me. I have this warning for Deputy Mulcahy about statistics. They are a menace to him and he should avoid them.

Why then do you give them to him?

I have often stated here that I would have seriously to consider curtailing the supply because they are interfering unduly with the proper discharge of the business of the House.

I am glad Deputies agree with me. The Prices Commission published a report on the flour question in 1934 and they reported that, for the first quarter of 1934, that is five years ago, the flour millers made excessive profits and they said that in order to ensure that these excessive profits would not be made in the future, the price of flour should be fixed in accordance with the formula which they set out in the report on flour in 1934. From that day to this the price of flour has been fixed in accordance with the formula they agreed upon in 1934.

And the price of flour has since gone up by 7/11 per barrel.

That has nothing to do with it.

I have to adopt with the Deputies the kindergarten system of teaching. The price of flour has nothing to do with the profits made by the millers. Fluctuations in the price of flour could take place upwards or downwards without any variation in the millers' profits. The price of flour could go up by reason, for instance, of an increase in the price of wheat. It could be caused by reason of an increase in the wages of workers.

Is the Minister not aware that the price of flour has gone down in every other country?

The Deputy has now the privilege of having to listen to me. The price of flour can fluctuate widely because of many other factors than the profits made by millers. In fact, you can have these wide fluctuations in the price of flour without any alteration in the profits of millers. Is not that obvious? It should be obvious to intelligent people, but whether members of the Fine Gael Party understand it is another matter. The price of flour went up from 1934 to 1937. That fact is not denied. On the contrary, it went up in every country in the world. I make the statement here, and challenge contradiction of it, that in the year 1934, the year Deputy Mulcahy started his calculations from, and the year in relation to which the Prices Commission carried out its investigation, the price of wheat in this country certainly, and in Great Britain, was the lowest recorded for 500 years. That is a big statement, but it is true. From that year until 1937 the price went up. Deputy Mulcahy worked an elaborate sum which seemed to get him this conclusion: that if the flour millers got £2,500,000 more for their products in 1937 than in 1934, and if they paid only an addition £1,500,000 to Irish farmers, that, therefore, they were £1,000,000 better off. I have here the trade and shipping statistics, and while the Deputy was speaking I worked out for myself a simple calculation. I find that the price for foreign wheat imported in 1937, as compared with 1934, increased by practically £1,000,000. That figure did not appear in the Deputy's sum. He forgot that —it was a mere detail.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy's sum was nearly £2,000,000.

The Minister should have another look at it.

Anyone who wanted to examine the subject seriously would surely have compared the price of foreign wheat imported into this country between 1934 and 1937. Undoubtedly the price of flour went up from 1934 to 1937. The Deputy stopped his calculations in 1937 because the price of flour went down in 1938, and that did not suit his argument.

I stopped my calculations in 1937 because 1937 is the last year for which we have the census of production figures. If the Minister gives us the census of production figures for 1938, then the discussion may be carried on.

According to the rules of procedure I am entitled to carry on, and to state the fact that the Deputy knew that the price of flour went down in 1938.

I dealt with production and with the information on production that I had.

Let me say here that, in so far as this Estimate deals with the functions of the Prices Commission, the commission has done its duty completely. It is entitled to carry out certain investigations, either when asked by me to do so or on its own initiative in accordance with the Act. What I do upon the commission's report is a matter of policy, a matter for which I am prepared to answer here fully at the proper time. The Prices Commission reported to me in relation to flour in 1934. I do not feel that there is any obligation on me to defend the flour millers, or to say that their profits are fair or unfair. If they were conducting their business in the way which I thought was contrary to the public interest, then it would be my duty, if possible, to prevent them from doing that. That is my duty and not the duty of the Prices Commission. Let us get the Prices Commission clear so far as future discussions on the Estimate for that body are concerned, so that our discussions may be relevant.

The Deputy tried to make his remarks relevant by asking what has the Prices Commission done about bacon. Deputy Mulcahy occasionally gives evidence of doing some study outside this House in relation to the matters that may arise here. Deputy Dillon gives no such evidence, and probably does not know that very recently in a report the Prices Commission dealt with this question of bacon. Deputy Mulcahy, I am sure, does know that, but he forgot about it. Bacon was one of the major items that was investigated last year by the Prices Commission. They made a full investigation with regard to the bacon position and published a report on it. That report was printed and delivered, free of charge, to Deputies—to Deputies who are now asking what did the Prices Commission do about bacon last year. It is not three months since Deputies got that printed report delivered to them through the post. The report is under examination by me, but as to what is going to be done upon it——

Nothing will be done.

——that is not a matter for the Prices Commission. That will form a basis for Government policy, or, at any rate, the Government's policy in relation to bacon will be based on the information conveyed in that report. That will happen in due course. The Deputy is entitled to criticise the Government for delay if he wants to. He is entitled to urge that the Minister has failed in his duty in not acting forthwith on the report. He is entitled to make any such case as he likes. No one will contest his right to do that. But he is not entitled to blame the Prices Commission for it. He is not entitled to ask the House to vote against this Estimate on the ground that the Prices Commission have not dealt with bacon, when they have. Deputies, when they are elected to this House, are expected to take the work of the House seriously. I submit that they are not doing that, when we have a couple of Front Bench Opposition members, presumably leaders of the Party, alleging that the Prices Commission have done nothing about bacon, in view of the fact that three months ago they had delivered to them, free of charge, the report of the Prices Commission on that very subject. That, at least, is an indication that outside this House they are occupying their time and attention dancing on Sunday mornings, or at something else.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister goes to a few himself.

Of course I do and will again.

Mr. Morrissey

And the Minister would not object to one on a Sunday morning?

The Deputy can dance as much as he likes on Sunday morning or on Monday morning, but when he comes here he should do either of two things—keep silent or make some preliminary investigation before he pretends to talk.

Mr. Morrissey

It is a pity that the Minister would not keep silent on certain things.

Deputy Dillon's attitude in relation to the question of profits is quite clear. According to him, any manufacturer who makes a profit is a plunderer, a thief and an unsavoury blackguard. Deputy Dockrell's attitude is the reverse. He is a business man who has had business responsibility, and he has the business man's outlook. If I interpret his remarks correctly, his attitude is quite the reverse to that of Deputy Dillon. It is this: that the amount of profit a man makes is the test of his efficiency. The efficient man will make more profit than the inefficient man, and the more profit he makes the more efficient he is, particularly if he makes his profits in a competitive market. That is a perfectly reasonable point of view. It is one that I have a great deal of sympathy with. I disagree entirely with Deputy Dillon that the mere fact that a man makes profits thereby proves him to be a thief. Most people are in business to try and make a profit out of it, and there is surely nothing unsavoury about that. Deputy Dillon, I am sure, tries to make a profit out of his business and does not, therefore, regard himself as an unsavoury blackguard.

Those who make a profit stay in business, and those who do not, get out, like the Minister.

The Deputy can make any personal remarks he likes. They will not hurt me in the least. I do not care the least for his personal remarks. To get back to the Prices Commission, the Deputy apparently thinks anyone who is making a profit should be immediately jumped upon and squelehed. As I have pointed out, that is not Deputy Dockrell's attitude which I think is a reasonable attitude. The job of the Prices Commission is to see that no unreasonable profits are taken, and that the public get a fair deal from manufacturers of protected commodities. That is their primary concern.

Hear, hear.

If the Deputy agrees, I should prefer that he would do so mentally. The Prices Commission have various methods of procedure. One is a formal investigation, as happened in the case of bacon. When requested by the Government, they investigated the whole position in relation to bacon and submitted a report. They were requested to carry out an investigation into a variety of other matters as well. During the course of the year they carried out investigations in relation to a number of matters, including foundry products used for house building, iron and steel nuts and bolts, fertilisers, printing and stationery, yarns comprising binder twine, jute piece goods, felting, bottles and jars, sheet and plate glass, etc. In addition to these formal investigations which result in the submission of a report to the Government, it may recommend some action by the Government, such as the making of a Price Order or some other step of that kind. The Prices Commission also carry out investigations of an informal kind, which have caused some irritation to manufacturers. I know that, because I have received many representations of the kind that Deputy Dockrell voiced here. It is open to the Prices Commission to go to a manufacturer and say: "We want to know all about your prices." Having got all the information they wanted, they may express the opinion that these prices should be reduced. It is equally open to the manufacturer to refuse to give the information or to refuse to effect any reduction which the Prices Commission may advise, but the manufacturer who does refuse to give information, or who refuses to accept the reduction recommended, knows that he is almost certain to be facing a formal public investigation of his prices. Consequently, the great majority of them chose to act on the informal advice of the Prices Commission rather than await such a formal investigation. The Prices Commission have used that position to effect price alterations over a wide range of articles. Some of these price alterations were in connection with commodities of everyday use and some of them were in relation to articles of a luxury kind. May I say, for the information of Deputies, that in respect of probably the larger number of articles the investigations of the Prices Commission resulted in their coming to the conclusion that the prices being charged were reasonable and that no action on their part was required. It is not true that the Prices Commission have taken a decision that there is a fixed limit to the profit a man may make, irrespective of how he organises his business or however more efficiently he may run it than a competitor runs his business. What is true is that the Prices Commission, on the facts in individual cases, have requested a number of manufacturers to reduce their prices and that these manufacturers reduced their prices rather than face a public inquiry. The complaints of these manufacturers need not concern us very much because their mere existence is proof that the Prices Commission are actively doing the work which they were set up to do. It is rather strange that the people who talk most about profiteering are the people who always opposed, obstructed and attempted to destroy the machinery set up to check it. I am referring to Deputy Dillon.

And the rings responsible for it.

More important matters were mentioned here than those referred to by Deputy Dillon and I shall deal with these now. Deputy Davin asked some questions about the proposed exploration of the coal seams in South Laoighis. He did so in a nasty manner.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister is never nasty.

He seemed to have some nasty suspicion which he did not want to express but which, at the same time, he wanted to suggest. Are the people to be employed, he asked, going to be employed at trade union rates? Is there going to be discretion exercised in the selection of the people? Were the Prices Commission inspectors appointed by Civil Service Commission procedure or by the Minister? The Deputy knows the answers to these questions.

By whom were the Prices Commission inspectors appointed? I do not know.

The Prices Commission inspectors are appointed by selection boards in the ordinary way. If the Deputy were familiar with the terms of the Civil Service Regulation Act, he would have known that. The recruitment of Civil Service staff is a matter for the Civil Service Commissioners and Ministers have nothing to do with it.

I did not know about the inspectors.

I apologise to the Deputy if I was wrong but I got the impression that he was very suspicious and that he was anxious to give voice to his suspicions. Answering the Deputy's query, the work of the Prices Commission is being done as expeditiously as possible and I am quite satisfied that no greater expedition would be secured by duplicating the commission. The amount of work the commission can do is determined largely by the output of the staff and not by the formal meetings of the commission. Its decision on the information that comes to it takes a very short time. The work is done by the staff and that work would not be expedited by duplicating the commission. Expedition can be effected only in the way we propose to do it—by increasing the staff available. Deputies opposite will probably vote against that. That is the only effective way of securing what Deputy Davin wants— that the work of the commission should be done as expeditiously and as efficiently as possible. The work of the Prices Commission under the Trade Agreement with the United Kingdom will not stop so long as that Agreement is there. It is open to the British Government, under that Agreement, to request that the operation of any tariff be reviewed and, if they so request, we have to ask the Prices Commission to undertake the task of review. There is a very long list of tariffs in relation to which the British Government have asked for a special review. That matter is at present awaiting the attention of the commission.

How many applications were received and how many have been disposed of?

I have got reports in only three cases.

How many were received?

I cannot count them now. There are well over 100.

How long do you think it will take to deal with the rest of them?

The three years of the agreement. The boring of the Swan will be carried out in the area of the lease of the company. The company have got a mineral lease. They are working these minerals for the purpose of manufacturing fireclay goods. In the course of that working, the management of the company came to the conclusion, from certain things they saw, that down below where they are working fireclay there is coal. They discussed the matter with the geological officers of my Department, and these officers, having examined the position, said that it was quite possible that that view was correct— that within that space there is a workable seam of coal, but that it is by no means certain. While the coal is, undoubtedly, there, there may not be a sufficiently wide seam to permit of its being worked. The only way of finding that out is by boring. Ordinarily, we carry out these explorations where, in the first place, it is in the national interest to know whether a particular mineral exists in a workable quantity, irrespective of the immediate prospects of getting the mineral worked. The investigations carried out in relation to gypsum were of that character, though we knew at once that if there was gypsum there of good quality, there was a use for it within the country, apart from the possibility of its use outside the country. In the second place, we engage in this exploration of minerals where there is an immediate prospect of these minerals being worked successfully by a private company in the event of the minerals being found to be present in commercial quantities. We would not have immediately undertaken this exploration of coal in South Laoighis were it not that this company, which has a lease of the area, stated that, in the event of borings revealing the existence of coal in workable quantities, they were prepared to consider its commercial working as part of their enterprise.

Are there any other minerals present?

We have been looking only for coal.

Any chance of gold?

It is strange that the Deputy should have mentioned that because, in the immediate vicinity of that area, about 100 years ago, a German company mined for gold and made a considerable amount of money out of it. There is a very strong local belief that the gold areas they worked are still in existence and that it would still be possible to make a profit from them. The Deputy may have intended his query as a joke, but that is the fact.

It is proposed to spend £1,000 within the lease holding area. Would it be out of order or would it be a nasty question to ask the Minister to extend that to the surrounding parishes where there are good grounds for believing that there are coal deposits?

There is nothing to prevent a similar grant being made for mineral exploration work in any other part of the country, if there is any prospect whatever of the exploration resulting in commercial working. If the Deputy can produce, in relation to these other areas, some individual prepared to say: "If you will explore these minerals by digging boreholes and prove their existence, I am prepared to put up my own resources, or organise a company to work them commercially," or if he can get someone to consider it seriously, then a grant can be made available. That applies in relation to the coal area we are exploring now, but it does not apply to any area in the immediate vicinity, apart from Slieveardagh, which we have been exploring during the last couple of years.

The Minister has received representations in regard to the Luggacurran area, which is in the immediate vicinity of The Swan.

That is so, and I have decided not to carry out exploration by means of boreholes in this area because it is an expensive process and gives very little employment. I have so decided, first of all, because the geological information does not support the theory as to the value of the deposits, and, secondly in any event there is not an immediate prospect of commercial working in the background.

The same argument was used by the Minister and by his predecessor in regard to The Swan.

No, I do not think so.

I contest that entirely. In other cases, where there was better reason to believe that the minerals existed in workable quantities, as in Slieveardagh, we have provided and spent a very substantial sum to explore them thoroughly. The report on Slieveardagh was published last year and justified the expenditure we undertook. In that case there was no immediate prospect of commercial working. The report may create commercial prospects, but until some progress is made in respect to that area I do not think we should take a similar shot in the dark in any other part of the country unless we have, as we have in the case of The Swan, an immediate prospect of a commercial working by a private firm.

Are there any royalties payable in respect of this coal?

Yes. The terms of the lease provide for the payment of royalties to the State.

The State gets the royalties?

Yes. I do not think I could give Deputy Dillon any assurance that those whom he describes as the despised natives will not be crowded out at the industrial exhibition in New York. I do not believe Deputy Dillon really believes they will be.

I assure the Minister there is need for urgency if they are not to be crowded out.

As regards the other matter the Deputy raised about any trade openings which the Exhibition in New York might create, that is one I would be prepared to discuss on a relevant occasion, but I think I would be out of order if I were to deal with it now.

How will the pavilions be disposed of?

When the fair is over?

I suppose they will be sold for what they are worth. They will not be worth much. As regards the pavilions, one will be provided by the fair authorities; they will provide it at their own expense. The other pavilion is being erected by us and the design is such that it is not intended to be a permanent structure. It will last while the fair is there and what will be left after it is taken down will not fetch much. The actual exhibits and the furniture and other equipment will be of value and will be realised for the benefit of the State.

What is the number of additional inspectors proposed to be appointed under this sub-head?

I could not tell the Deputy that at the moment. It is not a question of inspectors only; it will mean inspectors and other staff. The Deputy will see at the head of the reference in the note the Act under which this commission is being carried on. The Act is the Prices Commission (Extension of Functions) Act of 1938. In 1938 the functions of the Prices Commission were extended. They were given an entirely new block of work to do which was not within the original scheme. Additional staff had to be appointed, including accountants and inspectors and so forth, in order to enable the work to be done. The estimated cost of that is £4,025.

I am quite capable of reading that, but the Minister has not given me the information I asked for.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn