Vol. 115 No. 15
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £2,274,400 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1950, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including certain Services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain Subsidies and sundry Grants-in-Aid.
On a point of order. Could we know if it is proposed to deal with the group, or only with the Department proper, in this discussion?
Usually it is the group, but of course there may be some questions on any of the other Votes.
Matters of policy to be raised on the main Estimate.
Could we know definitely?
In making that statement, I want to make it quite clear that I am not accepting it as a rule, in view of the way the matter was treated last week. It is my intention to raise matters of policy on the main Estimate.
I want to be clear one way or the other.
All I am asking for, and am entitled to ask, is that the usual practice be followed.
In introducing the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce, I want to refer to the circumstances in which a reprint of the Estimate was issued to Deputies after they had been presented with the printed volume of Estimates for the year ending on the 31st March, 1950. The Government, after consideration, decided it would be appropriate that the administrative responsibility for matters connected with the procurement of wheat supplies from abroad should be exercised by the Minister for Agriculture, who is, of course, the administrative authority in connection with the home production of wheat. It was a natural consequence of this decision that the Government should also decide that the administration of the subsidy on flour and wheatenmeal should be transferred to the Minister for Agriculture.
The transfers took effect as from the 1st April last and the sum of £6,871,000 for the payment of flour and wheatenmeal subsidy in the current financial year was taken out of sub-head J in the Industry and Commerce Estimate and put into the Estimate for Agriculture. There are other changes in the Industry and Commerce Estimate for the current financial year as compared with that for the previous year. It was decided during 1948 to transfer the service for the issue of health embarkation certificates to the Department of Social Welfare, to which it is appropriate, and the Estimate for that Department contains the provision for this service in the current year. The provision for certain services formerly conducted by Bord na Móna has been discontinued and I will mention later the reasons for this discontinuance.
In the column showing the provision made for various services in the financial year 1948-49, there has been an addition of £26,980 in respect of increase in Civil Service remuneration which has been transferred from the separate Vote for that purpose which was passed last year by the Dáil. Excluding the provision for flour and wheatenmeal subsidy, and taking account of the other changes affecting not only the current year, but last year, the Estimate which I am now presenting to the Dáil shows a net decrease of £3,735,965 as compared with last year. There are decreases in practically every sub-head of the Vote, and, in the course of my remarks. I will deal with the principal items.
The Estimate includes provision, mainly under sub-head A, for the salaries and expenses of the Statistics Branch of my Department. The Government have decided that, as from the 1st June, a central statistics office is to be set up which will be attached to the Department of the Taoiseach; and they have made an Order transferring my functions in regard to statistics to the Taoiseach as from that date. Deputies will have an opportunity to discuss the matter on an Estimate for the new office which will be introduced shortly. For accounting convenience, it has been decided that the Department of Industry and Commerce will pay the salaries and certain other expenses provided in the Estimate for Industry and Commerce for the current financial year and will account for that expenditure.
Notwithstanding the increases in Civil Service remuneration which were authorised last year, the Estimate this year shows a small decrease in the provision for salaries, wages and allowances. Though the permanent activities of the Department tend to increase, there has been a reduction in the staffs due in the main to a curtailment of those services of a temporary nature which were introduced to cope with emergency conditions. The emergency necessitated the introduction of special measures of control over the importation, exportation and distribution of essential commodities. I share to the full the desire of those who wish to see these emergency controls removed, and I have arranged that those controls which still remain will be subject to a continuous process of examination so that they will be removed immediately the need for them has passed.
As a result of this examination, a number of controls has been either removed or substantially modified in the past 12 months. I will mention only the abolition of soap rationing, the relaxation of export control, and the easement in the arrangements for the distribution of petroleum products. Unfortunately, many controls must necessarily be retained for the time being, at any rate. Many essential goods which were scarce during the emergency are once more freely available. But in some instances, such as petroleum products, and certain building materials, shortages still persist or the position of supplies has not yet reached that degree of stability which would justify the complete abolition of controls. The main limiting factor in the building industry is the shortage of skilled workers. The changes which have been made either by removal or easement of controls have permitted reductions in staffs and the numbers shown in the Estimate for this year are less by nearly 100 than they were last year. Since the Estimate was printed further reductions in staff have been found possible, and I anticipate still greater reductions will be made before the end of this year. The staffs released from my Department will be transferred to meet the requirements of other Departments, whose services are expanding.
During the past year, there has been a steady and continuous increase in industrial activity, notwithstanding the difficulties which arise from the fact that machinery and equipment still continue to be difficult to obtain. It is the policy of the Government to give every encouragement in their power to sound proposals for the establishment of new industries or the expansion and development of existing industries. In giving effect to this policy, the Government will be prepared, where necessary, to provide for industry any reasonable measure of protection that may be required and that will not be detrimental to the interests of the community as a whole. The Government have been concerned to ensure that there will be the fullest examination of every relevant factor arising in connection with applications for protection, and that special attention should be given to measures for promoting the well-being and expansion of Irish industry. They consider that their policy in these respects can best be furthered by setting up a special body who will have the fullest possible independence and who will be charged with special functions of an advisory nature in relation to industry and its development. They, accordingly, decided to set up an industrial development authority with functions which have already been announced. The preliminary steps for the establishment of the authority have been taken and, at an early date, I will introduce proposals for legislation, so that statutory effect will be given to the Government's decision and that the legal position of the authority, as well as the powers to be conferred on the members, will be determined. As there are many urgent matters awaiting examination by the industrial development authority, it has been decided that the members should make a start with their duties in advance of the enactment of the legislation.
During the past year many proposals have been before me for the establishment of new industries or the expansion of existing industries. Some of these proposals were indefinite and tentative in nature. It is likely that some of them will not be pursued, but the prospective promoters have been afforded all the information and help which it was practicable to give. In the past year I have notified my approval in 90 cases of new industrial proposals and in 14 of these cases the production stage has been reached and appreciable employment has already been given. The numbers employed will expand when these new industries advance beyond the development stage through which they are now passing. There are some 70 proposals for new industries which are in process of advancement towards completion. The volume of production in the industries producing transportable goods was, in the year 1948, 15 per cent. above the volume in the year 1947 and 36 per cent. above the volume in the year 1938. For the last quarter of 1948, the volume of production in these industries showed an increase of nearly 9½ per cent. over the volume in the last quarter of 1947. In industry as a whole, that is, including building and construction, public works of the State and local authorities, transport and public utilities, the provisional figures of production show an increase in 1948 of 16? per cent over 1947 and of 28 per cent. over 1938. In 1948, as compared with 1947, the most notable increases in output occurred in the production of bricks, glass and cement, pottery, wood furniture and upholstery, vehicles, metals, engineering and certain branches of the textile industry. There was a decline in the clothing industry and a more marked decline in the fellmongery, leather and footwear industries.
I have given special attention during the past year to the position of the clothing, leather and footwear industries. In the case of the clothing industry, the manufacturers made representations to me on a number of occasions, that they were being seriously affected by the substantial volume of imports which the effective rate of duty of 25 per cent. ad valorem, reimposed in January, 1948, was doing nothing to stop. They urged that unless action was taken to stem the flow of imports they would be forced to close down their factories, and they produced evidence to indicate that goods were being landed here at prices with which, having regard to their costs of materials and wages, they could not possibly hope to compete. I had several meetings with the clothing manufacturers and, having been satisfied as to the strength of their case, it was decided by the Government, on my recommendation, to double the effective rate of import duty. I was assured by the manufacturers that this increased protection would not lead to increased prices and, indeed, they went further in stating that the extra production which would result from getting the bulk of our market reserved to them should so reduce their costs as to enable them to reduce prices. I have warned the manufacturers that, if there is any attempt by them to take advantage of the higher rate of protection now afforded to them by increasing prices, I will take steps to withdraw the protection entirely.
The footwear industry presents a specially difficult problem. On account of the volume of publicity which conditions in this industry have had recently it might not be inappropriate to set out the facts of the situation. The pre-war market for leather footwear was in the region of 4,750,000 pairs annually. In 1938 it was 4,697,000 pairs, made up a home production of 4,442,000 pairs and imports amounting to 255,000 pairs. Though rationing had to be adopted, the market was reasonably supplied throughout the whole period of the emergency. In 1946, although home production at 5,254,000 pairs showed a substantial improvement on the previous year. imports amounting to 1,068,000 pairs were permitted, making a total quantity of 6,322,000 pairs available in that year. In the following year home production increased still further to 5,491,776 pairs. Although the output of Irish factories in that year was substantially greater than the total annual pre-war demand, imports amounting to 2,145,948 pairs were authorised under the Control of Imports Acts. An import quota of 625,000 pairs of leather footwear was appointed in November, 1947, for the first six months of 1948, and when I took office as Minister I found that substantial advantage was being taken of this quota for the importation of such footwear. That, briefly, was the situation when I first met representatives of the manufacturers over a year ago and when they claimed that the industry was in a perilous condition because of extensive imports. After reviewing the matter at that time I took steps to reduce the imports drastically. A quota of 150,000 pairs was fixed for the second half of 1948, and, in fact, only 105,000 pairs were imported in that period. It was also provided at that time that boots, as distinct from shoes, would not be imported and this provision continues to apply. In agreement with the manufacturers a quota of 200,000 pairs was fixed for the first half of 1949 but imports from January to March, 1949, amounted to less than 28,000 pairs, i.e., less than 2 per cent. of the market. I hope that the figures which I have quoted will refute finally the assertion that the difficulties of the footwear industry have been caused by competition from current imports, or that I have neglected the interests of this important industry. Despite the measures to which I have referred I regret to say that there has been little or no improvement in the position of the industry and because of this fact I again met a fully representative meeting of the manufacturers recently. Though some of them were still inclined to the view that their difficulties were being accentuated, if not indeed caused, by current imports, it was agreed generally, after discussion, that such imports were of little or no consequence. At my suggestion the manufacturers agreed to set up a small committee which would make a comprehensive examination of the industry and submit proposals for action that would put it on a sound basis for the future. The committee are still working and I expect that their proposals will come before me in the near future. In the meantime, I am taking action in an endeavour to secure improved export outlets for footwear.
Numbers of protective measures which were in operation before the war and which were suspended owing to supply difficulties continue to be suspended. Each case is separately examined from time to time so that it may be ascertained if any action is necessary to safeguard our own producers.
In the many meetings which I myself and officers of my Department have had with representative of the industrial community frequent references have been made to the widespread prejudice existing in the home market against Irish-manufactured goods. It was, perhaps, understandable that some such prejudice should exist when industrial development was first initiated by a native Government, but now that Irish enterprises are firmly established and their promoters have attained more experience in productive methods, there can be no reason for the continuance of such mistaken ideas. I immediately decided to take such action as was open to me to ensure that the products of our industries would get a fair trial on the home market, and that the mind of the buying public would not be unduly influenced by high-pressure advertising of imported commodities. As Deputies are aware, I had a meeting recently with representatives of manufacturers, distributors and trade unions to discuss this whole question. At that meeting I indicated measures which would, in my opinion, popularise Irish goods and suggested that the various interests present should establish a representative committee which would not merely start, but sustain over a long period, a publicity and advertising campaign to popularise Irish products. I am glad to be able to say that my suggestions were unanimously accepted, and I am confident that if the committee acts vigorously and wholeheartedly on the lines proposed they will be doing very good work for Ireland and, incidentally, for themselves. If our manufacturers cannot find sale for their products here they must curtail production, thus depriving workers at home of the means of livelihood. This situation will immediately react on distributors by contributing to the improverishment of their customers and the contraction of their market.
The products of many of our industries are in demand in the markets of the world by virtue of their excellent quality. Our industrialists, however, would be well advised to devote continuous attention to improvements in quality and design as there can be no finality in these matters. If the efforts we are now making to remove the anti-Irish prejudice are successful our producers can compete on equal terms with the manufacturers abroad, but they can continue to do so effectively only by concentrating continuously on turning out articles which will be more satisfactory to the Irish consumer than those available from outside sources.
Employment in those industries covered by the Census of Industrial Production, including building and other industries of the service type, as well as manufacturing industries, increased during the year 1948 by 11 per cent. over the figure for 1938 and by 4 per cent. over the figure for 1947.
The provisional estimates show that the number engaged in industrial production increased from 177,000 in 1947 to 184,000 in 1948. For purposes of comparison it might be mentioned that in 1938 the number engaged in industry was 166,107. It is worthy of note that the preliminary returns for 1948 show that that year has seen the highest level of industrial production and of industrial employment ever recorded in the annals of the State. I might mention in that connection that industrial exports for 1948 exceeded by £2,000,000, or 20 per cent., industrial exports for the previous year.
There are some disquieting features about the employment position in rural areas. Attractive employment on public works with Bord na Móna and with the Electricity Supply Board is available, but these bodies have experienced great difficulty in obtaining workers in rural areas for the important undertakings in which they are interested.
Our external trade showed an improvement during the year 1948 in comparison with 1947. Imports in 1948 amounted to almost £137,000,000 in value an increase of almost £6,000,000 over the value of our imports in 1947. The value of our exports and reexports in 1948 was £47,500,000, which represented an increase of £8,000,000 over the value of the exports and reexports in 1947. The trade deficit in 1948 was £89,000,000 as compared with £92,000,000 in 1947. On invisible account, which represents net earnings from tourists, dividends from abroad, emigrants' remittances and so on, there was a balance in the country's favour in 1948 of £74,000,000 as compared with £62,000,000 in 1947. The overall net deficit in our external transactions was, therefore, £15,000,000 in 1948 as against £30,000,000 in 1947.
Since July, 1948, imports have shown a marked fall and exports have expanded. The balance of trade for the last six months of 1948 averaged £5,750,000 a month as compared with an average of £9,000,000 a month during the 12 months ended on the 30th June, 1948. I have taken every practicable step to increase the flow of industrial exports. Our exporters have, however, been handicapped in their efforts by the import restrictions imposed in other countries, and there have been discussions with representatives of many of these countries with a view to enabling our manufacturers to obtain markets for their goods. We have concluded agreements with Great Britain, France and the Netherlands and discussions are proceeding or are about to begin with some 12 or 13 other countries.
The importance of the tourist industry in our economy is reflected in the fact that the net earnings of the industry in 1948 represented at about £30,000,000 almost one-half of our total credit balance in that year on invisible account. The net receipts of the industry in 1947 have been estimated at £28,000,000 and in 1946 at £18,000,000. The peak was probably reached last year and I fear that it is unlikely that net receipts will again be so high, but it is very essential in the national interest that every effort should be made to ensure that the industry will be conducted efficiently by those engaged in it. The hotel business is the centre of the industry and I am of opinion that this business can best be conducted by private enterprise. Consequently, I have decided, with the approval of the Government, that the hotels acquired by the Tourist Board and operated on their behalf by Failte, Teoranta, should be sold. Action to give effect to this decision is at present proceeding. One of the most effective ways, in my opinion, of advancing the tourist industry is by a carefully prepared publicity campaign in those countries from which it is most likely that tourists can be attracted to this country. Funds are being made available for the purpose to the Irish Tourist Association, and I have every confidence that beneficial results will be obtained. The question as to the future action to be taken in relation to properties, other than hotels, acquired by the Tourist Board for development is under consideration and an announcement of policy will be made on a suitable occasion when this question has been fully examined.
Under the sub-head for food subsidies the provision for 1949-50 of £2,279,000 covers only the subsidies on tea and sugar. The provision made for 1948-49 covered subsidies on flour and wheatenmeal, oatmeal and margarine, as well as tea and sugar, and the amount provided, adjusted to take account of the transfer of the flour and wheatenmeal subsidy, was £3,047,805. There is a decrease of £768,805. Subsidy is no longer payable on oatmeal and margarine. In the case of sugar, modifications have been made in the scheme for distribution, and subsidy is paid only on sugar supplied to meet the domestic ration at the rate of ¾lb. a head per week. In the result, a substantial saving of subsidy will be effected. In the case of tea, distribution since rationing was introduced was on a quota basis which had to be adopted at the time when the bulk of our tea supplies came to us through the British Ministry of Food. This quota basis has resulted in payment of subsidy on excess quantities of tea, and it is proposed, when the necessary arrangements have been completed, to apply similar rationing arrangements to tea as those which apply in the case of the domestic sugar ration. The result will be a saving in the tea subsidy payments. All the measures which I have mentioned account for the decrease in the provision shown in the Estimate.
The prices charged for practically all commodities were subjected to a constant examination by the Prices Branch of my Department and the profits being taken by manufacturers were also closely examined. In the result, numerous price reductions were secured. The goods in which reductions were effected included margarine, cornflour, rice, jam, dried fruits, soap, timber, bicycles, petrol, building materials, certain articles of clothing, motor cars, wrapping-paper, paper bags and cardboard boxes. These reductions were effected and other prices kept stable notwithstanding the fact that, during the year, the upward trend in the cost of raw materials continued.
Deputies will observe that only a token provision is made in the Estimate for the fuel subsidy. The circumstances in which substantial reserves of fuel were purchased some years ago are well known, and heavy losses will of necessity have to be incurred in disposing of this fuel. Since the reserves were acquired and stored to meet emergency conditions and the fuel cannot be put into immediate consumption, it is the view of the Minister for Finance that the losses should not be charged in the accounts for the years in which they are incurred but should be refunded and spread over a term of years. The stocks of fuel held at the 14th May, 1949 were turf 149,306 tons, firewood 14,036 tons and coal 381,849 tons. The figures at a corresponding date in May, 1948 were turf 271,376 tons, firewood 399,403 tons and coal 457,720 tons.
I come now to the operations of Bord na Móna. The major development schemes on which the board are at present engaged are financed direct from the Central Fund by advances made under the Turf Development Act of 1946. The board are pressing forward energetically with the first scheme of development. Originally it was intended that a period of ten years would be required for its completion, but the work is being expedited so as to bring it to completion in a period of five years. The shortening of the period for completion will involve additional expenditure, and provision to meet that expenditure out of the Central Fund will be made in a Bill which will be presented to the Dáil at the earliest practicable moment. That Bill will also contain provision to cover a second scheme of development which the board have drawn up and which the Government have accepted. Work on the first scheme is proceeding with all haste. In the case of some areas under the second scheme further survey is necessary before final decisions can be taken and these surveys are being pushed ahead rapidly towards completion.
The Estimate now before the Dáil contains provision in sub-heads O (1) and O (2) for certain other activities of Bord na Móna. By the terms of the Act of 1946 provision for experiment and research falls to be made in the annual Estimate. The fact that this year the provision for this service shows a reduction of £40,000 as compared with last year does not reflect any diminution of interest in experiment and research either by the Government or by Bord na Móna. The reduction simply results from a realistic approach to the amount of experiment and research on which it will be practicable to embark in the current year. Deputy Larkin put a question to me on this subject some weeks ago, when I informed him that at the present time the board consider they can best advance the interests of turf development by concentrating their research activities on work which aims to obtain the production of turf in large quantities at reasonable cost. At the same time experiments are continuing in producing wax from peat, and there is investigation regarding the use of peat in the manufacture of wallboard and insulating material and in gas turbines.
In sub-head O (2) a provision of £384,000 has been made to meet the cost in the financial year of the turf production scheme which was formerly carried out by county councils. The provision for this service set out in the Book of Estimates for last year was £1,900,000. Deputies are already familiar with the circumstances in which the scheme was revised last year and the activities of Bord na Móna on this service confined to the production of turf by semi-automatic machines. Last year 100,000 tons of turf were produced and the expenditure incurred amounted to approximately £222,000. This year the aim is to produce 180,000 tons with an expenditure of £384,000, and it is expected that from the sale of the turf a sum of £355,500 will be realised and brought to account as an Appropriation-in-Aid. The net deficit on the scheme this year is, therefore, estimated at £28,500. In the early part of my statement I mentioned that no provision was being made this year for certain services previously operated by Bord na Móna. These are production of turf for use in non-turf areas, administration and general development; these items being set out in italics in the appropriate section of the Estimate. The provision formerly made for the production of turf for use in non-turf areas was in respect of the Kildare scheme for the hand-winning of turf operated directly by the board. The discontinuance of this scheme was decided upon early in 1948 and only a token provision in respect of it was made in the Estimates for last year. The provision for cost of administration of £12,000 made last year covered expenditure on a turf marketing section which was engaged in the inspection of hand-won turf and in supervising distribution and allocation. This service is no longer needed with the cessation of hand-won production and has been discontinued. The general development, for which £3,500 was provided last year, also related to the sale of hand-won turf and to the promotion of its production, the grant being expended almost entirely on publicity. Here, again, this service has ceased and no further provision is necessary.
There is an increase of £100,000 in the amount provided this year for the repayment of advances for rural electrification. These advances are made in the first instance from the Central Fund and the statute under which they are made requires that one-half of the amount advanced in any year will be met as a subsidy from State funds and repaid from the Vote to the Central Fund in the year succeeding that in which the advances were made. The increase this year shows the progress made during last year in the development of the rural electrification scheme. At the 31st March, 1949, work had been completed in 37 areas, and, of these, 30 had been completed in the year to the 31st March, 1949. In that year the number of consumers receiving supply under the rural scheme increased from 2,227 to 11,580. The Electricity Supply Board aim during the present financial year to complete 60 additional areas, and I consider that, generally, progress on the scheme can be regarded as satisfactory.
Provision has been made to cover the operations of Mianraí, Teoranta, at Slievardagh and Avoca. In the Slievardagh coalfield area, production from the Ballynunty and Lickfinn mines ceased during the year. I have on a previous occasion informed the House that the production in these mines was found to be completely uneconomic and it had been continued during the emergency only because of the acute fuel shortage which prevailed. Mianraí, Teoranta, have not, however, suspended operations in the Slievardagh district. During 1948 exploration work was concentrated on the copper area and further drilling was done in nine bore holes and 15 trial pits sunk. I have been informed by the company that the prospecting work has proved an area of coal of which samples are of good quality, and it is expected that production will begin before the end of the present calender year.
The Government have decided that exploration in the Avoca mineral area should proceed and they have agreed that on this work a sum of £120,000 may be expended. The Government have received expert opinion to the effect that for this sum of £120,000 it should be possible to get full information about the extent and quality of the mineral deposits in the area, so that the question as to whether further development should proceed can be decided. There have been delays in starting on the work at Avoca due to certain difficulties about title, but a commencement will be made in the very near future. Exploration work, for which a further sum of £13,000 is being provided separately under sub-head N (4) is proceeding on the gypsum and anhydrite mine in the Carrick-macross/Kingscourt area. The objects of this exploration are to get further information regarding the nature and extent of the deposits, to determine how the minerals can be worked most efficiently on a commercial basis and to test for salt, coal and other minerals. The work is being carried out under contract by a Swedish firm and the total cost will be about £44,000. There were delays in the initial stages due to difficulties in obtaining equipment but satisfactory progress is now being made and it is expected that the greater part of the exploration will be completed this year. This is an important mineral area and I anticipate that its subsequent development will prove of substantial economic advantage.
The provision in Vote 58 for transport and marine services is £262,600 as against £217,280 for last year. Deputies are aware that the Government, immediately on taking office, considered it advisable that there should be an immediate investigation of the whole field of transport and they entrusted this task to Sir James Milne, who brought into the inquiry experts in various branches of transport. I want again to acknowledge my indebtedness, and that of the Government, to Sir James Milne and his colleagues for the very valuable and comprehensive report which they submitted in such a remarkably short space of time. The decisions of the Government on the main issues have already been announced and legislation will shortly be introduced to set up a public transport authority and to give effect to the other decisions taken by the Government. The Estimate now before the Dáil contains no financial provision in respect of the services conducted by Córas Iompair Eireann, but opportunity for discussion of those services, and of the proposals of the Government, will be afforded when the Bill to which I have referred is introduced. I do not propose, at this stage, to deal with these aspects of the transport question, but I think that I should inform the House that, because of the critical state of the finances of Córas Iompair Eireann, it was necessary, in accordance with the State guarantee given under Section 18 of the Transport Act, 1944, to issue moneys from the Central Fund in July, 1948, and again in January, 1949, to enable Córas Iompair Eireann to meet the interest charges falling due in the months mentioned on the State-guaranteed Debentures. The sum so advanced from the Central Fund amounted in all to £360,145. The Transport Act of 1944 provides in Section 18 (6) that such advances, with interest, shall be repaid to the Central Fund by the company within 12 months from the dates on which the advances were made. It seems unlikely that the company will be in a position to repay the advances made in July, 1948, and in January, 1949. The Transport Act, 1944, provides that, failing repayment by the company the advances must be repaid to the Central Fund out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. It may be necessary to take a Supplementary Estimate to enable repayment to be made to the Central Fund.
For grants in respect of harbours the provision for this year at £235,010 shows an increase of £43,010 over the amount voted last year. Grants will be paid during this year in respect of works which are either in progress or about to be started at Dublin, Cork, Arklow, Tralee and Fenit, Burtonport, Killybegs, Rathmullan and Westport. There are applications before my Department for financial assistance for the development and improvement of 12 other harbours. The general question of aid in these other cases is at present being considered by the Government. The matter is one of major importance and has to be examined closely, not only by reference to the merits of each individual case, but also in conjunction with other problems concerning transport as a whole. I should point out to the Dáil that even if unlimited funds were made available, progress with harbour development and improvement would be slow. Equipment and materials, as well as professional and technical personnel, are scarce, and the available resources are taxed to the utmost in connection with the works that are in hand or in train.
The amount required for aviation and meteorological services for the current year is estimated at £1,142,310 as against a Vote of £1,693,390 taken in the year 1948-49—a decrease of £551,080 A substantial part of the decrease is accounted for by a reduction in the provision made for constructional works at the Shannon and Dublin Airports. No necessary work of construction is, however, being neglected and it is the policy to develop these airports so that operations will be facilitated in every possible way. The major works at the two airports have almost all been completed, but there are some items of which mention should be made. A third hangar is being constructed at the Dublin Airport and will meet a long-felt need. The work was held up through difficulty in obtaining the substantial quantity of structural steel which is required, but this difficulty has now been overcome and the work is going ahead. A new radio building at Ballygirreen, County Clare, near the Shannon Airport is in course of construction and at the airport itself work is proceeding on the erection of a fire station and in the replacement of the control tower which was destroyed by fire a year ago. From now onwards, the amount required for construction work for airports should be diminishing.
Aer Lingus continue to operate our air services with the efficiency, regularity and regard for safety which have characterised the activities of the company since it was inaugurated. The company are making every effort to reduce the demands on the Exchequer for subsidy and, in an endeavour to increase traffic, fares have been reduced and special mid-week excursion rates introduced. Because of a falling-off in traffic, due in large part to exchange restrictions, the service from Dublin to Brussels was suspended in June 1948, and, because of an insufficiency of traffic, the direct Aer Lingus service from Shannon to London was suspended last April. An Aer Lingus link between Shannon and London is provided through Dublin. The company have started a service from Dublin to Birmingham and another new service from Dublin to the Channel Islands will be operated during the summer months. Notwithstanding the economies which the company have introduced, losses are still being incurred and the Estimate for this year included a sum in respect of subsidy for the year of £69,000. The amount actually provided in the Estimate this year for subsidy is £300,000, but this includes arrears of subsidy in respect of earlier years. By Section 19 of the Air Navigation and Transport Act, 1946, the subsidies payable were limited to a total of £750,000. The limit was reached in March 1948, and though provision for further subsidy payments was made in the Votes for each of the last two years, the full payments could not be made because the legal limit had been passed. I propose, during the course of this financial year, to introduce a Bill which will provide, among other matters, for an extension in the amount which may be paid in subsidy, so that issues may be made from the Vote not only in respect of the current year, but also in respect of arrears due for earlier years.
There are many services administered by my Department of which I have made no mention, not because they are unimportant, but merely for the reason that a reference to them all would entail an unduly long opening statement. I will, however, be prepared when replying to the debate to give any information which Deputies may require and to supplement, if necessary, the information given about those services which I have mentioned.
As Deputies are aware, my Department is in intimate touch with the industrial and trading life of the country and indeed to no small extent with the every-day affairs of the public generally. I believe that it enjoys the confidence of all with whom it has dealings. During the year just past it had to contend with many formidable problems. Some of these have now been solved; that those which still remain have not also been brought to solution is not the fault of the officers of my Department who continue to give very considerable help and guidance to our people in tackling the difficulties which still beset us.
Although emergency conditions are gradually disappearing, I have no doubt that the year on which we have entered will call for sustained effort by all sections of our people if we are to see the early return of normality in our daily life. While very substantial progress has been made during the year, a reading of the economic chart shows that there is no reason for complacency. Only by the wholehearted co-operation of all groups, manufacturers, traders, workers in every sphere of activity, can we hope to raise the country's output to a degree sufficient to redress our unfavourable trade and payments balances and to enable our people to enjoy at home that standard of living to which they aspire. Each individual can further his own and the country's interests by working harder. The services administered by the Department of Industry and Commerce will be at the disposal of everyone to whom they may be of assistance in devising and operating schemes for increasing output and ensuring the betterment of our people.
Ireland has now, in my opinion, the greatest opportunity it ever had of material advancement. There is, however, no time to waste, and I would ask the Dáil to approach the consideration of the Estimate in the realisation that although much has been done to improve the conditions of our people, much still remains to be done—and done urgently. It is in this spirit that I come to the House for the funds necessary to defray, up to the 31st March, 1950, the cost of the various services for which I have responsibility.
There is a motion to refer back.
I move:—
That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.
I hope that the Minister's reaction to criticism will be less hysterical than that of his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture. It is a comfort to realise, when proceeding to criticise the work of the Department of Industry and Commerce, that one is dealing with a Minister who does not regard himself as the greatest man in the world. The normal functioning of democracy is based on the theory that no man is perfect, and that the work of any Minister or of any Department of Government can be improved by criticism. We propose to exercise our right and to discharge our function here by criticising the Department of Industry and Commerce as last week we criticised the Department of Agriculture.
I think the Minister and his Department are open to a great deal of criticism. I am sure he must be aware of the fact that there is a common complaint amongst the business community that the policy of his Department has been inadequately defined, and that when it is applied, if at all, it is in a dilatory and hesitant manner. No Department of Government can function effectively unless there is a clearly defined policy and prompt and clear Ministerial decisions in accordance with that policy on specific matters as they arise. The absence of a clearly defined policy, or difficulty in getting prompt and clear decisions, leads to futility.
There was some time ago a popular song about a musical instrument that, I think, is called the tuba which referred to the music going around and around and coming out through the horn. The impression that one gets of the Department of Industry and Commerce is of an organisation in which ideas, suggestions and proposals are going around and around continuously and coming out nowhere. I am anxious to try and get from the Minister to-day some more specific indication as to when all the things which he has announced his intention of doing will be executed. Up to the present we have had vague and general statements of future intentions and no action. The Minister has made an extraordinarily large number of speeches during the year at various functions, social and otherwise, and with the sentiments expressed in these speeches very little objection can be taken. The work of the Department of Industry and Commerce, however, will not be executed by good intentions. Our main criticism of the Department is that these declarations and intentions, these general sentiments with which we agree, have not been followed by effective action.
The Minister, in the concluding portion of his remarks in introducing the Estimate to-day said that there is "no time to waste". I wish he could order that a notice containing these words, "No time to waste", could be printed and posted in every office of the Department, and that he might be able to spare a few for other Departments as well. I think it would help them and the Dáil to realise the situation with which the country is dealing and the work which the Department of Industry and Commerce has to do in relation to that situation if we made these four words our slogan, "No time to waste." A great deal of time has been wasted. That is our main complaint. These announcements of the Minister concerning decisions of the Government or of himself to do particular things have not been followed by action, and, because they have not been followed by action, they have themselves been the cause of a waste of time and of missed opportunities.
I have referred repeatedly to the announcement made last February of the intention to establish an industrial advisory authority. If the Minister was not in a position to proceed at once with the constitution of that authority and with a delimitation of its powers and functions, the announcement of the intention to set it up should not have been made. He informed us here to-day that this authority will have the fullest possible independence of his Department. The fact that it is to be independent of his Department, and that apparently the Department will act generally in accordance with its advice, while no intimation has yet been given as to what its powers are to be, means that no one will take a chance in industrial development until that position has been clarified. It may be that, by contact with officers of the Department or with the Minister, particular industrial promoters may get positive assurances of co-operative action, but over the whole field of industry the tendency will be to mark time because it is known that this authority is to be set up, but it is not known what its powers are going to be since the statute defining its powers has not been forthcoming.
The Minister said just now that he is going to set up the authority in advance of legislation. For the life of me I cannot see what good that will do. The public know that the authority is going to be set up, and they know the members to be appointed to it, unless there has been any change since the announcement was made, but they do not know what its powers are going to be. It seems to me that that body functioning without defined powers and without the public having knowledge of its intended powers can achieve no results whatever. I want to be quite clear in expressing my opinion that it was a mistake to decide to set it up at all. I think that it will constitute merely a fifth wheel of the coach, a wheel with a permanent brake on it, or another twist in the tuba in which everything will keep on going round and round. It is open to the Minister, if he wants to do it, to shift responsibility from his own shoulders on to the advisory body and to place himself in the position vis a vis the advisory body that he will act on their advice and fail to act if their advice is not forthcoming. I think that our circumstances are such that the work which it is contemplated this advisory authority should do could be far more efficiently and expeditiously done by the Department of Industry and Commerce, which has been discharging it up to the present.
Whatever criticism the Minister or his colleagues may have to make about the administration of that Department before, or about the policy of the previous Government, the very figures which he read out here to-day established beyond all doubt that we were working in the right direction. Industrial development had ceased completely when the Fianna Fáil Government came into office in 1932. We got it going. We had many controversies here as to the practicability or desirability of doing it, but there is no doubt that by 1939 such progress had been made that everyone had become converted to the idea of stimulating industrial development by Government action, and when the difficulties caused by the war passed it went ahead by leaps and bounds.
Long before the shortages of fuel and materials caused by the war had disappeared, our industrial production had risen above pre-war level, and it is still rising. I hope it is not rising because of the operation of the law of inertia, the law that bodies in motion tend to remain in motion, and that there is some other motive power behind the present progress. Whatever was done to promote and encourage industrial progress before was done in the Department of Industry and Commerce, was done without any national industrial advisory authority, and even though some mistakes may have been made and precipitate action may have been taken, in my view it was far more desirable that we should encourage precipitate action rather than have a delaying organisation for the investigation of everything before a decision would be made.
My experience has been—and I think there has been no case which would tend to cast doubt upon the conclusion I arrived at—that the setting up of committees or investigating authorities to inquire fully into particular industrial propositions is no more an insurance against error, or an assurance of sound planning than the ordinary investigation carried out by Departmental officials. In fact, in relation to particular matters like the development of sulphate of ammonia, where there was an inter-Departmental committee, we lost a number of years, missed the tide completely, and were no wiser as a result of the work of the committee than if we went ahead with the establishment of the industry without the aid of such committee.
The Minister has, however, decided to set up an industrial authority. My advice to him is to go ahead with it as quickly as possible; even though it may be an impediment or, at best, of no value, the present position is completely unsatisfactory. Months have elapsed since he announced his intention to create it and there is yet no sign of that authority coming into existence. The same criticism applies to the other matters to which the Minister referred. In connection with plans for the activities of Bord na Móna, plans matured by the board in 1947, the original adverse reaction of the Minister last year meant that the whole of last year was lost in the execution of these plans. Later in the year, after the Minister had investigated the position and visited the works of Bord na Móna, he became, as I knew he would, enthusiastic about its prospects and he announced that not merely was the original development plan being proceeded with, but that the present Government had decided to approve the extension of that plan which had been approved by the previous Government in the previous year.
That decision was welcomed. It was made six months ago. If action had been taken then the necessary legislation could have been passed and the board could have been proceeding to some extent with the preparations for the execution of that plan this year. I am warning the Minister that if he does not introduce legislation within the next few weeks he will miss next year also. The turf production season is a limited one, beginning about March and ending in July. Turf can only be won satisfactorily in that period. It may be saved at other periods of the year, but turf cut later than July or August is of poor quality, even where machines are involved. If the Minister is not to miss next year as well as this year he must introduce his legislation soon. The board requires legislation even to proceed with its first limited development plan, apart from getting the necessary authority and the finances to proceed with the second plan.
I was relieved to hear the Minister's announcement concerning mineral development. It was one of the matters to which I had intended to refer as apparently indicating unnecessary delay in the Department. The first decision of the present Government was to stop mineral development. Re-examination of the position showed that that decision was wrong and the announcement came that they are going to go ahead with the exploration of the Avoca area on a limited scale. Nothing, however, has been done. The Minister said there was some delay about title, and work would start soon. I am not satisfied with the intimation that the work is based upon expert advice. I doubt if there was competent expert advice that a thoroughly satisfactory exploration of the mineral resources can be done within the financial limit of £120,000.
Will it relieve the Deputy's mind if I tell him that I satisfied myself by consulting the experts that he himself consulted?
That relieves my mind to some extent, but my experience has been this, that every geologist is so enthusiastic about getting investigation work done that he will settle for anything if he cannot get more and nobody will ever be satisfied with the result of work done in any area so long as there is anything left undone. That is particularly true if the investigation has a negative result. There will always be the interested party who says: "You did not go far enough; you stopped a yard or 100 yards short". I doubt if the Minister will succeed in limiting the cost of investigation to the £120,000 be mentioned, unless he hits what the old-time miners would call pay dirt very early in his investigation.
We were informed that there was to be a national industrial advisory authority set up by legislation to be introduced soon; that Bord na Móna is to be authorised to proceed with an enlargement of its production activities by legislation which would come soon, and that the mineral investigation is to proceed as soon as certain legal difficulties are cleared up.
I will turn now to transport. The Minister said that the decisions of the Government on the main issues had already been announced. They have not—at least, in my view they have not. There may be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes the main issues. May I remind the Minister in that regard of the position as it is known to the public? In the course of 1947 the wages cost of operating the transport services of Córas Iompair Eireann were increased and the fuel costs also increased, so that in 1948 it was quite obvious that, apart altogether from the possibility of a repetition of the exceptional difficulties which had affected the company in 1947, the revenue which would be earned in 1948 on the basis of carrying the same traffic at the same rates of charge would be inadequate to defray its cost. The Minister was informed of that fact by the board of the company early in 1948. He said that he was not prepared then to take any decisions affecting the company or the charges of the company until he had an expert report on the situation generally; and, later in the year, Sir James Milne was appointed and his report was published shortly before Christmas. Nothing was done by the Minister pending the production of Sir James Milne's report. Subsequent to the publication of that report, certain announcements were made.
It was announced that Córas Iompair Eireann would be acquired by the Government on the basis of buying out the private shareholders and that legislation, having other consequences for Córas Iompair Eireann, would be introduced. So far as the public know, the only decisions which the Government have taken are to nationalise the undertaking, which has, in relation to Córas Iompair Éireann, no other consequence except an alteration in the method of electing directors, and to announce the terms of the compensation to be paid to the stockholders. These matters do not affect the transport problem of this country at all and, if the Government has proposals to make relating to that transport problem, they have not yet been announced. Again, I emphasise that the delay in coming to decisions and announcing these decisions is having very serious consequences.
There are many necessary developments of our transport system which could be taking place now, or could, at least, be commenced now, which are being delayed because everybody knows there is going to be a change; legislation is to be forthcoming and, subsequent to legislation, there is to be a new type of board of directors.
Let me give an illustration of what I have in mind. I was in Limerick on last Saturday. My previous visit to Limerick, apart from a lightning raid during the general election, was in 1947. On that occasion I was concerned with two specific things: one was—I will refer to it later—an extension to the cement factory there and the other was an extension of railway facilities to Limerick Port. I do not know whether the Minister shares my view that it is desirable that we should expand the secondary ports and harbours of the country and endeavour, if possible, to develop trade to them. In the case of Limerick, the main impediment to the development of that port, apart from the deepening of the channel, is the lack of a railway connection. In 1947 it seemed that that port was going to be facilitated by the need for the construction of railway facilities for the cement factory, which is on the same side of Limerick Port as the railway connection would obviously have to be located. Nothing has been done since, and the Limerick harbour authorities have been told that nothing can be done until legislation is introduced. It may be that there are other difficulties. I do not know. The specific reason given to Limerick harbour authorities why work on the construction of that railway extension — which I had hoped to see inaugurated last year—has not begun is because of the pending changes in the system of control of our transport organisation. May I ask if the Minister would give us information as to the specific projects which were under way when he acquired responsibility? I notice, in the course of a speech delivered to a Fine Gael convention in County Donegal last week, the Minister for Finance said in relation to this matter:—
"We decided to cut out the extravagance in the main transport concern of the country, but in that we were certainly put into office a year too late."
What is the reference?
It is a paper, the reliability of which cannot be questioned by any Deputy on the Government benches. It is the People's Press of Saturday, May 21st, 1948.
It is probably just as reliable as the Derry Journal.
I do not know what the Minister for Finance meant there. So far as the public is aware, no alteration has been made in the methods of management of Córas Iompair Éireann which could possibly be described as the cutting out of extravagance. In fact, it is well known that during the course of last year the Minister directly and specifically instructed the company that they were not to make any changes affecting staff or the extent of their operations until the Milne report was available. The specific matters dealt with in the Milne report related to capital expenditure and it is in regard to these matters that I am anxious to get information. There appears to be some misunderstanding in this regard. The Minister for External Affairs intervened in an earlier debate this year to refer to the construction of the central offices and bus station at Store Street and he did so in a manner which appeared to convey that he thought that the cost of that building was a charge upon the company's revenue. It is a charge upon its capital and, according to the company itself, the effect of the construction of these central offices will be to reduce its outgoings and consequently contribute to reducing the gap between its revenue and expenditure. What is the position in regard to that station? Apparently, work has stopped on it. Is that so? If that is so, I am satisfied because——
No direction has been given so far as I am aware for any stopping of the work.
It may be that there is a change of contractors taking place, but for some weeks past there has been no work proceeding.
That is probably just as reliable as the rumour we had that it was falling asunder a couple of months ago.
If the Minister of his own knowledge can tell me that there is no alteration of amendment to that plan I will take it that that is so.
So far as I know no direction has been given that would in any way affect the carrying out of the work. Contracts were entered into in relation to that building.
I think it is agreed that it is desirable Dublin should have a central bus station.
Do not let us go into that. There is nothing in this Estimate about it and we certainly cannot discuss it at this stage.
Certainly as one Dublin Deputy I believe—and I think all other Dublin Deputies will agree with me — that that horrible corrugated iron shelter on the quay must be abolished at some time and those who have to travel to Dublin by bus must be given a proper omnibus station with the necessary amenities and facilities which should exist in such a station.
I do not think there is much question about that, but there is a big conflict of opinion as to the location of that particular station.
It is not a matter for the transport authority. So far as Córas Iompair Éireann is concerned, they got full authority for the present location from the Dublin Corporation, the Garda Síochána and the Department of Local Government. They were, so far as I know, prepared to locate the station anywhere the traffic authorities approved, and they approved of that site. The location of central offices there is not merely likely to result in considerable decreases in the administration cost of the company's organisation, but will, according to their constitution, make other substantial savings because the interest upon the capital invested in that building will be less than they are now paying in rent, rates and taxes upon five premises throughout the city.
That, of course, was the opinion under the original estimate. The capital cost is now going to be at least double that original estimate.
I still think that statement is true. Let us take some of the other matters mentioned in the Milne report, apart from that central bus-station. There is the new chassis factory at Inchicore, the new body building shop and the new spring shop, plus a new wharf at Waterford. There was a reference to a plan for the reconstruction of Limerick Junction Station, which is certainly necessary, but it appears that the particular plan which Sir James Milne saw had never been seen by the Córas Iompair Éireann Board, much less approved of by them. What is the position concerning this factory? May I say this is a project in which I am personally very interested. I have always felt-that any industrial plan of this country ought to have somewhere in it the establishment of a properly-equipped general engineering shop. I have always felt that, in the circumstances of our State. We could not get that done unless we could relate it to the railway undertaking. The development of road services seems to make possible the establishment of the manufacture of chassis for omnibuses and lorries but, clearly, if that manufacture is to be undertaken, it must be in some way related to Córas Iompair Éireann, because by far the biggest purchaser of chassis from any such manufacturer will be Córas Iompair Éireann, and if it could be related to Córas Iompair Éireann it could be used as the basis of a general engineering industry. Again I ask : is there any truth in the report that work on that particular project has been suspended?
It certainly has.
It is a matter on which differences of opinion will exist, but may I say that even Sir James Milne did not recommend that? He did argue that we could possibly buy chassis cheaper from Britain because the wages to be paid to the works staff were higher here than in Great Britain. He said that the scheme could not be regarded as an essential adjunct to an efficient transport system. He was thinking, of course, with the mind of a man who has gained all his experience in Britain, which is a great industrial State and which, naturally, does not have to consider the problems which arise for a small country like this, which cannot establish these industries at all except by methods which would be regarded as unnecessary in Britain. His recommendation is based on a theoretical objection to associating it with Córas Iompair Éireann rather than setting it up as a separate organisation. If that project has been dropped I think our industrial progress has suffered a major reverse. The same remarks apply to the new spring shop and the new bodybuilding shop.
May I express one view which I think it is important should be expressed in relation to the matter of transport? The primary obligation of Córas Iompair Éireann, and it should be our primary concern also, is to ensure that our country is properly equipped with a thoroughly efficient transport system, one which is designed to assist and encourage the nation's economic progress. There is no doubt that we have not that yet. These aims are more important than devising patchwork methods to keep the existing organisation running on some basis which will avoid imposing a charge on the Exchequer. Certainly if I had thought that the management of Córas Iompair Éireann was planning the future development of that undertaking, upon the patchwork basis which Sir James Milne had in mind, I would have tried to have ensured some alteration in the position which would have taken into account these wider aims of transport policy.
I do not know if the Minister intends to make any pronouncement on the subject of branch lines. It is a matter which was frequently discussed here in the past and most Deputies opposite had entered into specific commitments with constituents regarding particular lines. There are, in Sir James Milne's report, some ambiguous references to this matter and a statement of policy with which I do not disagree. He did, however, go further than I would have thought wise regarding some branch lines, where it might be decided, following a public inquiry, that it was undesirable to keep them open. In paragraph 231 of the report he said:—
"In all the circumstances, it is considered that any proposal to close branch lines solely on the grounds that they are at present unprofitable should be rejected. It is recommended that before any branch line is closed there should be a public inquiry and that the governing consideration should be whether the retention of the branch as part of the country's highways system is necessary or desirable in the public interest."
That is my view and it is a view which I repeatedly expressed here. I hold that view for the reason which Sir James Milne expressed in an earlier paragraph, paragraph 225, where he said:—
"It is also important to remember that railway charges are not fixed on the economic cost of providing the services required on each different section of line. They are uniform charges which apply over the whole system and are fixed at a level which, as far as practicable will yield, together with other sources of revenue, sufficient income to cover all expenditure and provide a reasonable return on the capital invested in the undertaking."
Later on he recommended that where a public inquiry had shown that there was no case for keeping a branch line open, nevertheless, it should be kept open, subject to the adoption of his proposal concerning the establishment of a highways authority, if local interests demanded it and if the local county council was prepared to contribute to the cost. I think it would be a tremendous mistake to get back under any circumstances to anything like the old baronial guarantee system. The position concerning these branch lines is one on which it is desirable that some pronouncement of policy should be made because many of the lines which are now closed were operating in 1946 and were closed in 1947 because of the fuel scarcity. They have been kept closed since. It is impossible to explain to local interests concerned about those lines why that should be so, except that they are being kept closed in accordance with some definite policy. It may be that the Minister is awaiting the new legislation before making any pronouncement in regard to the branch lines but if, as some declarations by the Minister's supporters would suggest, it has been decided to reopen and keep open these branch lines or the majority of them, then there seems to be no reason why it should not be done now.
I have a few observations to make regarding industry in general and I shall try to make them as brief as I can. We have to consider whether we are going to allow industry to develop on the basis that the Department of Industry and Commerce or this new industrial advisory authority will sit down and wait until some interested parties come to them with proposals for particular industrial projects which they are prepared to finance and out of which they want to make a profit, or whether we are going to plan industrial development upon desirable lines and then vigorously proceed to get that plan carried into effect. At the present time we can, if we desire it, get under the E.C.A. plan, not merely American capital if it is needed, but also American technical advice and help and that possibility created in my mind the idea of examining whether we should not now definitely undertake the integration here of a linen industry. Frankly, this idea came into my mind from certain political discussions which have been proceeding in this country for some weeks past. Last week we had a discussion on the problem of the flax growers. I do not propose to deal with that question now except to point out that there is a problem because the flax growers have not a market in this country as there is no linen-spinning plant here and the only possible buyers of the produce of the native flax crop are the gentlemen with the Oxford accents whom Deputy Dillon dislikes so much. We cannot hope to establish a flax-spinning industry on an economic basis unless we extend the linen-weaving industry. It is a big task. I am not denying the magnitude of that task. It would take a great deal of capital and require expert technical advice. It would not only have the advantage, however, of providing a market for the Irish flax, but it would also create the possibility of extending our dollar-earning capacity as the main market for linen goods from the North of Ireland is in the dollar areas. Taking that particular case, will the industrial advisory authority be enabled to get down to seeing what the problems are and proceed upon that plan and, subject to a decision that the problems can be surmounted, get the work done without waiting for somebody to come along with a proposition? Will they be able to get after the person with the knowledge, the capital and the resources?
That was one of the reasons for deciding to set up the authority.
In my view, if the authority undertakes that it will do nothing else for a year. It will take them a year to get the investigation done and make plans, or does it mean that they will divide themselves into five one-man committees to deal with various matters?
It means that the work will be done.
I think it would have been done much better by the Department of Industry and Commerce.
Why did they not do it before?
They did jobs which were just as big with results that are of benefit to the country at the present time.
I should like to refer to a reply given yesterday to a Dáil question with regard to the extension of cement manufacture here. It is a ridiculous situation. It was stated discussions are proceeding. These discussions were started in my time and, as I mentioned, my visit to Limerick in 1947 was partly for the purpose of inspecting the cement factory, which was designed and laid out for double its present capacity. It may be that the cement company are trying to drive too hard a bargain, but if they are, you are not tied to them. It may be true that the most economic method of increasing output is to double the output of the Limerick factory, but if for any reason the company are holding out on that for some advantages, then there should be an investigation of the possibilities of having another cement company. There is no reason why discussions should go on indefinitely if there is no sign of their leading to a result.
The Deputy is treading on difficult ground now.
Next I wish to refer to ship building because in the course of a speech I made some time ago in Dublin I referred to the ship-building industry in Dublin in a way which suggested that the company managements were less interested in developing building activities than they should be. I want to withdraw that statement without qualification because since I made it I have had contacts with the managements of these concerns and they have convinced me, whatever the difficulties may be, that they were very definitely interested in reviving the ship-building industry in Dublin. The activities of these companies were directed mainly towards ship repairing during the war. There were many practical difficulties in undertaking ship building during that period, the main difficulty being the impossibility of procuring importation of engines and similar equipment, apart altogether from the probability that the British authorities would not release steel for that purpose, although they did release steel on Government representations quite generously for ship-repairing work. In one of the main Dublin yards they assure me that they are not merely anxious to undertake ship-building work, but are confident of their capacity to do it on a competitive basis. They made it clear that they are not asking at the present time for Government assistance except in the specific matter of making representations to the British authorities for the release of the steel required and they are confident that if these representations are made the steel will be forthcoming.
We cannot develop—and I do not think we should try to develop—a ship-building industry on the Belfast scale. I say that in case my reference to linen should suggest that I had it in mind, but it is important from our point of view to develop a ship-building industry and keep it going, and I have no hesitation in recommending Government assistance for that purpose. I intimated in public in 1946 or 1947 that the Government of which I was a member was quite prepared to assist it even in the form of a tonnage subsidy. In most countries ship building has been developed with Government assistance. It has been very largely a matter in recent years of breaking in on the monopoly of the British industry and in America, Australia and elsewhere ship-building industries have been established only as a result of positive Government action often involving a direct subsidy, and even at the present time the American Government subsidises various forms of ship building there. The advantage, apart altogether from having an old industry revived here, is that the skilled workers who are so necessary for ship repairing work and so vital for it during an emergency cannot be retained in the country except the continued employment which ship building involves is assured to them. The main reason for the excessive anxiety of the managers of the ship-building yards to get orders for ships is because of the fact they are losing their skilled workers without them and I would ask the Minister to direct his attention to that question. It is not merely a matter of getting orders placed by Irish Shipping, Limited. I am anxious to know if Irish Shipping Limited has placed orders for ships apart from those ordered in 1946. If there is to be an extension of the fleet of Irish Shipping, Limited there should be a definite policy to direct orders to Irish shipyards. In one Dublin yard a ship of 5,000 tons was built in the past—I think that was the largest built there—and many of the ships in the development programme of Irish Shipping Limited are of that tonnage or less and could be constructed here. I am not anxious to penalise Irish Shipping by imposing upon them an additional cost which a competitor would not have to meet and if it is a case of additional cost it is a matter for the Government to decide whether they should take action to relieve it. It has, however, been asserted to me by the people who are in the best position to do so that they can construct the ships here on a competitive basis with the British yards provided the same facilities for supplies of steel are made available to them by the British authorities. A rumour is circulating that Irish Shipping are beginning to lose money. I hope that the Minister will be able to contradict that rumour.
The Minister spoke about the tourist industry. I think it is desirable that the Government's attitude to that industry should be clarified. The Minister's references to it appear to indicate that he recognises its importance to our economic welfare, but the last occasion he referred to it was, if my memory serves me aright, on the debate here on the motion relating to the curtailment of the road grant, where the Minister said they were not going to provide money to build roads for tourists. The Minister for Finance, in this Donegal speech of his, also made certain scathing references to the tourist industry. He said:—
"We decided not to allow the Tourist Board to go ahead with any more purchases of magnificent hotels for which the people were being taxed to provide accommodation below the cost price for strangers who were well enough able to pay for it."
That statement, on the face of it, is so obviously untrue that it can be explained only on the basis of prejudice.
There have been many indications that the minds of Ministers have been prejudiced against this industry. I read here, in the course of the debate on the Vote on Account, an extract from the broadcast speech by Mr. Taft of the E.C.A. Advisory Mission. He apparently thought it necessary to speak strongly to the Government, to emphasise to the Government that the Americans regarded it as part of the conditions under which they were getting Marshall Aid that they should take positive action to increase the country's dollar-earning capacity—and the most obvious method was the development of facilities for American tourists, concerning which the Government is not merely doing nothing but appears to be moving in the opposite direction.
So far as I can make out, the Tourist Board as at present constituted, is merely a worm under the Departmental stone: it can do nothing unless the Minister decides to lift the stone once in a while to let it see the daylight. I tried, during my time, to make that board independent both of the Department of Industry and Commerce and of the Department of Finance. I felt that, if we set up a body of men and gave them responsibility, we should let them get on with the job, holding them responsible only for the results, sacking them if the results were unsatisfactory, but not interfering with day to day administration. That position does not exist now. I want to say that I was very much dissatisfied with the failure or inability of the Tourist Board to do what was its main job—not the running of hotels but the development of amenities at tourist resorts. They excused their failure to get results in that regard on the ground of inability to get co-operation from local authorities, or the impracticability of proceeding with plans that had been agreed with local authorities, because of scarcity of supplies.
I feel that a great deal has to be done, and must be done fairly quickly, in the development of our tourist resorts, both for the benefit of our own people as well as for the encouragement of the tourist trade. Let me say this to the Minister: It is a reasonable assumption that recent political developments, and the comments which those developments have caused in English newspapers, will have a serious effect on our tourist income this year. I do not think there is much we can do about that, but we can hope to make up for the loss in income from one source by trying to increase the income from another. That can be done only if it is made quite obvious by the Government here and by everybody else here, as it is made obvious by the Governments in Great Britain, Belgium, France and other countries, that we are aware of the importance of the tourist business and are anxious to develop it and that the whole mind of the country is being directed towards making conditions here such that tourists will want to visit us and spend dollars amongst us.
I am not going to cover all the matters to which the Minister referred, but there is one more special item with which I wish to deal. The Minister said yesterday, at a function he attended in Dun Laoghaire, that he was aware of the importance of industrial research. I wish the replies I had from the Parliamentary Secretary, to certain Dáil questions I put, indicated that that awareness of the importance of industrial research was resulting in some action. So far as I can see, this Industrial Research Council must be nearly moribund. Not merely has very little been done, but even the progress in the construction of the laboratory of the institute has been extraordinarily slow. That may not be the Minister's fault. Perhaps it is the fault of the Industrial Research Committee itself, or perhaps it is the fault of the Minister for Finance.
It is neither my fault nor the fault of the Minister for Finance. In so far as there was delay, it is due to the body set up by the Deputy himself.
I think the Minister should do something about it, since it is far more important to us here than to other countries.
I agree.
We cannot develop here industrially on sound lines merely by imitating what somebody has done somewhere else. We must have a scientific investigation of the possibilities, and particularly of the possibility of adapting processes which have been successfully tried elsewhere to the particular circumstances of this country. That is what the Industrial Research Committee is supposed to do. I see that they have not even got the laboratory built yet, much less equipped, and that they gave no scholarship last year and spent no money in helping people who are equipped with laboratories to carry out specific examinations as used to be done before.
How could they build a laboratory when they would not get a permit to build it until I gave it to them?
What delayed you in giving it? You are not going to suggest that I was responsible and it was in my time they were refused a permit?
I am telling the Deputy that they could not build it until they got a permit.
If there is a suggestion that I at that time refused a permit, I promise to investigate the matter fully when I am back there.
It will be a long time before the Deputy will get a look at that file.
I want to say a few words about hand-won turf. It is all very well to develop and proceed with plans for machine-won turf, but just right now and for many years ahead, hand-won turf will be an important source of employment and prosperity. I have been visiting various parts of the country recently and meeting representatives of the hand-won turf producers, all of whom were hoping to get a market for their turf from local authorities and who find that many of those local authorities are turning over to coal or fuel oil, even in the heart of the turf area. The most recent deputation I met was in Edenderry and they referred to the hospital at Portlaoighise, which formerly took many thousands of tons of hand-won turf from the turf producers' society in the Edenderry area. The hospital is now working on fuel oil. I would not allow it. I think we learned during the war the enormous benefits which hand-won turf meant to many parts of the country, sufficiently to justify us now in imposing restrictions upon local authorities and others charged with the management of institutions in the turf areas, to prohibit them from using anything else but turf.
Hear, hear!
They may have some problem of adapting present equipment so as to use turf economically and efficiently. Give them help to do that. Part of the money devoted to Bord na Móna is to provide technical assistance to those who want to change over their equipment to make it use turf more efficiently. Also, I think we should keep definitely in mind, as a national objective, an extension of the use of turf as a domestic fuel. I know—and everybody else in the House knows— that the citizens of Dublin and of most of our towns became strongly prejudiced against turf because of the bad turf we got during the emergency. I met representatives of the Kerry turf producers last year and they were deploring the loss to that county through the decline in the demand. I felt that I had to tell them it was largely their own fault, because in the production of turf for the national pool many of them had cheated, producing bad turf and very frequently turning a hose upon it in order to get a higher price by increasing its weight. That prejudice will disappear in time. It is a natural prejudice, however, and because it exists there can be no suggestion of any measures of compulsion to make people use turf. Not merely would the public not accept compulsion, but the mere existence of compulsory measures would, I am afraid, encourage producers to think again of resorting to those methods they used during the scarcity years of the war.
We should have positive propaganda, directed to showing our people the benefit they can confer on themselves if this great natural resource can be developed and we should direct the utilisation of public funds in house building so as to create a market for turf, including hand-won turf.
If the taxpayers are to be asked to provide money to subsidise houses, it is not unreasonable to suggest that into these houses should go grates and ranges which are designed to use turf efficiently. It may be that these grates and ranges can be so designed as to use either coal or turf efficiently, but, in many of the households in Dublin and in most of the towns, the grates and ranges existing now are quite unsuitable for turf usage. There should also be included in the plans for the erection of these houses proper storage accommodation for turf, which is one of the difficulties in the way of the extension of its use, particularly in Dublin. I do not want to make more specific suggestions than these, but I urge upon the Government and the Dáil the importance of taking notice of the fact that the disappearance or curtailment of turf production has had an immediate and obvious effect upon the prosperity of a large part of the country. If we could by any means revive it, whether by propaganda or any other methods, we would be contributing not merely to the welfare of these areas but to the welfare of the country as a whole.
I wonder if the Minister could give me any indication as to when the Commission on Youth Unemployment is likely to report. It is rather disappointing that that commission has found it necessary to take so long to prepare its recommendations. There is a problem there which is becoming more, and not less, acute. Personally, I am of opinion that our existing legislation for the regulation of apprenticeships is unsatisfactory. It would be obviously difficult to examine that legislation with a view to its amendment, with the knowledge that a commission is sitting, and the absence of its valuable report is delaying useful action which could be taken in a number of directions.
The Minister said that the statistics branch is to go over to the Department of the Taoiseach. That means nothing, unless it will involve in due course the giving of more money and more staff to the statistics branch. I do not know what has happened to that branch in the past year, because, even though it was slow and unsatisfactory before that, it has become still slower and more unsatisfactory since. The 1946 census has not yet resulted, so far as I remember, in any report, except the preliminary report, and the next census will be due, so far as one can judge at present, before the report of the 1946 census is available. We are obviously handicapped by the inadequacy of our statistical services.
In other countries, public policy is being based upon economic surveys and that is possible because economic surveys are not merely reliable but are executed promptly. I know that, in the United States of America, they were able to publish the economic survey of 1948 within a few weeks of the end of the year. American economic journals and banks were reporting upon the 1948 position as revealed by public statistics before the end of January. The British Government had their economic survey for 1948 available in March. A great many of the statistics contained in these American and British surveys are not available for this country for a year later than 1944. It is obviously difficult to attempt to frame economic policy, much less seriously discuss it, in view of that dearth of information.
It does not seem to me to matter whether the statistics branch is located in the Department of Industry and Commerce or the Department of the Taoiseach. What does matter is the resources made available to the branch and if the change is an indication that it is to get more money and more staff and greater authority to do its work more expeditiously, it is a good change. It could have been done perhaps just as well in the Department of Industry and Commerce, but I agree fully that there are obvious reasons why it should be located in the Department of the Taoiseach. It has happened in the past that other Ministers felt that the Minister for Industry and Commerce was getting more expeditious service from that branch than they were getting.
I do not know if the Minister has any intention of promoting legislation in regard to price control. It is obviously unsatisfactory that the price control administration of the Department should continue to be based upon an emergency Act continued from year to year. The Minister said that he has warned clothing manufacturers that, if their prices rise following the increase in the duty, he will withdraw their protection entirely. Do not let him fool himself—he is not fooling them. Does he not realise that that is the whole problem of price control? There was many a time I felt that some manufacturer enjoying the benefit of protection from the State was not giving the service, in quality or price, which the public were entitled to expect; but a decision to withdraw that protection entirely was one which would hit not merely the manufacturer concerned but several hundred or thousand workers as well. The Minister may make that declaration now and even intend to carry it out now, but, when the time comes, if there is an increase in clothing prices and he has to face this decision to withdraw protection entirely, and he learns that 5,000 or 6,000 workers are going to be disemployed, he will hesitate about doing it. The whole problem of price control is that the one weapon the Minister has to use now, of withdrawing protection, is so disastrous in its effect that it cannot be used at all, except in extraordinary circumstances.
The problem I was trying to solve in that Industrial Prices and Efficiency Act was that of finding some method by which sanctions could be applied to manufacturers enjoying protection but not acting fairly by the community which did not involve the withdrawal of protection entirely, the stoppage of work in the industry and the disemployment of its workers. The Minister in fact gave an illustration of the futility of that method of control when he referred to the boot and shoe industry. Deputies will readily forget now that, all during 1946 and 1947, there was a continuous wail of complaint by Opposition Deputies that the price of boots was altogether too high, and I am quite sure that if many of the Deputies opposite who are even now discussing the effect upon the boot and shoe industry of quota imports in 1947 look back on their speeches in 1947, they will find that one of their main topics was the unduly high price of boots. We tried to remedy that situation by ensuring that there would be no scarcity.
The particular system of protection which applies to the boot and shoe industry permits of the quantitative regulation of imports and consequently it was possible to operate it so as to prevent any artificial inflation of prices by making sure that there would be no scarcity. That was the policy which led to the high quota figures of those two years. It is quite obvious from the complaints which resulted, of disemployment or disorganised conditions in the industry, that even that partial application of the principle with which the Minister is now threatening the clothing industry is bound to create difficulties, and I mean political difficulties, for the Government in office.
The system of price control which operated during the war and before the war was by no means perfect. I do not pretend it was, but we learned a great deal from our experience in these periods, and I would strongly advise the Minister to re-examine that industrial prices and efficiency legislation because we will find in its provisions the result of much of that experience and some useful suggestions as to how an effective system of price control can be established, one which depends upon sanctions which can be used and not upon sanctions which can only be threatened and never used.
I would not like that the Deputy would mislead the manufacturers concerned into that belief.
The Minister intends to do it. I know he does and they will be able to estimate for themselves just as much as I can the problems the Minister will have to face if he attempts it.
I do not believe the Deputy is doing it intentionally but he is giving them a certain ecouragement to take advantage of the increased tariffs to increase prices.
The Minister can get rid of that. He can go back to the Bill which passed its Second Reading in 1947, take out of it the portions relating to price control which appear to him to be effective and bring it forward again. We promise a quick passage for the measure. I do not believe that there is amongst the ordinary public a prejudice against Irish manufactured goods. I think there is a prejudice amongst traders and traders' buying representatives—a prejudice which may not be based upon anything else except the desire of each firm to have on sale in its store something that no other store has. The whole problem of Irish industry is that the varieties of quality and design available to traders are necessarily restricted and the desire to have something exclusive, something purchased from an English manufacturer in the knowledge that no other Irish trader will have it, explains the hostility to industrial development which is sometimes to be found amongst the representatives of traders and their buyers.
The Minister will get, perhaps, a false picture from these people when discussing the problem with them because I do not think that any Deputy can say that there is, beyond that class, amongst the general public a prejudice against Irish goods as such. There will be criticism of Irish goods if quality is defective but there certainly does not exist a prejudice in the true meaning of that term which will deter people from buying Irish goods even when quality is satisfactory.
You can call it preference for foreign goods, if you like, but it is there and it is not confined to the traders.
Certainly, it has been the lesson of all the years since 1922 that you can do nothing in expanding the market for Irish products by reliance upon propaganda of that kind. That propaganda must be backed by action by the State to restrict imports, quantitatively or otherwise, in order to create the market.
There is a number of other matters that I will not refer to. I have spoken too long. I hope the Minister will deal with these matters when he is replying. I hope he will realise that the suggestions I have put forward here are put forward in the knowledge that time is important, that there is truth in his assertion that we have no time to waste and that, so long as political conditions are as they are, and he is there and I am here, I can only get results in the direction that I want to see them by urging action by him along what I think to be the right lines. Every course of action that I have recommended here has sound arguments behind it but, whether we are to proceed as I have indicated or not, depends entirely upon the Minister. I hope I have convinced him that it is worth doing and worth doing soon.
Frankly, I am somewhat disappointed at the Minister's speech in moving the Vote because on the occasion last year that we met for a similar purpose there was a great deal of justification in the sense that the Minister, as he explained at that time, had to pick up a number of problems that had been left to him and try to clear away the debris. Nearly 12 months have passed since that time and by now we should be in a position to expect from the Minister and the Government a somewhat clearer and, if I may use the word, a more planned programme for the kind of problems that we have. I feel that the Minister's speech has been mainly recapitulation of matters which are largely departmental and in no sense have we had an all-round approach to the problems facing us at the moment.
I find some difficulty in following Deputy Lemass along his particular line. On the one hand he does not seem to like the suggestion for the establishment of an industrial authority. A few moments later he spoke of planning and he said that, the plans having been decided, they should be pursued vigorously. I am quite aware that to many members of his own Party and his colleagues on the Front Bench the word "plan" is unpalatable. They do not like it. That seems to me an indication of their complete lack of ordinary common-sense.
I do not know that any man or woman can go through life without a plan. Even the housewife has to plan to deal with the day-to-day domestic problems. It is time that we got rid of this folly that there is something sinister attached to the words "plan" and "planning." It reminds me of another famous gentleman who said that when the word "culture" was used somebody wanted to draw a gun. There is nothing wrong with the idea of planning. It is an ordinary sensible thing to do. My difference, if there is a difference, at the moment with the Minister and the Cabinet is that they are failing to plan or to sit down and try to plan. I know the difficulties of doing it under existing circumstances and in view of the fact that Deputy Lemass indicated that there is a great lack of up-to-date information in the country. Whether we like it or not, we have either to plan or to put up with the consequences of not planning. Not planning means failure to use our ordinary common-sense and apply it to our problems. That is why I was particularly glad when I heard the announcement of the establishment of the industrial development authority, and I do not take the view that Deputy Lemass takes that it is merely a question of passing over part of the responsibility to a committee which, like many other committees, will be buried and never see the light of day. I personally believe that the Department of Industry and Commerce in the minds of most people in this country is the linchpin in the whole of Government activity. Government activity related to economic, industrial and social progress is such that it is not only unfair but it is impossible to expect one individual to be able to carry that responsibility and to meet the day-to-day problems. Deputy Lemass says that no man knows all the answers. I do not believe that Deputy Lemass knew all the answers when he was Minister. I do not believe that the present Minister knows all the answers. Part of our difficulty is in one or two individuals trying to supply the answers instead of trying to collect as far as possible the general store of wisdom on the particular problems.
I am sorry the industrial development authority is not in existence to-day. It is nearly three months since we had the announcement in the daily Press that a certain number of individuals were invited and had accepted membership of this authority. Three months have passed. We still do not know when they are going to take office or to take up their duties. I do not know what the delay is. There may be some explanation of the difficulty, if any, that has arisen. Quite clearly, if we are going to deal with the kind of problems that have been raised by the Minister and by Deputy Lemass, somebody must be able to sit down, free from the ordinary cares, worries and responsibilities of a very large Department, and consider the picture from an all-round point of view and try to see where the various pieces fit together and, having regard to the available resources, the natural resources, manpower, financial resources and the particular needs that we decide are the proper needs to meet in relation to our community, to try to plan a little of the road ahead that we are to follow. I do not believe an individual Minister can do that and at the same time discharge, as Ministers must, the ordinary day-to-day routine responsibility of a large Department. At the same time I welcome the idea of the industrial authority. I feel there is a great lack of clarity and, to some extent, it is being diverted from its main purpose. It is quite a sound suggestion that, in so far as we have utilised the method of protective tariffs that will protect our industries, we should have some means of reviewing the effectiveness of these tariffs and, more particularly, the use made by industrialists of that protection. Further, as new tariffs are sought or as from time to time we feel old tariffs require reconsideration and revision there should be a body to give thought to these particular subjects. However, tariffs in themselves, in so far as they are a day-to-day piece of machinery, are not the important thing at the moment.
The important thing is to see to the weaknesses in our economic set-up. We should study them not only in relation to our own needs and not only in relation to a share in an export market which may be rapidly dwindling and which, in the Minister's words, may be a question of time, but to try to deal with our economic problems in a situation where, possibly, every day we are coming nearer to a general world economic slump. Nobody yet seems to have made up his mind that we are on the verge of retrogression or a slump or a crisis, but everybody is agreed that this question is going to become keener and more intense. If we are to base our future economic welfare on our ability to get into that market in present conditions, and are not in a position to meet the repercussions of any economic retrogression that takes place internationally, then we are going to find ourselves in very difficult circumstances in this country. I believe a great deal of our salvation is to be found in our own country. While I want to pay a tribute to Deputy Lemass and to his Party in so far as they did initiate an industrial drive that brought us certain advantages and certain progress I differ from him fundamentally in the sense that that drive was to a large extent lop-sided. We overlooked one important factor. There is no use in building up industries and in producing goods unless we provide our people with the wherewithal to buy them. The difficulty was that, alongside that industrial drive which we witnessed in 1932, we had another set of circumstances operating which left a great deal of those industries on a low wage basis—a basis that was related to the most backward of our industries, agriculture, which enjoyed the lowest standard of life among our people—and that we failed to realise that, as we built up those industries, we must of necessity provide consumers for the products. They must be in a position to buy the goods produced and always to have a little more buying power than the industries are immediately able to take up. We do not seem to be able to strike that happy balance. We have seen the results in the difficulties to-day in the boot and shoe industry and also, I think, in the clothing trade and other industries set up in that period. It is for these reasons that I think the proposal to set up an industrial development authority is a sound idea. I have not and I do not think I have ever had any occasion to get up in this House and criticise civil servants merely because they are civil servants. We make the conditions under which those people have to carry out their work. We determine the responsibilities to be placed on Ministers and those over whom we exercise authority. If we are not satisfied with the results we should change the system. I think it is clear that it is an impossible feat to expect civil servants, within the environment in which they are expected to work, to take on the problem that lies to hand and that can only be dealt with by men with a fairly broad experience. They need not be technical experts on our economic and social life but they must be men with a broad experience of the different aspects who will look at the picture from an all-round point of view. If they want expert advice they can get it. Experts can be picked up for two a penny if you are prepared to ask for their advice. I think, however, that experts have never been able to give a complete answer. They can answer on a particular subject but there is always the difficulty of relating their expert knowledge and fitting it into the picture. That is why I think that men and women with a broad approach to this problem would be better equipped to deal with it and to tackle it on a broad national basis.
I would press the Minister, therefore, to tell the House when he is replying why it is that even now, after three months, we have not the authority in operation. He should also let us know a little more clearly the particular powers it is hoped to give that authority, even if it does mean waiting some time to give it statutory effect, and the manner in which the authority is going to work in so far as his Ministerial authority and his Department are concerned. Quite clearly it would be absolutely useless to have an authority of this kind if it is going to be an expansion of the Department of Industry and Commerce or if it is going to be, even in the slightest degree, subject to the Department of Finance. That is one shackle we shall have to get rid of if it is going to make progress. Even if it is going to mean a political crisis amongst those who support the inter-Party Government, it should be made quite clear that in so far as the welfare of our people is concerned this policy has to be decided and given effect to by those who represent the people and not by those who are paid to carry out the orders. I feel that, on this question, we are entitled to some further enlightenment by the Minister.
Shortly before the setting up of the authority was announced, and speaking in another place, I referred to the fact that our unemployed had reached a figure of 80,000. I said then and I think most Deputies will agree with me that 80,000 unemployed in our country is a red light—a warning signal. Since then the figure has gone up to 84,000. Three months ago, realising the problems that faced us, we decided to set up this authority. We have now allowed three months to elapse and we have another 4,000 unemployed on the list. The problem is all the keener and the need for getting this new machinery operating is more urgent than ever. I would press the Minister to tell us if he has any difficulties. I am quite sure that even though Deputy Lemass, speaking for his Party, is not quite convinced of the soundness of a particular policy leading to the establishment of this authority, all sections of the House will support the Minister in taking any steps which he may consider necessary—even though we may not believe it is the best way of getting something done.
One big thing that I think does call for comment is that we are having a continuous spate of speeches by public representatives, spokesmen of employers and other interests, urging the need for increased production. Everybody seems to enjoy that particular form of diversion at the present time. At the same time they forget, as the figures read by the Minister show, that we are getting increased production. The latest advice we have from the Minister is that the only salvation for our people is to work hard. I personally feel that if that is the only advice we have to give to our people to get us out of our present difficulties we will not make much headway. I have fairly good knowledge of the working classes in this country and I think that, on the whole, they are worked fairly hard. At least if they do not work as hard as they should they have to be pretty good in getting by. It is not their job to lay down standards in an industry—either in regard to their work or to the output of the industry. There are gentlemen who claim that privilege.
Only a short while ago we were told by some spokesmen that in so far as the workers are concerned they had better keep their noses out of the Board of Management of industry— that it was no concern of theirs and that they are not to be allowed in. We cannot make appeals to workers in industry to work hard, to increase production and output, and at the same time tell them that they have no right to recommend or decide policy in regard to the management of the industries—either in regard to the running of the industries or in regard to the division of the proceeds of the industries. We have to make up our minds one way or the other. If we are to have private enterprise and every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost, let us have it and know where we are. Let us not at the same time, however, make patriotic appeals to certain sections of our people who will get the least advantage from it and ask them to make the biggest sacrifice.
The Trade Union Congress discussed this question of increased productivity some time ago and what organised workers could do in the matter. Let me say immediately that, so far as the trade union movement and the masses of the working classes of the people are concerned, we have no desire to shirk responsibility. We want to assume more responsibility and we cannot assume responsibility unless we are given access to the facts and the utilisation of these facts. From the Trade Union Congress certain proposals were put to the Government which may be good or bad—I do not know; it is a matter for discussion. We made certain proposals suggesting certain types of tribunal which could bring the workers and the management together from the workshop level to the national level and make it possible to associate the workers, with their practical experience, skill and knowledge, with the day-to-day problems which arise in equipping and adapting Irish industry to give greater output in the mass and an increase of output per worker. Some months have passed since that memorandum was put before the Government and we are still awaiting some reply. Yet we get advice from the spokesmen of the Government that we should increase production. I do not know how you can increase production by merely asking for it. It is a process of applying human labour and machinery and the brains that God gave us to industrial problems and doing it in the most efficient way in order to get the best out of it. You cannot replace modern methods and machinery just by hard labour, by getting large masses of people to sweat a little harder.
Part of the difficulty I see, so far as Irish industry is concerned, is that a great many of those who claim, not merely the ownership of industry but the sole right to decide how it is to be run, feel that the only way the problem of increased production can be solved is by the ordinary worker sweating harder and turning out a little more profit for those who claim the ownership of industry. If that is the line of progress to be pursued, it will be very slow and laborious.
On this matter of Irish industry, I feel there is a good deal in what Deputy Lemass said when he spoke of the alleged prejudices in the minds of the public against Irish manufactured goods. It is true that there is a prejudice. The responsibility for that, however, is not with the public. It is with some of the very gentlemen who are to-day asking our support for Irish manufactured goods because, while they want support for the goods they manufacture themselves, they will not support the goods manufactured by other people. They exercise a preference for imported goods in their own process of manufacture.
I recall a story about one very prominent individual who was always lecturing everyone as to what they should do for Irish industry. He was asked to buy a particular solution made in Ireland which was contained in a tube stamped "Irish manufacture". He would not have it. He said it was not suitable or effective for the particular job he wanted to do. A fortnight later another tube was produced to him stamped "Made in England" and he bought the article. There was no difference between them. It was the same solution except that it was in a different tube. That is typical of a great many of our so-called Irish manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers. They are guilty of fostering and creating this prejudice. It is a bit too much to expect from ordinary members of the public who go into a shop to buy an article that they will be able to withstand the inducements and the expert advice given to them in one form and another to take one particular article rather than another. They generally end up by buying the imported article as they have the feeling that there is something wrong with the Irish article because of what is told them.
Frankly, that is my own feeling in the matter. I do not claim to be an expert on clothes, boots or other things you buy. You find yourself in an awkward position when you go into a shop and ask for an Irish article and are told that the other article is much more suitable, cheaper and more durable. Part of it is tied up with the question of the rates of profit, discount, advertising, etc. I feel that if that prejudice is to be tackled it will have to be tackled at the root source, namely, those who are out to create that atmosphere because of being associated with the manufacture or distribution of many of these articles and, therefore, able to create this particular atmosphere.
It is not sufficient for Irish manufacturers to ask members of the public to buy Irish manufactured goods. The articles they use themselves in their own industrial processes should also be of Irish manufacture as far as possible and they should not explain away their failure to do that on the ground that they have to get the best article, the most effective article and the cheapest article. The public is equally entitled to make the same claim. What is expected of the public should also be expected of those who are being given protection at the expense of the public.
There are one or two items I want to touch upon. As Deputy Lemass is here, I want to speak about ship building. I am particularly glad that Deputy Lemass did make the correction he made in regard to the Dublin ship-building industry. I was aware at the time he made the statement in Dublin that it must have been due either to lack of information or to his being misinformed. It is only fitting that he should make the retraction of the statement, as he did to-day. While I have a great deal of criticism to make of his failure at the time to obtain vessels for the Irish mercantile marine when they were available at a reasonable cost, it is also true to say that the assistance he gave and the efforts he made in connection with the reopening of the ship-building centre were of tremendous value. Having given that assistance, it would be most regrettable that he would be guilty of doing a grave disservice by allowing a statement to go uncorrected which he made in public so far as the ship-building yard is concerned.
I want, however, to make the very definite statement that, not only were they able to build any one of the ships ordered abroad by Irish Shipping, Limited, but I am also convinced that if there is a public inquiry it can be shown that they could have built any one of these ships at a less cost than Irish Shipping, Limited, paid and turn out a better ship. I suggest that, as the Irish mercantile marine is something in which we have all got a deep interest and is not the personal property of Irish Shipping, Limited, there should be an inquiry, either publicly or privately, as to whether the Irish ship-building yard was permitted to tender for the building of a ship for a semi-State shipping line, whether on a particular Sunday—I want to mark the time—the manager of that yard was called back by telegram from Killarney to go into figures with the marine superintendent of that line and spent the whole Sunday going over figures, checking the various items, making certain allowances, and, when he went into his office on the Monday morning to get the figures that had been requested of him, was then informed that the particular contract for which he was making a tender had already been given away on the Sunday. You do not give out contracts on a Sunday. Without going further into the matter, I believe there is sufficient justification for digging up that file and seeing what went on.
The Liffey Dockyard was first interested in this matter in 1946. They wrote to Irish Shipping, Limited, suggesting that if Irish Shipping, Limited, were building any new ships they would be glad of an opportunity to tender. Sometime later they received a reply stating that if and when Irish Shipping, Limited, were going to have new vessels built the Liffey Dockyard would be afforded an opportunity to tender. Irish Shipping, Limited, made the decision and the Liffey Dockyard had to make an approach themselves when they learned that the tender would be called off.
As far as the tenders were concerned, I had not and cannot have the intimate knowledge of the actual figures. But I am satisfied that the proper inquiry may produce this peculiar fact, that if the same form of tender and the same conditions were made available to the Dublin yard as were made to the yard across the Channel, allowing for the fact that our wage rate is slightly higher and that we have to pay additional transport charges, the Dublin yard could have built any one of those ships at the same figure or a lower figure than they were built outside this country. They could have handed over the ships in at least the same period or even a shorter period. More than that, I think they would have done a better job. I do not want to criticise any firm not able to defend itself in this House but I do want to say that I know the Dublin ship-building works and I, personally, would not like to feel that even on direct orders they would carry out work on any ship like some of the work carried out on some of our new ships.
The interesting thing is that two further ships were to be built. Tenders were asked for by Irish Shipping from a dockyard across the Channel in 1947. They submitted their tenders and revised them at the request of Irish Shipping. In February they were told not to go ahead with these two ships. In the report of Irish Shipping it is indicated that one of the reasons for the considerable loss last year was the necessity of keeping men idle; yet they did not proceed with the building of two more ships. I do not know why but it would be interesting to know why even now it is not possible to get one of these ships built here in Dublin. You cannot keep a ship-building industry going only on the basis of repair work. Repair work is casual, it represents broken time and men who have responsibility and who can obtain constant and unbroken work across Channel are not going to remain working in Dublin on a basis either from week to week, or month to month, or two or three months at a time, mainly because those who have the possibility of providing actual building work will not go to the trouble of giving assistance to our Irishmen who are depending on casual repair work. Even that repair work has got to be carried out under great difficulty. We have only the one graving dock which at least a couple of months in the year has to be used by the Dublin dockyard for its own repair work. We have only the one dock there for anything coming in and a second ship has got to go somewhere else or lie up for a period of weeks until the first ship comes out of dock. The Dublin Port and Docks Board has expended some considerable time on the proposal of a new dock. Until we get that new graving dock and until we get the actual building of ships in Dublin we will not have secured and made safe the revived ship-building industry that we tried to bring back here some years ago. During the years of the last emergency even then we could not have maintained our own Irish ships in service if we had not that yard in Dublin to carry out repairs. I want to say that it is somewhat ungrateful on the part of Irish Shipping that in return for the services given to them during the emergency they did not give somewhat more friendly treatment to the dockyard when new ships came along. I think that is a very mild way of putting it.
I would ask the Minister to go on inquiring into the matter. I do not think a public enquiry would be profitable. We do not want to create too many difficulties and I, therefore, think it should be made in private. Those responsible for these serious mistakes should be made to recognise that they did make mistakes. I am surprised, to some extent, that a great many of these things happened while Deputy Lemass was Minister. Whether he was aware of them or not, I do not know. I cannot reconcile his interest in Irish ship building and the way he spoke to-day with the things that, as far as I know, did go on during the years 1947 and the early part of 1948. From the point of view of clearing the good name of Dublin ship building, of placing the Irish shipping line on a sound basis and, I think, satisfying us that we are getting value for money, these particular inquiries should be made.
Deputy Lemass talked about hand-won turf. I want to see hand-won turf utilised as far as possible from the point of view of the contribution it can make in the areas where it is produced to the general economy of the people in those areas. I hope, however, that we will be very slow and only after very careful consideration adopt Deputy Lemass's idea of trying to induce, either by compulsion or persuasion——
I made it quite clear that I am not in favour of compulsion at all.
It is compulsion in this way; if we put a fire into a house that will only burn turf——
I said there would have to be a duel-purpose range.
There is a difficulty with regard to the range itself. There are other factors not connected with the actual burning of the turf at all. I do not know whether Deputy Lemass has ever sat beside a fire in an ordinary Dublin house and tried to keep that fire going. It is a pretty big job. You do not sit in front of the fire very long because you are running in and out all the time. We have to look at it not from the point of view of using in industry a product that is produced in parts of our own country but also from the point of view of the woman who is going to use that product, unless we can do something to the turf itself and erase the problem of the machine-won turf. However, I want to deal now with the ordinary hand-won turf from the point of view of the amount of additional labour it makes for the housewife and the difficulties she experiences in cooking, especially if she is not experienced in keeping a turf fire going, and also from the point of view of the additional dirt in the house, not merely physical dirt but in the form of earth. That is the situation we had during the years of the emergency and we have not forgotten it. I think it would be much better if we could concentrate on seeing that our public institutions, especially in the hand-won turf areas, would be compelled to use this turf and, if necessary, adapt machinery and furnaces for its utilisation. While it is a fairly difficult job to keep steam up with turf, at least they can be given additional assistance and if necessary be paid a bit more; but the woman at home does not get more assistance and she will have a lot of extra labour and work in using turf.
There is the question of burning turf in the farmhouse grate that may not be built for turf. The burning of turf in such a place and the burning of turf in a small kitchen in an ordinary working house in Dublin are two entirely different things. We might almost have a revolt if we tried puting ranges into corporation houses in the big towns of such a nature that while they would burn coal they would burn turf a lot better. That is the kind of problem we have. We should think along those lines and for the moment give our people a little period in which to forget the unhappy experiences of the emergency, and they were very unhappy.
I am still not convinced as to the reasons why we are going to build a second power station. When reference was made to this in the House some time ago I gathered that it was a question that the Electricity Supply Board required a second station as a stand-by. I do not understand why we cannot get the stand-by, or additional power stations, in the form of turf-burning stations and why they must be coal-burning stations Reference was also made to the security problem of building a second station at the Port of Dublin. That is a defence problem. We now have the atomic bomb, and I do not know where we can put a station in this little country that will be safe from attack. If the Clonsast station is technically justified from the point of view of using hand-won turf, why should we not duplicate our turf-burning stations rather than spend money on importing coal? I gathered that one of our concerns is our unfavourable trade balance. It was reduced somewhat last year, but it still is very considerable. Why, then, should we spend money bringing in coal if we can get the same power developed from our native fuel? I am still waiting for a satisfactory answer to that question.
I came across another peculiar problem in regard to the use of turf some time ago. I understand that Bord na Móna has to supply turf to the Clonsast station at a certain price fixed by the Electricity Supply Board. On one occasion I was on a deputation to Bord na Móna looking for more wages for the employees. I was told the increase could not be given because they were concerned with getting their costs of production down to a certain figure. We were given to understand that a figure was fixed by the Electricity Supply Board at so much per ton for the supply of turf to the Clonsast station. It seemed to be the view of Bord na Móna that, if they did not reach that figure, they were told that the Electricity Supply Board might change over to coal. I do not know whether that is correct or not.
It seems to me to be a rather peculiar position that we should go to the trouble and cost of building a power station at Clonsast and then leave it to a body like the Electricity Supply Board to decide as to whether we should change over to coal or not. What I was concerned with was that the difference between Bord na Móna and the Electricity Supply Board in regard to the supply of fuel to the station appeared to be a matter of some pence per ton. When I suggested that surely it was sound, nationally and economically, to pay a little more for turf to fire the station rather than to import coal, I was told that was a problem that was completely outside the range of consideration of Bord na Móna and would have to be taken up somewhere else.
This seems to be the place to take it up. I am satisfied from inquiries that Bord na Móna is up against some technical problems, one of which relates to the footing of turf, which are very difficult of solution. The board finally arrived at a figure for the delivery of machine-won turf to the Clonsast station. It was somewhat higher than the figure that the Electricity Supply Board thought it should be. The Electricity Supply Board seemed to think that they should get the turf on a comparative basis as against coal. I think is is for somebody to come to a decision and say that we will continue to use turf, that we will spread the additional cost by way of a national contribution and thus continue to utilise our own fuel resources rather than import coal. I understand that the figure set down by the Electricity Supply Board is a figure that is not based on the cost of importing coal, and that no allowance is made for the fact that in this instance we are dealing with a national industry which is in its initial stages of development. It is an industry which has to face very grave technical problems and therefore I submit it is entitled to encouragement not only from the Government but from all parts of our economic structure, including the Electricity Supply Board.
One problem that we are up against at the moment is that of trying to see what particular gaps exist in our economic structure so far as industries of various types are concerned. This is not a matter, I agree, which can be dealt with in an offhand way across the floor of the House. It is one that requires careful and systematic study. I have already referred to ship building. There are two other units that I want to deal with. One is the electric bulb factory at Bray, and the other is Irish Steel holdings at Cobh. These seem to me to be fundamental types of industrial units that we require in the country. The bulb, or glass, factory at Bray has now been shut down for some six months. I do not want to go into details as to why it shut down. I am concerned with the fact that it is shut down. If the factory does not reopen, then, I think, we have lost a valuable part of our industrial equipment. When an industrial unit like this gets into difficulties and is possibly not able to overcome them, I think we should concern ourselves about it and give thought to the gaps that may exist at present in our industrial set-up, or that may be created by allowing some of our existing industries to be forced out.
The other unit is Irish Steel holdings. That has had an unfortunate and chequered history. It is still labouring under great difficulties. Personally, I cannot see how we are going to have anything in the way of effective productive industry in the country—even if we confine it to light industry and consumer goods—unless we have some extension and development of capital goods: something in the way of a steel works producing certain types of steel to be available for machine building, the building trade and other light industry of that kind. Deputy Lemass referred to the general engineering industry. I agree with him that we should associate a general engineering industry with our transport system. That is the only effective basis for it, because it affords the largest and most effective basis on which to build up an engineering industry.
I disagree violently with the Deputy's remarks about Córas Iompair Éireann. I think I am entitled to disagree with him as he was entitled to disagree with the findings of Sir James Milne. I remember that, as far back as 1929, a suggestion was made to spend £225,000 in re-equipping and establishing the engineering works at Inchicore, not merely as engineering workshops there for the railway system, but as a national engineering works. It is regrettable that that particular development was never proceeded with, because sooner or later we shall have to face that problem if we are going to establish and maintain industry here. We shall need to have an engineering industry that will be capable not only of carrying out day-to-day repairs but major overhauls and even the building of particular types of machinery that we may require. Bord na Móna, for example, had to face the problem of actually inventing and devising machines to suit their particular form of production. They had to build machines and try to keep men to do running repairs. One can see how difficult it must be for an organisation of the type of Bord na Móna to do that. It would be much easier for the board if they had readily available the resources of a modern well-equipped large-scale engineering works.
I want to make a few passing references to a matter that has occasioned some thought in the last few days. I understand there is some responsibility on the Minister for Industry and Commerce to deal with the problem of the provision of work, and that it is the responsibility of another Minister to deal with other aspects of that problem. Lately, there have been a number of pieces of advice directed to some of those men and women who are out of work, and the feeling that they do not want to take up work because they do not like work. I am speaking now in regard to the Minister for Industry and Commerce because I want to keep my remarks within the rules of order. I want to say that there are two different problems here. There is the problem of unemployed men and women living in Dublin and in other large urban centres. There is no use in offering these men and women work out in a rural area. That is no solution at all. They have been brought up in a particular area: they have their homes and their families there, and possibly all their relations. They are used to a certain standard of living, a certain custom of life.
The provision of work for these men and women has to be related also to their particular experience in industry, in transport or in trade, and to their family associations and their home environment. It is no solution of the problem to give a man in Dublin work in the country and then expect him to maintain himself and his family, the family perhaps, being 30, 40 or 50 miles away. For such a scheme to be successful, the work has to be adjacent to where that man's family is. Anybody who suggests that because large numbers of unemployed in Dublin are not prepared to take up work in various parts of the country—hydro-electric work or bog work—there is something radically wrong, and that these men deserve to be castigated in public, held up to ridicule, and that that sort of criticism will be allowed without anyone objecting, is making a very serious mistake.
I am prepared to speak equally on behalf of the single man who is criticised because he is not taking up work on the Ballyshannon scheme. I have some knowledge of the Ballyshannon scheme and I suggest that before men are criticised for failing to take work on that scheme, there should be a very detailed examination of the scheme and not merely the rates of wages should be investigated. There is something more than the rates of wages to be considered in order to determine whether a job is good or bad. Word passes along very quickly when a job gets a bad name. That can apply to many types of employment. Bord na Móna made very great improvements within the last 12 or 18 months, but before that it got a bad name. Bord na Móna was told that and it was urged to try to remedy certain grievances. Certain improvements were made.
It must be remembered that working men are not prepared to do things which they regard as outrageous either from the point of view of value for the work they do, the conditions under which they live or the treatment they expect as ordinary human beings. I suggest to every public man that when he addresses himself to the question of unemployment he must realise he is speaking of fellow Irishmen and women. We have to get away from the point of regarding every unemployed person as a drone, a person who, if he is provided with work, will not accept it. If the average unemployed man does not take work, there is often a very good explanation and the sooner we all realise that the better.
There is that section of our community that has never, so far as I know, got things very easily in this life; if they have not had to work hard, at least they have not lived very well. On the other hand, we have quite a lot of people who seem to live very well and, as far as I know, they do little or no work. I suggest that some of our Ministers might address the criticisms that they now address to working-class people to those who live in the higher strata of society and who, although they live so well, make little or no contribution towards the wealth they accumulate. I am not going to be associated with any Government or Party or individual who feels that the unemployed are to be the subject of open rebuke, strong criticism and scornful references because they are in the unfortunate position of being denied reasonable opportunities of earning a living under decent conditions.
I have asked questions from time to time with regard to factory inspections. I feel there is some need for legislation in this connection. Definitely there should be an improvement in the methods of our inspectorial branch. The standard and percentage of factory inspections is very much below what it was pre-war. Our expectations have altered in this respect. We have a great many people nowadays coming back from working abroad. They have knowledge of higher and better standards of factory conditions and industrial hygiene and they expect that we will try to improve and build up our standards. We should at least enforce the existing standards that we have determined by law. Our inspectorial staff is little more than half what it was pre-war. They have other duties added and it is quite clear that the standard of inspections must, in these circumstances, go down considerably. I ask the Minister to bring the number in that branch to even a greater level than it was in pre-war days and adjust the branch to the additional duties we have set up. A considerable amount of extra work devolves on them because of the additional regulations that we have made.
I come now to the cost of living. I am one of those who has stated repeatedly that the cost of living can be brought down. It is no use asking me how, because I do not know. I feel just as the Minister did when he was in opposition; I feel that something more effective can be done and that a greater drive can be made in connection with this matter. We have achieved one important thing, and that is that we have been able to peg the figure to some extent. I know that in the present Opposition and outside there is a feeling that underneath the surface there are changes taking place. So far as the Fianna Fáil Party are concerned, we had somewhat the same feeling with regard to their cost-of-living index figure.
You will never satisfy the public that the index figure for the cost of living is a true reflection of the actual cost of living. The public do not know how that figure is made up. They believe it is designed to fool and delude them and every time there is a change in the price of a commodity, no matter how small it may be, they feel that the cost to them still goes up. There is a feeling that it is not sufficient for us to have held the cost of living as we have done since the beginning of 1948. There is a feeling that we should be able to secure some reduction in the cost of living, even though it is a small reduction and it may take some time to have real effect.
I think I should again press what I pressed already on many occasions— that no matter how effective the machinery for price control is, it will not receive the confidence of the public so long as it is being operated by Departmental machinery behind the doors of Government Departments. I am not casting any reflection on the officers who exercise that machinery, but it stands to reason, from our experience since 1939, that not one member of the public in every 10,000 believes that price control machinery operates effectively and efficiently in the interests of the public. They have had too bitter a dose, and if we are to try to get a proper appreciation among our people, and especially those in the working class sections, of what the cost of living actually is, then we must adopt ways and means of having a price control machinery operating in a manner that the public will understand.
It is not always possible to get people in business to submit to public examination all their private books and papers, but I suggest that there are methods by which various price increases can be investigated. During the emergency, when the ordinary working man or woman looked for an increase in wages, he or she had to go before a public tribunal and, where it was necessary, submit, through organisations or as individuals, to the most minute inquiry in order that the tribunal might decide whether or not the applicant would be entitled to 5/-, 10/- or 15/- of an increase. They were not getting anything from the community; they were making a contribution towards the wealth of the nation by way of labour and they were getting wages in return.
A great many of our manufacturers are being maintained by the community at the cost of higher prices. If they want a subsidy, because it is a subsidy, from the community in the form of a protective tariff then they should be prepared to submit themselves to a public examination of their costings and the structure of the price of the commodity they produce. With all the limitations and with all the defects that may flow from trying to operate price control machinery in public, I still urge upon the Minister that he should examine the problem. Even if it is only in a limited form and subject to many qualifications, he should try from time to time to evolve machinery of that type which would operate particularly in regard to some of our tariff industries in order to assure the public that there is a careful control and examination of all the factors that enter into the cost of living. If that is not done there will never be any confidence in the manner in which this machinery operates and there will never be any acceptance of the cost-of-living index. When you do not have acceptance of that figure as to the real cost of living for the average working class family, naturally you will have the corollary that the great mass of the workers will place their own estimation on what it costs them to live; and, if that estimate is above what they are receiving in weekly income, then they are going to take immediate steps to increase that income.
For a period of 12 months we have had comparative stability in so far as wage levels are concerned. I am not one of those who believe that there must be an even balance between wages and the cost of living. I am satisfied that wages must always keep going up because of the fact that increased wages will inevitably give us a higher standard of living. If the workers cannot buy the same quantity of goods for the same amount of money then they are going to ask for more money in order to buy the same goods. I do not think there can be any argument for any limitation upon the standard of living of our people any more than one can limit the march of our people as a nation. I realise at the same time that there are periods when stability is required for a readjustment of our forces and a rapproachement to our whole problem. We have had that over the last 12 months. But it is quite possible that that stability may be upset, and the easiest way in the world to upset it is to get it accepted by the great mass of workers that there is an unfair relationship between the cost-of-living index and their wages. They will set out immediately to adjust that relationship. Sometimes they adjust it by means of discussion and conciliation, as is done in the Labour Court. They have, however, got one remedy which we shall insist on retaining. That is the withdrawal of their labour. When one comes to that particular pass difficulties and complications arise for everybody. It is because I am concerned with a great mass of workers that I press upon the Minister now reconsideration of this problem of price control and an acceptance of the principle that, whatever measures may be used, whether it be direct pressure by examination and investigation of costings or whether it be by Draconian enforcement, we must make up our minds that we must break the present figure. I feel that if we once do that we shall get a steady downward trend in costs. Once we reach that stage we have rid ourselves of the danger of an upward trend again.
There is an understandable feeling on the part of the public that the stability we have had in the cost of living over the past year is merely a passing phase and that at any moment an upward movement my start again. If there is the slightest indication of that the results will be, though possibly not tragic, very serious indeed as far as our whole economy is concerned. I would urge upon the Minister that he should go back and read some of the speeches he made when he was in Opposition and, as I am doing to-day, repeat the advice he gave then and consider that advice good; and he has now got not merely the desire, as I have, but also the power and the technical knowledge and detail available to him as head of his Department.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,
I did not wish to have a greater audience to hear the remarks I have to make in this debate but calling the House gave me a much-needed respite.
There is a rule that you do not call the House between six and seven in order to permit members to get a cup of tea.
There is no rule to that effect.
There is a gentleman's agreement.
There is a Deputy in possession.
It is a sad reflection on the concern that the Government Parties have for this important debate when I am rebuked for having the audacity to call the House at this hour.
It is your privilege.
I know it is my privilege and I shall avail of it on every possible occasion. I wish to direct my remarks mainly to unemployment which has recently manifested itself in the woollen and worsted industries in the City and County of Cork. The proprietors of mills in my constituency and outside it have for some time been advocating for increased protection for their output and production. They say that, due to excessive dumping in this country by firms who manufacture knitting-wools and woollen and worsted materials, they are not able to compete with the imported article and so cannot keep their workers employed on the scale they would desire. As regards the woollen industry, I have here what I might term a "brief" from one of the biggest manufacturers in the country. I have been asked to express their views and I do not think I can do better than to refer fairly exhaustively to the material that has been supplied to me.
They say, in the first instance, that dumping is due to inadequate protection. It builds up surplus stocks in this country with the result that firms manufacturing worsted woollens in the country cannot dispose of their stocks. Admitting that competition stimulates trade, on the other hand, for whatever reason I do not know, foreign firms manufacturing woollens elsewhere are able to export some of these materials to this country and sell them, even after paying the cost of transport, at a lower price than they can be produced and sold here with a reasonable profit. That this dumping is increasing seems to be incontroversible from the the facts. In 1947 Britain exported to the United States of America more woollens than they did to this country. Nobody can put the consumption of these goods in Ireland and in the United States of America on an equal footing but, nevertheless, as the result of inadequate protection, the British last year exported to this country more than they did to the United States of America. That in itself is positive proof that England finds a ready market here for goods for which they could get dollars in the United States of America. They seem to be able to make a much greater profit by sending their exports here into a non-dollar area. That in itself should be an indication to the Minister that the woollen industry here requires more protection.
One big snag is the problem of quotas. When you come to the fixing of a quota, the Minister or his responsible officers have to give a description of the goods which are imported under quota. At present there is a quota applied to worsted yarns over a certain weight per square yard. The quota at present does not affect cloths which are under seven ounces per square yard. Therefore, if an exporting firm in England can manufacture cloth under seven ounces per square yard, they can send here all they can supply of it and all that we can take.
As a general rule, cloths under seven ounces per square yard are supposed not to be suitable for manufacture into suits but, nevertheless, at the present time there is being dumped here cloth like gabardine. This material is intended, I believe, for the manufacture of raincoats and other such articles but at present, as I think most people can see for themselves, gabardine cloth is being made up in gents' suits, ladies' suits and even children's suits. These particular cloths are coming unrestrictedly into the country and undercutting worsted woollens, the product of our own factories. These loopholes, which were apparent in the year 1947, allowed an excess of 3,500,000 square yards of these kinds of cloths over the quota. Even in 1948, the quota was exceeded by 3,000,000 square yards in unmade-up form and 1,500,000 square yards in made-up form—that is, in ready-made suits and overcoats. As a result of that, this country had a surplus stock of 4,851,000 square yards in 1947 over the estimated consumption of 10,500,000 square yards. In 1948 the surplus was 2,784,000 square yards. I leave it to the Minister to judge what effect this surplus of 3,000,000 as against a consumption of 10,500,000 had on home production.
The suggested remedies for this dumping and the consequent unemployment is, first, to reduce the import quota by at least 650,000 square yards because it can be proved that Irish manufacturers can supply to the full limit of home consumption—not only that but they can also supply a fairly large proportion for export, if an export market can be found.
Is the Deputy now talking about woollen worsteds?
Yes.
Does the Deputy say that the home producers can supply the full requirements of the market even with the permitted quota of imports?
To enlighten the Minister, I may say that I am quoting from material supplied from a Cork firm—Sunbeam Wolsey.
Good old Willie Dwyer.
Since that interjection has been made, may I say that I am speaking, not on behalf of the employers but on behalf of the employees? There are many hundreds, even thousands employed by that firm. Many hundreds of them are personal friends of my own and I know that several of them have been in that employment constantly for a period of several years. Many of these are now unemployed and many more are in danger of dismissal due to slackness, and slackness cannot be attributed to anything else but dumping from England and elsewhere. One of the remedies suggested is to reduce the weight limit of seven ounces per square yard to a lower figure. That would be a means of combating the import of gabardine and of preventing gabardine, which is primarily intended for raincoats, being utilised for ordinary suitings as is being done at present. As a result of a lack of a proper description of the goods which can be imported under quota, this importation of gabardine, under the guise of ordinary worsted woollens, has been taking place and therefore I would impress on the Minister that, in fixing a quota in future, the particular commodity permitted to come in under quota should be more clearly defined in order to overcome this method which exporters in Britain have adopted of by-passing this particular Order in respect of quotas. It has also been suggested that the Government has not adequately exploited the export market in places like America or Holland. I believe that some form of trade agreement is in existence between this country and Holland but that exports under that agreement of worsted and woollens to Holland are practically nil. That is something which should be capable of being remedied, and if the people in Holland were willing to enter into an agreement for exports and we have not exported anything to them although the stocks are there, it is something that must be remedied and I would ask the Minister to look into it.
To come to the hand-knitting wool industry, there are three mills which primarily produce hand-knitting wool, Blarney, Cork and Athlone. The production of these three mills is about 1,000,000 lbs. per annum which is considered to be equal to the country's total consumption. The quality and price of the Irish article compare more than favourably with those of the imported article. The Irish wool is sold at approximately 1/2d. to 1/3d. an ounce while the imported article is sold at from 1/2½d. to 1/5d.
I think there can be no gainsaying the fact that Irish hand-knitting wool is as good as, if not better than, the imported article at the same price, but the crux of the matter seems to be that the imported stuff comes in in a cheaper form which they call crossbred which they can sell at 8½d. an ounce here while in England, I am told, they can get as high as 10½d. The Minister should look that matter up and, if he cannot restrict the import of crossbred, he should at least ensure that our 1,000,000 lbs. of hand-knitting wool can be sold at home or alternatively exported. I have stated that the estimated consumption and potential production of this country is 1,000,000 lbs. a year. In April, 1948, there were some 31,800 odd lbs. on hands in the mills unsold and last month there were approximately 124,000 lbs. unsold in the mills and that naturally means unemployment. In Cork alone 144 men and women have recently been disemployed as a result of the surplus stocks in the mills. Therefore, even if the Minister did not want to aid the manufacturers there, I consider in this case that it is his duty, when Irish manufacturers can compete in quality and price with English manufacturers, to look to these 144 people who are unemployed and the many more who are in danger of being unemployed as a result of the lack of protection to the hand-knitting wool industry. The manufacturers of these worsteds and hand-knitting wools do not ask for any special monopolies. They are performing a very useful function in providing employment for our own people at home. I always had a theory—I am expressing my own view—that even if we have to charge a little more for an article made in this country than the imported article can be sold at and if in doing so we can give employment at home, prevent people from being unemployed or on the dole in this country or from going abroad for employment, then it is good economy in the long run, even if the consumer has to pay a little more on the home-produced article.
Would the Deputy allow me to intervene for a moment? He has dealt fairly fully with the woollen and worsted position and also with hand-knitting wools. The Deputy apparently is not informed that I had interviews with the manufacturers concerned on two occasions when they made application for certain protections. I asked on each occasion to be supplied with certain additional information. I have not received it yet, either from the manufacturers of woollens and worsteds or from the manufacturers of thread.
I hope that I am not being premature in addressing these remarks to the Minister. I understand that negotiations are taking place but surely I am entitled to make representations, if not on behalf of the employers, then on behalf of the employees.
I am not suggesting for a moment that the Deputy is not entitled to make his case, but I do respectfully suggest that the Deputy is not entitled to put on my shoulders blame that must rest on the shoulders of the manufacturers until they give me the additional information I require in order to make up my mind on the matter. If there is delay in this matter I want to put the blame for that delay where it rightfully belongs.
I appreciate that the Minister may not have all the material he wants in order to come to a decision and I also appreciate that this is a very complex matter. As a matter of fact, without the material that has been supplied to me I would not be able to make any case and I am sure that very few Deputies, unless they had some experience of these trades from the administrative side, would be able to make a case. Nevertheless, as soon as the Minister gets the information he requires I would ask him to bear in mind that our own people are finding useful employment in these factories. I was over one of them recently and frankly I was amazed at the conditions under which the people work there. They are ideal from every point of view—clean work rooms, airconditioning, good canteens and, I am told, in many cases, excellent weekly salaries. If there is any antidote to the evil of emigration, that is it; and I repeat, even if we are asked to pay a little more in order to keep these factories in production it would be good economy and I would ask the Minister to examine the question from that point of view. We hear a lot about reducing the cost of living. I know that is essential, but if the cost of living goes up to the extent, perhaps, of £1 or £2 on a suit in the year, or 10/- or 15/- on socks and woollen underwear in the year for the average individual, I think it would be far better in the long run that we should be prepared as a nation to sacrifice these few extra pounds or shillings in order to keep people at home in gainful work and happy.
With regard to tourism, before the election which gave us this Government took place, a lot of attacks on the tourist industry were made by various Parties. Some of the Parties which now support the Government made a particularly strong line of attack on the tourist trade. One Clann na Poblachta election address had bold headlines with the slogan: "Butter, bacon and eggs in hotels for English spivs, foreign tourists, and monied aliens." The present Taoiseach advocated that the tourist trade should be taxed in order to reduce the cost of living, and the present Minister for External Affairs, in one of his earlier speeches before this Government came in, also advocated taxing the tourist trade. All these opinions were expressed, possibly from conviction, but, I suspect, largely as a means of vote-catching, opinions they really did not feel but which would, they felt, go down well with the electorate. We find, however, in recent months a change in the point of view which was held prior to the 18th February. When the Tánaiste opened Mosney Village Holiday Camp last July he described the tourist industry in the following terms:
"The tourist industry is a valuable asset. It helped the country to balance imports and exports in a manner that could not be done were it not for the influx of visitors. There were over 1,000,000 visitors last year —1947—and they brought £35,000,000 into the country."
The Minister himself, at an Irish Tourist Association luncheon last October, praised the tourist industry for its dollar earning capacity and said that was now being realised by many people for the first time. I wonder did he include many of his own supporters in the people who were now realising it for the first time. However, I think it is generally accepted now on all sides of the House, and even amongst people who were bitterly opposed to tourists coming in and eating butter and eggs during the war years, that the tourist industry is very valuable to this country.
What I am leading up to is that the Minister has very definite views which he has often expressed as regards the development of the tourist industry. These views can be summed up by saying: "Let the people who reap the most benefit out of the tourist industry finance it and make their hotels and their restaurants more attractive." Last year, the Minister will remember that he received a deputation advocating the claims of Cóbh for special attention, from the point of view of increasing its attractiveness as a port of call for American liners. The Minister gave it as his very definite opinion that he would have no part in it, that the people of Cóbh, either by private enterprise or through their own urban council, should make their own port attractive. However, since the tourist trade is so valuable to the general economy of the country, I think it is the duty of the Government to take action in making Cóbh—and other ports of call, if there are any, such as Dún Laoghaire for English tourists— more attractive and better places to come to. I believe that the scences in Cóbh when an American liner calls are frankly disgraceful to this country. People have to sit on upturned trunks while they are awaiting customs clearance. If a boat is due to leave about 8 o'clock in the evening and for some reason or another it cannot leave until the following morning, very often the streets of Cóbh are being walked by people who are waiting to board the liner, without any hope of securing hotel accommodation. That is a state of affairs that should not be allowed to continue.
An urban district council such as that in Cóbh cannot possibly hope to get the revenue capable of putting Cóbh on the basis of a port of call suitable for the kind of trade we want to get from America and elsewhere. The customs sheds in Cóbh could be made at least a comfortable place for incoming Americans and people of other nationalities, for a comparatively small sum of money. That sum, however, would be far beyond the means of private enterprise or of a small urban council. I appeal again to the Minister, if my appeal can carry any weight, to examine the situation and take the long view of the value of the tourist industry to the country, as he has expressed it himself, and see if he cannot provide some adequate facilities there. I do not want a luxurious port such as we have in Collinstown, but reasonable facilities to make these American people feel that they are being well catered for in this way. I know it has been said often that people who have had to pass through Cóbh—either incoming or outgoing tourists—have expressed the opinion that they will never come again, as they thought it was not really worth it. I would ask the Minister to reconsider seriously his expressed opinion on this particular aspect and, if he can possibly see his way at all to do it, to give some financial aid to Cóbh in the matter of providing better facilities for incoming tourists.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,
Deputy Lynch had certain animadversions to make upon the attitude which he alleged was adopted by Clann na Poblachta and other Parties in the inter-Party Government to the question of tourists, before the last general election. Before proceeding to a consideration of the Estimate proper, I would like briefly to refer to Deputy Lynch's remarks. Many of us did undoubtedly express the view that a tourist industry, to the extent that it resulted in our surrendering food, clothing and accommodation to cross-Channel visitors —and perhaps the recent visit of Mr. Maximoe was not absent from our minds—in return for pieces of paper with "£1 sterling" printed on them, was not an industry which was of paramount importance to the country. The only reason I refer to Deputy Lynch's remarks is lest anything he said should lead people in this House or elsewhere to believe that the people on this side of the House do not realise the value in dollar-earning capacity of a properly run and directed tourist industry.
Having said so much, let me proceed to a consideration of the matters involved in this Estimate. The Minister, in his conclusion, requested Deputies to approach this Estimate and the cognate Estimates in the spirit that, although much has been done, much remains to be done, and, in that spirit and with that constructive approach, I hope to place certain considerations before the House. We are fortunate that so far, at any rate, in this debate we have had, in the main, a constructive approach by those who spoke. In any criticism I make of the administration of the Minister's Department, I should like him to realise that these criticisms are addressed to him in a constructive spirit and, as I told his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, are not criticisms merely for criticism's sake.
I believe that between some of us who sit on this side of the House and the Minister there is a pretty deep philosophical chasm. The Minister and two or three of his colleagues make a fetish of free enterprise, of doing away with controls and a policy generally that, in the long run, if things are left to work out for themselves, they will work out for the best. That is a policy to which I do not subscribe and a policy to which the members of Clann na Poblachta do not subscribe. We believe in intelligent planning. I think it was Deputy Larkin who regretted the absence, or apparent absence, of any unified industrial and economic plan for the whole country. I may be told, and probably will be told, that it is premature to expect the emergence of such a plan. At the back of my mind, speaking perfectly frankly, is the fear that the Minister and his Department are afraid of being accused of following too closely in the steps of their predecessor. I am no apologist, and would never like to be taken as an apologist, for the Fianna Fáil Party, but I would say this to the Minister, that merely because, at some stage in their political evolution, the Fianna Fáil Ministry did entertain briefly, or embark upon or complete a particular line of action it would be wrong, in my estimation, to put it to one side purely for that reason.
I am glad the Minister was able to tell us—it was a heartening thing which will give heart to our people as a whole —that there is a trend towards a reduction in our adverse trade balance. Our people will be heartened to know that there has been an increase in exports and a fall in imports. I am not going to be so mean or so niggardly of appreciation as to attempt to ascribe that to factors outside the Minister's control. In so far as he can report to us that progress has been made in that direction, the Minister is deserving of congratulation, and I for one will not withhold it from him.
One matter to which no reference was made by the Minister—it is a matter which I think can be fairly described as relevant to the Estimate—is the position of these semi-State or statutory companies. On two or three occasions, by way of Parliamentary Questions to the Minister and also to the Taoiseach, I and some of my colleagues sought to elicit some indication of what future Government policy was to be in relation to these bodies. There is a rather impressive list of them, a rather impressive list of statutory, semi-State corporations receiving support out of public moneys and over which this House has no control. Every Deputy has from time to time been faced with the situation that, on behalf of a constituent or some body or group, he has been requested to redress a grievance in connection with conditions of employment or other matters in Córas Iompair Eireann, in the Electricity Supply Board, in Bord na Móna, in Aer Lingus, in Aer Línte, in Irish Shipping, in Mianraí Teoranta and all these companies which come under the designation of semi-State concerns.
What answer did they get?
They got the answer that conditions of employment in these companies was a matter over which the Minister had no control.
Then the Deputy is ruling himself out from that.
With great respect, if I may attempt to put the position to the Chair: inasmuch as under this Estimate provision is made for the subsidisation in whole or in part of some of these companies, I am surely entitled to refer generally to the policy of the Minister's Department.
The position is that the Deputy has himself admitted that the Minister, in reply to Parliamentary Questions, says he has no control over certain conditions operating in these companies or concerns to which the Deputy refers. Obviously, then, if the Minister is to be held responsible, legislation will have to be introduced in order to give the Minister control and the Deputy is not entitled to advocate legislation on an Estimate.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,
In the course of a fairly lengthy speech, Deputy Lemass referred to certain schemes and projected schemes which had formed the subject matter of his observations on this Estimate last year. Much of what he said is worthy of endorsement. There were some matters to which he did not refer and I would like to suggest to the Minister that they should receive the consideration of the officers of his Department. Reference was made to the Erne and Clonsast schemes. I would like to have from the Minister when he is replying some indication that the Government has plans for proceeding with the oil refinery project. I would like to hear from the Minister when he is replying what the position is about the provision of further ships for Irish Shipping, Limited. Last year we were promised that within the 12 months there would be five additional ships under the control of that company. Some of those ships are already in commission and in service. I would like to hear from the Minister when the people may expect the remainder.
Deputy Larkin spoke at some length concerning the necessity for an additional graving dock and for better facilities for the repairing and refitting of ships in the Dublin port. No mention was made by either Deputy Larkin or Deputy Lemass of a project which, I understand, received a considerable amount of support from the Minister when he was in opposition, that is, the setting up of a factory for the production of sulphate of ammonia so that nitrogenous manures could be manufactured at home for use in the country. No mention has been made so far by any Deputy of the necessity for proceeding with another project that was also mentioned here in previous years, namely, the setting up of a wool combing plant. Nor was there any mention of the necessity for the initiation and establishment of a newsprint industry. A newsprint industry is a project which we on these benches would view with considerable approval because it would be a very necessary adjunct to the proper use of products from afforestation, when an afforestation scheme would come to fruition.
I merely mention these various projects to the Minister as matters which should receive the consideration of the officials of his Department. The Minister may not know it but his Department, more perhaps than any other, comes in for public criticism. I say that as having an urban background and an urban experience. Perhaps if I lived in a rural area, I might speak differently. But one is no worse a friend of the Minister's because one employs terms of candour when one is speaking to him. I want to be candid and frank with the Minister and to tell him that in the mind of the public there is the impression that delay— and inexcusable delay—is inseparable from the Department of Industry and Commerce. There is worse than that in the minds of some members of the commercial community. There is the feeling not so much that the policy the Minister is pursuing is a wrong policy as that the Minister's Department has not got a definite policy. There is the feeling that there is uncertainty—and there is nothing worse than uncertainty. Any business man will tell you that he will meet any type of conditions rather than uncertain conditions. It is no part of my function to apportion the blame as between the Minister and his officials.
Of course the Deputy is, I presume, old hand enough to know that that very largely arises from vicious, malicious political propaganda.
I can realise that portion of it does arise from malicious propaganda. I wish, however, to refer the Minister to specific cases. I have already prefaced my remarks by stating that anything I may say is not being said in a spirit of carping criticism. I am fulfilling my duty, as far as I see it as a public representative, in placing before the House certain facts.
I accept that.
"Vicious political propaganda."
I can place those facts before the Minister without any assistance from the Deputy from East Cork, Deputy Corry.
He would not be of any assistance anyway.
There are three particular headings under which I wish to make criticism. The first is in connection with the paper and stationery industry. Before the present Minister took office an application was made to his predecessor—the blame cannot be thrown on the present Minister—for the reimposition of a duty which had been taken off in 1942 on imported stationery. That application, as far as I can ascertain, was made in November, 1947. A questionnaire was sent out by the Minister's Department and was replied to. Repeated requests were made to the Minister's Department to have this duty reimposed. I am briefed that the matter was pursued by a number of people. I know I pursued it with the Minister's Department. Not until the 1st April, 1949, was a 25 per cent. duty on stationery, which had been in existence up to 1942, reimposed. During that period over £700,000 worth of imported stationery was dumped in this country. It is doubtful—even with the reimposition of the duty on the 1st April, 1949— whether the industry will be able to recover from the dumping that went on during that period.
What was the type of the stationery?
Newsprint, writing paper, notepaper, and envelopes— general stationery.
Brief stationery?
I do not think so. The ready-made clothing industry has now got portion of the protection they asked for. However, I am creditably informed that, during the period that they were literally beseeching the Department of Industry and Commerce for the imposition of some protective tariff, dumping took place in this country which has now left them in the position that forward sales— they would now be making them for the autumn trade—are impossible to make.
The claim was also made to me that the Minister's Department was requested to give a clear indication of their attitude to the establishment in this country of an industry for the assembling of bicycles. In so far as I am briefed on that matter, I understand —and I await hearing the Minister's reply—that it has been impossible to get from the Minister's Department a satisfactory answer as to their attitude. Generally speaking, I would urge on the Minister that, while a certain degree of caution may be necessary before protective tariffs or duties are imposed, this House and the people as a whole would be more indulgent in respect of a mistake made in the direction of giving too much protection or premature protection or unneeded protection rather than that overcaution and overcarefulness should result in workers in any industry being thrown out into the street to join the ranks of the unemployed. I should like to make it clear, without room for any doubt, that I am not making these observations as a spokesman or as a protagonist of any small group or of any self-styled federation of industrialists, or otherwise. I am making these observations to the Minister in the interests of the people with whose welfare I am most concerned, namely, the workers employed in industry. In that connection I should like to say to the Minister that it is useless for him or for any other Minister or for any Deputy or any public representative to appeal for greater production—to appeal to the workers to bend their backs to the task—unless, at the same time, he appeals to the employers to give the workers a share in the management and control of industry. Until such time as the Minister's Department takes that line, until such time as that attitude is endorsed by an Irish Government, then it is idle and unreasonable to expect an increased effort from the workers.
I should like to endorse what was already said in this House in connection with the use of native fuel. It is the Minister's duty, I think, to ensure that in all public and Government institutions the use of turf is made compulsory.
Is not that so?
I understand it is not. I would go further and ask the Minister make such Order as is necessary to prohibit the sale in turf-producing areas of imported coal. I will be told that there are all sorts of difficulties in the way. I know it is not a popular line for the Minister to take. I know it is not a popular line for me to advocate in this House. But, if we are to have real concern for the many people who are depending for their livelihood on the production of turf, if we are to make any real progress towards getting the idea of even limited self-sufficiency into the minds of the people, it is a step that it is necessary we should take.
I have only one final observation. At the risk of being repetitious, let me say this. Let the Minister realise, let his officials realise, that precipitate action may result in mistakes, but it is better than delay and overcaution. The people of the country will excuse mistakes made through over-enthusiasm, mistakes made through a desire to get a job of work done. They will not excuse overcaution, overcarefulness, which to them may appear to be mere inertia and carelessness.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,
Up to the previous speaker, Deputy C. Lehane, rising, this Estimate had been in the nature practically of a non-contentious one. I think those who listened to Deputy Lehane will agree that his was the first real indictment of the Department of Industry and Commerce which has been made on this Estimate. Deputy Lehane is as interested as I am in the unemployed, particularly as he represents the same constituency as I do— the unemployed of the country in the first place, and the unemployed of Dublin City, which approximate 15,000 at the moment. He knows, as I do, that the old policy, the policy of Fianna Fáil, the policy of Griffith, the policy of every Irish economist of any note or worth noting was to develop an industrial arm. He knows also that that policy is not being pursued, that it has not been accelerated in the last year.
He does not agree that it is not being pursued.
It has not been accelerated in the last year.
It has been cleaned up.
It has not been accelerated in the last year at the rate it should have been. Deputy Lehane indicted the Minister on three or four points, particularly in relation to the paper and stationery industry and two other manufacturing industries. He said that protection was sought in one instance, that a licence was sought to establish an industry in another instance and that neither was granted. He indicted the Minister for being so dilatory in respect to the paper industry that the market was now flooded to such a degree that for years to come, I think he said, it will have an effect on the industry here.
I am very glad to see that the Minister, whom I have listened to for ten years now in this House, has accepted the position that the strongest possible industrial arm is absolutely necessary to the economy of the country. Deputy Lehane forgot to say that, while undoubtedly our cattle exports—and they are the bulk of our exports—have been increasing, the other export, the export of human beings, has also been increased during the last year and that the business of the Department of Industry and Commerce is to see that industries are created here which will absorb the unemployed of Dublin and the country.
What about the 250,000 who went away when the Minisster's predecessor was in office?
More than 250,000 went away when the Government preceding our Government was in office. The Deputy was very much younger then and so was I, but he and I were in the same place then.
You will not get away with that story.
There is more emigration to-day than ever there was. Each Deputy who has spoken has referred to the uncertainty which exists among the industrial and commercial concerns in the city. Deputy Lehane is not too certain, but I can assure the Minister that I am absolutely certain about that, because many plans have passed through the planning department of the Dublin Corporation. The town planning authority of which I am a member passed many plans for factories and to my knowledge tenders have been accepted for them, but the work is not going on.
Why?
Because of the uncertainty. The Minister must pronounce on the future of Irish industry. He must pronounce that the industrialists and the operatives in this country are as good as in any other country and that he is going to guarantee they will get the maximum of protection against the monopolists and the mass producers of England and other countries.
Will the Deputy give me the names of the people whose factories were passed and held up?
I will.
I am not aware of any.
I do not make a statement without having the facts. What I did not hear from Deputy Lehane and what I was hoping to hear from him was some comment on the reduction under the various heads of this Estimate. I agree that he did mention the two principal ones, but he did not mention mineral exploration. I heard enough from Deputy Lehane and his Party during the last election on mineral exploration to expect that he and his Party would be the first to object to any reduction under that sub-head in this Estimate. Surely, if we are ever going to develop anything in this country a miserable £100,000 or £200,000 extra annually to mineral exploration would not be thrown away. Deputy Lehane would be the first individual in this House to stand up and advocate it. He mentioned that he would like to see turf being used in Government office and in all offices of the local and general authorities. I should like to see in the future in connection with electricity, the development of turf burning stations only. There has been a mentality in this country—I know it, having been an engineer many years ago—that you could not use turf because it was not an economic fuel, in relation to electricity development. There has always been the coal mind in certain engineers associated with the Electricity Supply Board. That coal mind should be broken down because it is not a question of the price at which you can generate electricity with coal or with turf but a question of what is the cheaper in the long run—paying for English coal or employing Irish labour to cut the turf and use it for generating electricity. That, to my mind, should be one of the things we should concentrate on. The late Sir John Purser Griffith worked for years and years on peat and water resources. Anyone can read his writings. He was a prophet in his country over 30 years ago but a prophet is never listened to in his own country and I am sorry to say only too seldom in this.
The question was raised of the market here being flooded with footwear and clothing. Deputy Lehane says they have an insufficient protective tariff—50 per cent. ad valorem.
He knows Fianna Fáil created the situation that let the clothing in.
He attacked the then Minister for failing to do certain things. Surely if there is a glut of footwear and clothing on the market the obvious thing to do is not to fix any sort of duty but to put an embargo on immediately and keep English footwear and clothing from coming into the country. There is a great deal of unrest amongst the footwear and clothing workers in this city. I can assure you of that.
Hear, hear!
They have been knocked off in batches of 50 and 100. I am not going to argue how it happened originally. What I am saying is that that is the position now which the Minister should face up to and the position Deputy Lehane indicted him on.
The Department, not the Minister.
The Deputy should know the Minister is responsible and not the Department.
The Minister is not responsible for the flooding of the market already made, with shoes. That was done in his predecessor's reign.
I do not care how that position came about. That is the position now. You must face up to it. The windows are again full of shoddy things and the old Unionist mentality that the Irish workman cannot work and cannot make an article as good as any other operative is in operation again. Some of the shopkeepers, unfortunately, are fostering it. We want Irishmen and women working in this country and let England look after herself. She will take from us what she needs and nothing else and give us only what she can do without.
It is a pity the Deputy did not make this speech in 1947.
I have made this speech consistently. So far as Córas Iompair Eireann is concerned Mr. Lemass dealt briefly with the Milne Report. There is only one item which he touched upon and that is the bus station, one of the items of capital expenditure. I can assure the Minister that that was actually a decision of the town planning authority. The idea is that there will be a second bus station in the neighbourhood of Christ Church. That will be the pivot of the city under the town plan. There will be two bus stations. For years before the new bus station was in the course of erection I heard Deputy Byrne, both senior and junior, and various other members putting down resolutions night after night in the Dublin Corporation demanding that a bus station be erected for the benefit of the long journey passengers.
He did not ask for one at the corner of Store Street.
There was nothing in that wrong except that the building was started under Fianna Fáil. I should like the Minister to urge Córas Iompair Éireann to go ahead with the extension of the body-building programme. I can assure him that the buses which have come into this country and are in operation, particularly on the 15 route, do not compare with the buses made by Irish workmen. They are an inferior article. I ask him to go ahead and implement that section of the programme, at any rate.
I do not know whether the extension at the North Wall is mentioned in the Milne Report. I refer to the piece of ground that was taken over from the Electricity Supply Board by Córas Iompair Éireann. I understand that over £30,000 was spent on that and now it is lying derelict. Something upwards of 60 men were employed there and I was informed that they only got one day's notice. The grass is now growing through the concrete.
I do not want to revert to what I said about tourists but I have heard the Minister and members of his Party at Irish Tourist Association luncheons and so forth talking about tourists being our greatest invisible export. Deputy Lehane talked here about people coming into the country and consuming our food. That is the best possible way of exporting the food, getting them to come here and eat and leave their dollars for it instead of going to the trouble of having it transported across the sea.
That is all right if you have the food.
We have the food. The more Americans that come here and eat it the better for us. It will help to reduce the debt we are incurring under Marshall aid. I am very glad that there is not, in my opinion, a philosophical chasm after all between the Minister and us on these benches as Deputy Lehane said. Apart from three or four substantial reductions on the sub-head, I am very glad to see that, in the main the Minister for Industry and Commerce is implementing Fianna Fáil policy although not at the rate which I should like it.
Can I say Deputy McCann is a sort of perpetual wonder to me? There was a time when I had the impression that Deputy McCann was one of these quiet men, plain spoken, blunt, in fact possibly well qualified for the definition which the Deputies opposite appropriate to themselves—politicians by accident and by accident only. Deputy McCann to-day, however, has shattered the illusions which I had concerning him. I think he is the only Deputy who has approached this debate in what I might term the typical Fianna Fáil manner. He spent about ten minutes attacking the Minister from every angle. He finished up by saying that the Minister—and he congratulated him on this—was merely pursuing Fianna Fáil policy.
One of the matters which worried Deputy McCann very much was this question of the importation of foreign footwear to the detriment of the footwear factories in this country and the employees. I think it is a great pity that Deputy McCann maintained his monastic silence for 16 years when on this side of the House, because I am sure that the remarks which he made to-day were remarks which could have eased the position considerably if even one back-bencher of the Fianna Fáil Party had stood up when on this side of the House in the year 1946 or the year 1947 and gave tongue to the same feelings that Deputy McCann did to-day. I wonder did Deputy McCann bother listening to the statement made by the Minister here earlier this afternoon?
I listened to every word of it.
If the Deputy listened to every word of it the only explanation I can think of is that his memory is very much shorter than I had imagined, or else that he deliberately misrepresented the position.
I know how good my memory is.
The figures the Minister gave in his statement this afternoon regarding the footwear industry should, at any rate, have made Deputies on the Fianna Fáil Benches feel thoroughly ashamed of themselves, and certainly ashamed of making the remarks which Deputy McCann made a few minutes ago.
There was no footwear industry at all in this country before we started it.
Indeed there was.
There was a footwear industry in 1946 when Fianna Fáil was in office with an over-all majority. Deputy McCann was in the House when there were imports of footwear. We had imports of footwear in 1947, and a quota for the import of footwear for the first months in 1948 was fixed by Deputy Lemass when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce and before he went out of office. I am going to give Deputy McCann these figures.
The Minister said all that himself.
The Minister said all that himself, but despite the fact that he did we had Deputy McCann making a typically vindictive Fianna Fáil speech of misrepresentation here a few minutes ago. Now, this much is certain, that wherever the blame lies with regard to the position of the footwear industry in this country, it certainly does not lie on the shoulders of the present Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister has made a statement and it is perfectly obvious that he has endeavoured, in the best way he could, to face up to the problem created for him by Deputy Lemass before he went out of office. I will go back as far as the Minister did, to the year 1938.
Start at 1932.
Would the Deputy like to hear the figures for 1947 and 1948?
Deputy McCann is most uncharitable to himself by perpetually calling attention to himself. In the year 1938, the total home production for all footwear was in round numbers, 4,400,000 pairs; imports were about 250,000 pairs. In the year 1946, when Deputy McCann conceived his duty, as a Deputy supporting the Government, to be merely that of voting "yes" every time that Deputy Lemass nodded his head——
That is an old one.
——the home production in that year was about 5,250,000 pairs; it had increased by nearly 1,000,000 pairs despite the imports, which amounted to over 1,000,000 pairs of footwear. In the year 1947, the home production had increased by 200,000 pairs over and above the 1946 level, but Deputy Lemass had also increased the imports by over 1,000,000 pairs, over and above the 1946 level. Because of the fact that Deputy Lemass was not at that time getting the type of assistance that Deputy McCann proceeded to tender to the present Minister—perhaps when he was not getting that assistance—we had the problem created which the present Minister is endeavouring to solve. I wonder is it because that problem exists, and because a minute quantity of footwear, as compared with what Deputy Lemass had allowed in, was allowed in by the present Minister, that Deputy McCann says the present Minister is merely following Fianna Fáil policy?
During the Adjournment Debate last year I called attention to the position of the footwear industry and to the problems created in it by the efforts of Deputy Lemass. I do not know what has stirred up Deputy McCann at all. He is only nine or ten months too late. We were all saying those sort of things last year and we were quite right. The only thing is that we put the blame where it was due; we put it on the shoulders of Deputy Lemass. I had not intended dealing——
Are you finished with me, Deputy?
I am you may go. There are some other matters that I want to deal with. When this Government was formed, and when Deputy Morrissey, as a member of the Fine Gael Party, was nominated Minister for Industry and Commerce, we had a number of Deputies opposite quite untruthfully suggesting throughout the country that the traditional policy of Fine Gael was prejudicial to Irish industry, and that the fact that a Fine Gael Deputy was Minister for Industry and Commerce meant that, in the coming years, there was going to be a clamping down on industrial development.
We thought you would keep your promises, you see.
Now, I never find it easy to follow Deputy de Valera. I suppose that sooner or later that profound remark will——
Sink in?
Yes, but it does not at the moment. However, that was the type of speeches that was being made by Deputy Vivion de Valera. It was, perhaps, harmless. It certainly was not quite as harmful as some of the later speeches he made, and particularly some of his more recent speeches. I think, however, that the report presented by the Minister this afternoon is perhaps the most effective way of giving the lie to that type of speech and that type of rumour. I feel that every Deputy in the House should have a great deal of sympathy with the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I think Deputies should have a great deal of sympathy with any Minister for Industry and Commerce, and particularly with the present Minister.
I think myself that the Department over which the Minister presides must be the most difficult and complicated one in the country. When the natural difficulties and complexities which must confront any Minister for Industry in this country are further complicated by the number of problems which this Minister was faced with when he took over, it will be realised that it must render his task exceedingly difficult, and when the Government and the Minister are doing their utmost to bring down the cost of living, to prevent the cost of living soaring as it did soar year by year under the Fianna Fáil Government, and at the same time are endeavouring as best they can to promote industrial developments and foster new industries, I think it will be seen that the problem that is facing the Minister is really a difficult one. He must look at both sides of the picture. He must think of the ordinary consuming public; he must think of the industrial and economic future of the nation.
I would like to turn to the first aspect of the Minister's work. It is an aspect which I feel has not been appreciated by Deputies on the Government side of the House and which has been, to a great extent, misrepresented by Deputies on the Opposition side. It is an aspect of his work which I feel has not been properly appreciated outside this House either. I refer to the fact that Deputy Morrissey, since he became Minister, has certainly done his best as one individual to prevent the cost of living rising. We had a position last year where he withstood very powerful pressure from one section of our producers—that is, the butchers— for an increase in price and we had the position where Fianna Fáil Deputies —I think Deputy Brady was one of them—were pressing the Minister as to why the price of meat should not be increased.
Deputy Brady never did any such thing.
I am sorry; I meant the Deputy beside him, Deputy Colley.
That is not what I pleaded for, and you will see that if you look it up again.
There were Deputies there who argued along those lines. Fianna Fáil Deputies possibly followed the example of their leader. They may not have said specifically that that is what they wanted. I do not think they did want that—they merely wanted to embarrass the Government, if they could.
That is too cheap. We have one leader. The trouble with you is that you have a collection of them.
You have the Big Chief.
That is much better than little chiefs; you all walk in like sheep.
I am going to talk about sheep and beef in my own way. At any rate, there were a great number of Parliamentary Questions asked by Fianna Fáil Deputies regarding the Minister's attitude towards butchers. It was not until the Minister put it bluntly to the Deputies opposite what their position was and did they want to see the price of cattle going down for the farmers, or did they want to see the price of meat raised on the consumers in Dublin, that those very Deputies decided that possibly the best thing they could do would be to revert to the tactics they employed when they were supporting their own Government, and so they remained silent..
I merely raised this matter in order to point out to Deputies on all sides of the House that big pressure was put on the Minister by an influential section of the people, who felt that they had been able to get on very well when Deputy Lemass was Minister for Industry and Commerce. These people made no secret to any Deputy on this side of the House of the fact that they had met Deputy Lemass prior to the general election which resulted in Fianna Fáil Deputies occupying the benches on the opposite side and he had promised them an increase, but told them it would not be convenient for him to announce it for the present. It was because that promise was given to them by Deputy Lemass that the present Minister felt that he had to honour it and an increase of, I think, ld. per lb. was given shortly after the present Minister took office.
The butchers certainly were not content with that. They overlooked the fact that they were not now dealing with Deputy Lemass and I think inside a fortnight or so they were back looking for more. After months of effort, and supported in the manner which I have indicated by Fianna Fáil Deputies, eventually they decided that they were dealing with a different type of proposition and a new Minister and they were not going to get the increase in the price of meat. They realised that this Minister conceived it to be one of his duties to protect the interests of the consumers in Dublin and throughout the country.
Not alone has the Minister for Industry and Commerce waged that fight on behalf of the consumers, but he has also devoted a great deal of his time and attention to other articles and commodities. He has effected by his intervention reductions in the prices of a great number of commodities. Some of them may be small, but others are fairly considerable and the reductions have a big effect on the weekly budget of the ordinary breadwinner. Reductions have been made in the price of ready-made garments ranging from 2½ to 9 per cent. The figures I am quoting were made available last January and it is possible that since then further reductions have been made. No doubt the Minister will be able to tell us about that later. Waterproofed garments were reduced by different amounts ranging from 2½ to 12 per cent.; ties were reduced from 5 to 10 per cent.; braids and elastics from 4 to 20 per cent.; woollen piece goods by 5 per cent.; different types of household goods by amounts ranging from 7½ to 18 per cent. Certain types of building materials were also reduced in price.
Is the Deputy referring to the figures given in the Trade Journal for March, 1949? That shows clothing increases rising progressively from 1947 to 1949 from 100 to 103.
Has the Deputy finished his speech?
I am merely asking are you referring to these figures?
The price of gas was reduced in Dublin by 3d. per therm and in Cork by 4d. per therm. Motor car prices were considerably reduced and bicycle prices were reduced by 7½ per cent. As Deputy Lemass commented in his speech to-day. the Minister is still waging that battle on behalf of the consumer and is still endeavouring to get prices down. There was a certain amount of criticism when the Minister effected a reduction in the price of motor cars. He was told by Fianna Fáil Deputies, with typical ingratitude, that he would be better employed if he devoted his attention to some other articles. The number of motorists in this country has increased enormously in recent years. The necessity for motor cars has also increased. Many people feel that they require motors, as a means of transport, as a necessity when some years ago they might have been considered a luxury. I think the consumers in this country should be very grateful to the Minister for the considerable reductions he has had effected in the price of all these commodities I have mentioned and, in particular, in the price of motor cars and bicycles. I was glad to note from the Minister's speech that in the last year 90 proposals—I think that was the figure mentioned—for the establishment of new industries were actually approved by him, that 14 were at the moment in course of production and that another 70 were certainly under the examination stage at present. I am glad to note, too, that the volume of transportable goods has shown an increase of 15 per cent. over that of 1947.
Some Deputies referred to the fuel situation. I think both Deputy Lemass and Deputy Lehane adverted to it. Deputy McCann showed unaccustomed wisdom in steering clear of it. I would like to know from the Minister what exactly is the position with regard to State institutions and local authority institutions using turf. I agree with both Deputy Lemass and Deputy Lehane that fuel should be used by such institutions, and I must confess that I was under the impression that local authority institutions at any rate were under compulsion from the Department of Local Government to use turf.
They were so instructed.
In the debate on this Estimate last year, at column 1236 of Volume 112, Deputy Lehane, in reference to turf, said:
"I think it is the Minister's duty, in consultation with the Minister for Local Government, to ensure that all local institutions throughout the country will, where feasible, use turf."
The late Minister for Local Government, Mr. Murphy, said:
"That has been done."
Deputy Lehane replied:
"I am very glad to hear the Minister say so."
And then we have Deputy MacEntee intervening:
"It was done before."
Yet Deputy Lemass appeals to the Minister to-day to have it done. Deputy MacEntee thought last year that not alone was it being done last year but that it had been done for years before that. I do not know what the position is. I hope that turf is being used. If it is not being used I hope that the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Local Government will get together and see that it will be used in the future. Generally speaking, I think one of the biggest headaches which the Minister for Industry and Commerce had when he came into office and which lingered on into this year must have been the problem of fuel. I think it is probably unnecessary to reiterate what the position was when he came into office except to say that, despite the vast quantities of fuel—turf, wood and coal—which were stored in the Phoenix Park when the Fianna Fáil Government went out of office Fianna Fáil had continued to allow that fuel to be delivered to the Phoenix Park at a cost of something in the region of £40,000 per week to the taxpayer. That was only stopped when the new Government took over.
The position was reached where enormous stocks lay piled up in the Phoenix Park. The Minister made every effort to induce people to take them off his hands. He was unable to do so until he eventually reduced the price to something which can only be described as ridiculous. He has managed, judging by the figures he gave earlier this afternoon, by doing that to get fairly considerable quantities purchased at a price of £1 per ton. Fianna Fáil policy resulted in a situation where people who sold green logs to the Fianna Fáil Government at prices ranging from £3 10s. 0d. to £4 10s. 0d. a ton were able during the present year to purchase those logs back from this Government at £1 per ton, not in their raw and green state but as good seasoned timber. I do not think any of the Opposition Deputies can deny that that situation has arisen. I do not think they will deny that it came about as a result of their policy and because of the fact that they seemed to be so utterly careless and callous about taxation that they did not worry one bit about all this fuel pouring in to the Phoenix Park at a cost of £40,000 per week to the taxpayer.
Last year the Minister for Industry and Commerce forecast that it might be necessary to take some such decision as he has since taken in order to get rid of this fuel. He foresaw also that when that decision was taken the public memory might have forgotten that Fianna Fáil were responsible for that situation having arisen and that Fianna Fáil Deputies would take advantage of the shortness of the public memory. At column 1283 of Volume 112, the Minister for Industry and Commerce said:
"I want to warn Deputies of this also, because I know I will be accused and attacked later on, that if I reduce the price of the fuel in the dumps to such an attractive figure that people in Dublin and people throughout the country convenient to the other dumps take full advantage of it and stock up, everybody who produces a sod of turf this year, or has a clamp of turf left over from last year, will immediately attack me and say: ‘You encouraged us to cut turf and now you swamp the market at a price at which we could not possibly produce it.' I am telling the House in time so that, if it is decided to make this fuel available at a price at which people will buy it and if people stock up, Deputies will not come in here later to denounce me because I deprived people in the turf areas of the market they are supposed to be looking forward to."
That was on 22nd July, 1949. How well the Minister knew the Deputies opposite! How well he knew the paper they have under their control. On the 14th January of this year the Irish Press produced an article dealing with the fuel muddle. It is headed “The Fuel-Dump Scramble”. They point out that the taxpayers of the country were going to lose over £1,000,000 by reason of the Government decision and they produce a touching photograph under the caption: “Mass loading: A typical scene at the Dublin dump”, showing six or eight lorries drawing out fuel from the Phoenix Park. They draw attention to the matter to which I have already referred and they state:—
"At times as many as 20 lorries were loading at the one time. Purchasers were coming from all over Leinster. Not only were some purchasers having it ‘both ways' inasmuch as many of them were buying back at £1 timber which they originally sold to Messrs. Fuel Importers, Limited, at from £3 10s. 0d. to £4 per ton but they were getting a better fuel as well. When supplied by them during the emergency, the timber was in many cases freshly cut or ‘green'; now they were getting back perfectly seasoned blocks."
This was intended to convince the people of the country that the fuel muddle was a muddle created by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce. I am referring to the matter at length because I want to assure Deputies opposite that however short their memories may be, my memory is certainly long enough to remember who created the muddle and it is my firm intention to enlighten the people at every meeting I address outside the House as to the facts of the matter.
I have already dealt with the question of footwear. I am glad that the Minister in his statement was able to report that there was an increase in the number of people engaged in industrial production. He stated that the question of employment in rural areas was a matter which caused some anxiety. The reason for that anxiety, as Deputies are aware, is not so much, or is not at any rate entirely, the numbers of people on the register registering as unemployed available for work. One of the causes of anxiety is the fact that when work is made available in some of these areas, that work is not accepted. The Minister for Finance dealt fairly fully with that when he was replying to the debate on the general Financial Resolution. At col. 1058, Volume 115, he referred to certain work which had been offered to people in different areas. He showed that in one area 54 men were interviewed and offered work and that out of that 54 only one man accepted work. In the next area 90 were interviewed and none of them accepted. In the third area 80 were interviewed and six accepted work. In the fourth area 95 were interviewed and offered work and one accepted. In other words out of a total of 319 who were interviewed and offered work, eight men accepted it.
I do not think that any Deputies opposite have endeavoured to make the case that the type of work being offered was not good work, that the wages offered were not good wages or that the general amenities and facilities in connection with the work were not as they should be. Nevertheless in the areas which the Minister for Finance named, mainly around Sligo and Donegal, although these people had registered as people willing to accept employment, out of a total of 319 who were interviewed, when the work was handed to them on a plate as it were, when they were offered transport from their homes to the work and offered hostels to board and lodge in on the site, only eight accepted the offer. I think that does disclose a situation which requires thorough examination. I am certainly not prepared to advocate that people of that sort should be allowed to continue to draw unemployment assistance. I believe firmly that it is the duty of the Government to offer and to provide assistance by State aid for people who are unemployed and cannot get employment or else provide employment for these people, but I do not think it is the duty of the Government to do both. If the Government is able to, and does in fact provide employment, the Government cannot be blamed if people will not accept that employment. I could understand that if Deputies stood up here and made an argument against the wages or conditions of employment but that has not been done and I do not believe it can be done. I think we are driven to the conclusion that there is something there to be examined and I think many of us will be willing to accept the conclusion which the Minister for Finance drew from that particular situation, that a number of people in different areas have been, for political reasons, by supporters if not actually by Deputies of the Party opposite, urged to register although they do not require work and have no intention of accepting work and that that was done purely and simply to inflate the register of unemployment in this country. I recommend to the Minister that that matter should receive his earnest consideration and that if it is established that anything of that sort has happened, very drastic action should be taken, not only against people who put their names on the register falsely and fraudulently but against anyone who has been found to urge them into that course.
What grounds has the Deputy for making that charge?
Do you want me to continue?
What grounds have you for making that charge?
I am perfectly prepared to answer.
I should like to say in the first instance that my experience has not been the experience of Deputy Con Lehane in regard to the Minister's Department. I have at all times met with the utmost courtesy and anything which I sought in that Department was very speedily looked after. I should like to say that straight off the reel. It has been my experience in that Department for a number of years. I would like to know from the Minister what steps he intends taking to see that proper facilities are provided in Cobh, customs facilities in the first instance. It is his job. He has stated, I think, that the harbour authority is responsible. I do not mind who does it, whether the harbour authority does it or the Minister's Department, but the Minister is responsible for seeing that it is done and I want the Minister to get it done through his Department or through the harbour board. We hear a lot about tourists coming into this country and the conditions under which they come. There was some excuse certainly during the emergency but there is no excuse now that the liner service has resumed. I raised the matter in this House before by question. I put down the question again and I was told that the six months were not up so that the question could be repeated, but I take the opportunity of the Minister's own Estimate to ask him to say definitely what he intends to do in this matter. The statement of my colleague, Deputy Lynch, in connection with facilities at Cobh for people going out and coming in was correct. This condition of affairs does exist and it is very hard to know how to meet it. For instance, Deputy Lynch pointed out that a liner due at 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock or 6 o'clock in the evening would not sail until next morning and another liner might be coming in so that there would be a double quota of passengers. No one could expect an ordinary hotel anywhere to cater for that class of traffic when 25 or 30 rooms would be occupied on one night in the week and have nobody in them for the rest of the week. That hotel in Cobh which was recently put up for auction by the Minister was started to meet that.
The next thing I would like to deal with is the anxiety which always prevails. I am afraid the Minister is getting a touch of the disease called "Dublinitis". It means that everything must be brought to Dublin so that there can be some show of prosperity in the capital city, employment and so on, to the detriment of other cities and towns throughout the country. People have been coming to me with a complaint about mastheads which were being made by the Electricity Supply Board in Cork at Kilbarry. The employment that was given there has now stopped and those mastheads are now being made in Dublin. In fact an order for 55 of them which was given to the Kilbarry people has been taken from them. The stuff is being prepared in Dublin and sent from Dublin by rail to Bantry and I suppose we will be told to-morrow or after that the price of the current must go up and that this is the most economical way to deal with the question. The same thing applies in Charleville, in my own constituency in Ballycotton, and practically all over the country. Whether this is done to help out the Electricity Supply Board in freight charges or not I do not know.
I have no function in this matter.
The Minister has nothing to do with freightage charges.
Or with the internal administration of the Electricity Supply Board.
The only point I would like to make about that is that we will probably have another tally-ho here to-morrow or after when the Electricity Supply Board will go bust. This is partly a Government institution.
The Minister is not responsible for the administration of the Electricity Supply Board.
Well, I will say no more about it.
I wish all the other companies were as sound as the Electricity Supply Board and I would have fewer headaches than I have now.
If the Minister is going to have any headache I would suggest that he should inquire into this now before the reason for the headache comes on. If he looks into the reason for this sort of administration perhaps he will avoid a headache. I would not like to see the Minister with a headache, not for one moment.
The Deputy can easily remove it now. There is one obvious course for him.
Some time ago I sent a sample of iron ore to the Minister in his Department. I was told that it was dumped stuff but I am informed that that statement is not correct. I want that quarry in Araglen surveyed by the Department and investigated. On analysis the ore is very high. I know they dumped stuff because they tried to sell dumped stuff on behalf of the owner but this is not dumped stuff. It was taken out of a mine. I would like the Minister's officials to go down because if we have iron ore in the country as the analysis turns out it would be a great asset and if it were properly investigated it would provide employment for our people, a thing we are looking for.
I had occasion here during the year also to deal with dumping which undoubtedly causes unemployment. I am one of those who hold that once we have established an industry here that will give employment to our people, once we have established the machinery, the mill or the factory for that industry, no foreign stuff should be brought in which that factory is capable of producing.
I say that the dumping of goods here is unfair and unjust, unjust to the people who started the factory and unjust to the Irishmen and Irish women employed in it. I know that the Minister is not anxious that that condition of affairs should be created, but it is a condition of affairs which has been found in Youghal and Midleton recently and in Glanmire some time ago. It is a condition of affairs that leads to an uncertainty that is unjust and unfair. I am asking the Minister now to devote particular attention to this side of the picture. These industries were started here at very great trouble and expense and caused many headaches, I am sure, to his predecessor. We do not want to see them wiped out by dumping over here by the authors of the Ireland Bill
Deputy Lehane alluded to the £700,000 worth of imported publications. The same has occurred in regard to a large number of articles in the textile line and also in boots and shoes. I want the Minister to see that dumping ceases, now that there is no occasion for it.
There is no dumping of footwear now. Less than 2 per cent. of the entire footwear came in in the last three months. There was dumping in 1947 and in the first part of 1948. There is no dumping now—good, bad or indifferent.
I cannot deal exactly with the footwear side of it, but I know that there was dumping in the waterproof line.
But that was a quota fixed by Deputy Lemass. I told Deputy Corry that already.
If I take over any job in the morning and find that my predecessor, under different circumstances, had fixed a certain quota, it is my duty to keep my eye on that quota and its effects and to stop it when necessary. There was a fresh quota given— if the Parliamentary Secretary will allow me to make the point—as I found in his reply. I have not got it here with me. A second quota was given by his Minister, which was the cause of my complaint. If the Parliamentary Secretary will go down and have a look in the Library at the reply he gave and will brush up his memory in that respect, he will find that is so. His memory ought to be good. It is practically the same as regards material manufactured by Dwyer's factory in Youghal.
I would like to hear the Deputy developing that, but the factory people might not be anxious to hear it.
I do not care who is anxious. I do not give a hang about the factory or anybody else. I am concerned with £500 a week being paid in wages in a town in my constituency for the work done in that factory and the fact that, according to the argument used by the owner, the factory had to be closed because of the dumping and those people were disemployed. I am not concerned as to whether it was the Minister or his Department that was responsible, or whether it was any move on the part of the factory owner. I am concerned only with these boys and girls who were getting employment in my constituency and who were thrown out on the dole—and I am gravely concerned with them. The Minister need not think I am briefed here by anybody. I am not. It is my duty, when factories were established in rural towns by the efforts and inducements of the Minister's predecessor, to see that that employment at least is continued. Even if we do not get any more employment while the Minister is in charge, we will see that what we have we hold.
The Minister also paid a few visits to Irish Steel during the period he has been in office. I am sure he was pleased with the satisfactory manner in which Irish Steel is doing its job. Seeing that production went up by practically 100 per cent., I want to know from him now what hopes there are of an extension of that factory. The employment of able-bodied men in the towns is something we all desire. I am not a believer in the factories where you see a crowd of little girls going into work, or see women going in while the men are at home drawing the dole. I am a believer in factories where able-bodied men can find good decent employment at decent wages. That industry is providing all three. I have been informed that it can be expanded so as to find employment for 250 or 300 more men. I want to know if the Minister has investigated that side of the problem. If so, what does he intend doing about it? What steps does he intend to take to provide that employment? I hope he will be sympathetic, though he may have difficulties with his colleague, the Minister for Finance. After all, if he can, by the expenditure of a certain amount of capital, find employment in our own country, in one Irish town, for 250 or 300 extra men, he will be doing something that will stand as a monument after he is gone. The Minister might say he might make mistakes, but let him remember that the man who never made mistakes never made anything. Let the Minister take courage in this respect and I am sure he will have satisfactory results. I am concerned about the young men, many of whom have received technical training in that district. I want to see employment provided for them. I do not want to see them having to scoot off on the emigrant ship. Whatever may be said about others, we can hardly make them postulants.
I would also ask the Minister to use his good offices and efforts towards finding some industries for the town of Fermoy and the town of Youghal. Anybody going into those two towns to-day cannot but be saddened by the condition of affairs there. In my travels through the town of Youghal, in practically every house I visited I heard the same story—there was a mother and two or three little children —"Where is himself?" and the reply "Gone to England, sir, looking for work." That was the condition of affairs there. I understand that the Minister has got one proposal in connection with a heavy industry for that town and I wonder if his Department has investigated it.
I have, indeed.
What is the result! Is it satisfactory?
I am not going to give the Deputy particulars of a proposal put before me by any potential industrialist coming to this country or in this country.
The Minister answers me very quickly on some matters and I should like to get something definite from him on this.
I am sorry to have to disappoint the Deputy.
I am sorry, too. I thought I might have had some good news to take home to them. If I had good news to tell them, I would not have the slightest objection to telling them that it came from the Minister. I am not a bit prejudiced in that way. I got from the Minister, by means of a question here, the returns of the number of unemployed in the different towns in my constituency and they did not show any rosy condition of affairs in relation to the full employment for all that we heard about during the election period.
I have jobs for 2,000 men at the moment. Can the Deputy supply me with the names and addresses?
Where are they?
In this country—not in England.
I will give you plenty of names.
Send us the names and addresses.
Tell us the jobs.
I certainly will—with Bord na Móna and the Electricity Supply Board. They are jobs not in England, but here at home, for 2,000 men.
I am very glad to hear it. The Minister need not take my remarks in that spirit at all—there is no occasion for it. I am anxious about these people and I make the suggestion to the Minister that particulars of these positions, the wages and conditions of employment, be printed and posted up in a prominent position in every labour exchange in the country.
The particulars have been printed and published over and over again in every newspaper in the country and given over the radio. The labour exchange branch managers have been informed and given full particulars.
If the Minister will take a suggestion from me, it is that he should put the particulars in poster form and display one in every labour exchange and let these people, when they come in to draw the dole, see where the employment is available. I mean that.
This is an important matter. We need these men for very important work. The wages and the conditions are admitted to be good in the case of both employments. The contractors for the Electricity Supply Board and Bord na Móna itself have circularised every branch labour exchange or employment exchange and over the radio they have appealed for men. They have advertised in every daily and weekly paper in the country. They have actually put lorries on the road to bring men who have to come a distance to the work, and, in the case of the Erne, they put a Diesel railcar to bring men to Ballyshannon and to bring them back at night. Five men responded to the railcar.
The place I am talking about is a devil of a long way from the Erne.
It is not as far as it is to England.
The suggestion I make is made in all good faith and it may help far more than the Minister thinks, because, when a woman passes the door of the exchange and sees advertised there a job for Mike, she might spur him into going there. I am anxious to get employment for my people as best I can and I want to see nobody idle in my constituency, if I can avoid it. I want to see nobody going to England from my constituency. That is my concern and that is why I make that suggestion to the Minister. As I say, it is made in all good faith.
I suggest that there are great openings for industries in this country. Many of our needs have still to be supplied from abroad, and, even though we may get something cheaper from abroad, if we can get it produced here, even at a little extra cost, I believe the people will have no great objection to paying that little more, and the Minister knows that as well as I know it. We want an industry in Fermoy and another in Youghal. There are openings in both towns, particularly for heavy industries which will give employment to men. That is my main object in raising the matter here.
The Minister knows, as everybody in the country knows, that during the emergency there was a scarcity of iron. Blacksmiths had great difficulty in getting even material to shoe horses and we farmers also had difficulty in getting iron for carrying out ordinary repairs to our farm machinery. I suggest that we now have an opportunity to extend Irish Steel, Limited, to supply all our needs in that respect. The minimum wage paid there is over £5 per week and I am sure that, even though the work is hard, the men in my constituency, at any rate, would prefer to take employment there than to take a rail trip to the Erne, even though it would be free. These were the main points with which I wish to deal with on this Vote.
There is one other matter. We heard a great deal about the Minister's reduction of the cost of living and the Minister's anxiety about employment. Was it for the purpose of providing further employment and of keeping our industries going that the Minister extracted from the Irish Sugar Company something like £380,000 last year? I maintain that it was for the purpose of depriving the agricultural community of an economic price for their beet and that it had a reaction on employment in four sugar factories. I endeavoured to get information on this matter out of the Minister here by question and by raising the question on the Adjournment.
Which Minister was it?
The Minister for Industry and Commerce.
Very good.
At least, he was the gentleman in the dock that night so I take it that I am in order in raising it now. I want to know what authority he had for that. I am entitled to know that. I was told a while ago that he had no authority to interfere with the administration of the Electricity Supply Board.
That is quite true.
I want to know what authority he had for interfering with the administration of the Irish Sugar Company. If he had no authority to interfere with the Electricity Supply Board, where is his authority to extract from the Irish Sugar Company £380,000 that belonged to the farmers of this country to pay them for their crop? That action meant a reduction of 20,000 or 30,000 acres of beet this year and unemployment in our sugar factories. The argument that I had with the Minister on that occasion was very short. I had only a quarter of an hour on it. His argument was that his predecessor had charged the amount. When his predecessor charged the amount, the cash was there to meet the extra cost of production the following November. This year the cash is not there to meet the extra cost of production because the Minister has extracted it for the purpose of reducing the cost of living for the £10 week boys here.
Does the Deputy know how much subsidy we are paying on sugar?
I am not concerned.
Of course, you are not.
Not one bit. This House provided you——
The Minister.
——the Minister with £1,000,000 subsidy on sugar. This House gave the Minister no authority to go to the sugar company and extract from them £380,000. I want to know the Minister's authority for doing that.
That statement simply is not true.
I have the Minister's reply to my question in that respect. If the Minister challenges it, I will produce it here for him next Tuesday morning and read it for him.
The Deputy's statement is not true.
The Minister took £380,000, the difference between the economic price of sugar, 6?d. and 7½d. that was charged to the old farmer for harvesting sugar, to every fellow that wanted sugar for jam and to every fellow that wanted sugar for manufacturing purposes, and the Minister stepped in when all that was collected and drew it out for the poor——
That is a different thing from taking it from the sugar company. Is the Deputy suggesting that I should have given it to him as a beet grower?
When we went down last November to get what the old farmer was entitled to, we found that the cupboard was bare, that the Minister had extracted the money and that we could not get any increased price because the Minister or the Government was not prepared to increase the price of sugar, having made their haul the other way. Frankly, I am against this manoeuvre entirely. This action of the Minister's will mean unemployment in the factories and in the fields. It will mean unemployment all round. It is all very well to talk of the present day when you can get cane sugar that is produced by the nigger but you may find yourselves in another emergency depending on the Irish farmer to produce beet. It will be very little use then for the Minister to tell the farmer that that is a fine price or that the Fianna Fáil Government were so gentle to the farmer during their term of office that they could live on the fat until the Fianna Fáil Government returned. I am entirely opposed to this manoeuvre of continuing the rationing system that had to be imposed during a period of shortage now that the period of shortage is over. What was the purpose? It was for the purpose of enabling what I call a legalised black market to be established by the Government both in white flour, sugar and, I think, in tea. You can get so much at the rationed price and if you want any more than what you got during the war, when it was practically impossible to provide these commodities here, you can get it at a black-market price established by this Government. I object to that.
It is all very well for the rich who have plenty of money to pay the extra price but it is not so well for the unfortunate people in Youghal whose breadwinners are in England trying to provide bread for them. I know cases of large families for whom the ration would not be sufficient and I know husbands and wives who were doing without sugar so that it would be available for the children. Now they can get it all right—call it sugar for jam—at 7½d. a lb. which is 1? pence more than the economic price of sugar.
Is the Deputy advocating the economic price for all sugar?
The Deputy is stating that the Minister had no authority——
Will the Deputy answer the question?
I will answer the Minister just as well as the Minister answered me a while ago when I asked him a question in regard to employment in my constituency and when he refused to give me information.
I thought the Deputy would run away from that question.
Not an inch. The Deputy is holding that the Minister has no authority to come along and to put up sugar at 7½d. a lb. to one class of the community who can afford to pay for it—while those who have not the money to pay for it will have to do without.
Is not the Deputy's real grievance that we did not hand it over to the beet growers?
The Minister's colleague in office made in this House a vile, contemptible dirty slander on the only organised body of farmers in this country to-day and made it for a purpose.
We are discussing the Department of Industry and Commerce and no other Minister's Department.
I would not have stated that had not the Minister made a certain allusion.
In case there is any misunderstanding I should like to make this clear. I do not know whether the Deputy misunderstood what I said. Nothing that I said could be, I think, in any way considered as a reflection either on the Deputy or upon any organisation. I certainly had no intention of casting any reflection on the Deputy or on any individual or any organisation. I do not think anything I have said even implied any accusation against anyone.
I accept that unreservedly. That was a statement made in this House by the Minister before on that matter. But the Minister cannot blame me for remembering that only three days ago the protection of this House was availed of to make a vile filthy slander——
We are not going back on that now.
I will get another place— somewhere out in the open—where I will be able to deal with him and where he will not have the protection of this House. If we do not, we shall have to deal with the Minister——
Come back now to the Estimate.
My charge against the Minister——
This is the seventh time.
——is that he knew that the cost of production of that beet had gone up. He knew that an extra demand would have to be made. He knew——
Who knew?
The Minister.
What Minister?
The Minister for Industry and Commerce. He knew that that extra demand would have to be made by the Beet Growers' Association. He prevented that demand from being made by the sugar company by the most effective means that ever a Minister evolved for preventing a demand from being made or honoured —by emptying the cupboard——
In other words, I got there before the Deputy.
You did. You got there before the Deputy all right. Whether your action will be appreciated by the farmers of Tipperary, and so on, is another question. But if the Minister takes it in that line—that his object was to deprive the farmers of what they were entitled to and of what the sugar company admitted they were entitled to—if his argument is that he was too slick and was able to get in and raid the Exchequer before the farmers were able to get what they were entitled to, well, then I make him a present of it. At the same time I do not think that it is anything that he could feel very honoured or glad about.
Dear, dear.
As I have said, it has led and it will lead to unemployment in all the sugar factories.
Why?
It will lead to further unemployment in the rural districts where an enormous amount of employment was given in connection with beet. It will lead to a drop in the Córas Iompair Eireann exchequer—which might concern the Minister—because every ton of beet produced has to be conveyed to the factory by Córas Iompair Eireann. So now the Minister sees all the repercussions of that slick raid he made on the coffers of the sugar company and I hope he is pleased with it.
I do not wish to delay this House. I wish to deal with those matters which concern my constituents or which concern the association which I have had the honour to represent for a long number of years. I can say this much. This association is the only farmers' organisation in this country elected by democratic rule—the man must be a farmer and he must be a grower of beet to be a member of it. Their representatives are elected by their postal vote. Speaking for them, I want to say that we have not been accustomed to such slick methods from the Minister's predecessor in office. During the two years previous to the Minister's advent on the scene as the Minister for Industry and Commerce our just demands were met each year by the sugar company fairly and squarely. The cash was there. Now this game of selling the furniture of the house as a means of carrying on is being tried. We have got about enough of that.
I heard complaints by Deputy O'Higgins a while ago about the ricks of turf and the piles of coal and other fuel. They were all got by the previous Government and, I take it, paid for in the previous Government's administration. I know that I would be a very thankful man to go into a house in the morning as a new tenant and, on going out into the yard, to see a ton of coal there. I would be quite happy indeed about it. If the previous Government, in their wisdom, did provide stacks of fuel, I see no reason why any Deputy in this House should cavil at it. After all, Deputies should go back to the Dáil Debates for 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945 and 1946 and read what even the Minister had to say about the scarcity of fuel and the necessity for providing fuel. He was a very wise man then who would be able to judge on what day war No. 1 was going to end and on what day war No. 2 was going to start. If war No. 2 started in the morning, the people of this country would find themselves with a very bare cupboard.
I am not sure whether the matter I am about to deal with now comes under the Minister's Department or not. If it does, well and good; if it does not, he can stop me. I am alluding to the increase in the price of maize. I want to know who bought the maize and who brought it across?
I have nothing to do with it.
If we were guaranteed maize at £20 a ton——
The Minister says he has nothing to do with it.
The Deputy knows that well.
I am quite satisfied. If the Minister for Industry and Commerce has nothing to do with it, it is another nail in his colleague's coffin, and I think there are nails enough in it already.
Although I have nothing to do with it, I know it is much cheaper than it was in the time of the Deputy's Government.
Is it? I wonder if the Chair will give way?
We must not have a discussion on it.
I would love to have a discussion.
I cannot oblige the Deputy in regard to what he loves.
I hope the Minister will take heed of the few little things I have put to him and carefully consider the question whether it is wise policy to deprive the producers of this country of what they are entitled to, namely, the cost of production plus a fair profit and, at the same time, be looking for more production. It was an old game with the British Government to keep the farmer about one jump ahead of the bailiff. They said that he worked harder and produced more in that condition than in any other. I do not know if it is a wise policy for this Government to try that game.
The farmers would not know a bailiff now if he came along the road.
I do not think it is wise of the Minister to tell us that the sugar company had been too generous with the farmers last year and that therefore he was going to make up for it now by being stingy with them. The Minister knows it as well as I do. It is unfair. These unfortunate men have to live.
The Deputy has referred to the same thing at least three times.
I am only giving the Minister a bit of advice, that he ought to drop that attitude with the farmers and adopt a more generous one. Perhaps next week he and I will be meeting down in Clonakilty with the beet growers and we shall have this out there.
My advice to Deputy Corry is to get away from that line.
The Minister when listening to Deputy O'Higgins to-night must have said to himself: "Heaven save me from my friends." The Deputy complained that Deputies on this side of the House were ignoring the facts and figures given by the Minister in his opening statement. But he himself, unfortunately for the Minister, not alone ignored the Minister but also the ex-Minister and other Ministers of the present day. I am referring to what he said about the fuel dumps. I thought we were finished with them. He said that it was all the result of Fianna Fáil policy. The Minister himself in the Dáil on 17th April, 1947, as reported in Volume 105, column 850, of the Official Reports said:—
"The Minister in so far as he can, side by side with the maximum effort to produce the greatest amount of turf, is just taking the ordinary precautions to build up over this summer. I know it is not the most suitable time for cutting timber. I know that timber from now on to October will not be the best for burning, but it is vital, in my opinion, that a big reserve of timber should be built up in the large centres of population. Otherwise I am afraid that the situation next winter will be infinitely worse—and that is, God knows, bad enough— infinitely worse than it was in the winter just passed."
Then we had the Minister for Lands, then Deputy Blowick, on the 2nd July, 1947, as reported in Volume 107, columns 696-7 of the Official Reports saying:
"I therefore take this opportunity to point out to the Taoiseach that we are faced with at least as bad a fuel famine in the city as last year, because turf production does not seem to be going on with the same swing as in other years. We will scarcely have as severe a winter this year so far as cold and snow are concerned, but there definitely will not be sufficient fuel for this city during the coming winter unless active steps are taken now."
When one reads these extracts from the speeches of the Minister and his colleague, the Minister for Lands, one feels that it is a pity that Deputy O'Higgins did not follow the advice that he was giving to members on this side of the House and try to find out what were the views at that time. If he did he could not have said that it was a legacy as the result of Fianna Fáil policy. It was the view of most members of this House because of the position that we found during the previous winter. I think that if Deputy O'Higgins had been here then he would also have agreed that it was wise to try and get in what fuel we could in view of the position we had in the previous winter. If it is true that losses have happened it was far wiser to provide for it not knowing what the future was going to bring, even if it meant the loss it did. The Minister himself, I am sure, will not repudiate his share of responsibility for what happened. Most of the members of the House agreed with it at the time. I think it is time that that sort of thing was ended, trying to make out that it was just the result of Fianna Fáil policy. It was the result of the united wisdom of this House at the time and it is time that suggestion was dropped.
He told us about the price reductions that the Minister had effected. Most of them are just the result of our returning to normal times following the scarcity of the war. Those of us who had experience of the previous war know that things gradually adjusted themselves without any price control. The same thing is happening to-day. He mentioned the reduction in the price of ready-mades. I think the ready-mades are dearer than ever they were. There may be a reduction in the rate of profit but the price to the consumer is dearer than it was some years ago. That may not be the Minister's fault. I am not blaming him for that. He has tried to take what steps he could to save the consumer. What I want to know is what he has done about all the allegations that came from the people on the Government Benches when they were in opposition about the gross profiteering in the drapery trade. It was dinned into our ears day in and day out about the gross profiteering in the drapery trade. The Minister has now been 16 months in office and, as far as I can see, he has not be able to alter the system of controlled prices by one iota. He has acted as he thought fit in that but he has not produced to us one sample of gross profiteering in the drapery trade that we heard so much about. I wonder when those statements are going to be justified or when they are going to be withdrawn. On a previous occasion here Deputy O'Higgins preached to us about decency in that respect. Well, let us have the decency. If they cannot be justified, let them be withdrawn.
I presume you read the speech of the Minister for Finance last year.
Deputy O'Higgins also referred to his action about the butchers. I gave my views here on that last year. I am not going to go into them all again, but I want to say that, as far as I can see, the only thing that was wrong with the butchers was that they were not strong enough to cause trouble. The Minister told us that the bakers had no case for an increase. However, he gave them their increase after three weeks' strike. There were several cases during the year of people who had applied for tariffs and did not get them; the paper mills, for instance. But when they started to take action they immediately got the tariff. We had another case in Cork and we had, only a few weeks ago, the threatened strike in the Electricity Supply Board of the clerical and technical staffs. They had been agitating for a tribunal for years and nothing was done, although the ex-Minister announced here that he had agreed to it before he left office. When they threatened to strike the Bill was brought in although it had been months on the Order Paper. From what I see of the Minister's policy the only thing that was wrong about the butchers was that they were not strong enough.
Do you want them to get the increase?
I gave my views on that and I am not going into it again. The right thing should be done for the people of Dublin. You can read it all in the debates if you are interested.
We are very interested.
Another thing Deputy O'Higgins referred to is the Fine Gael attitude to industry. We know what happened to industry in this country when Fine Gael were in power before. We know the net result of their period in office was that 117 factories closed up in this country. I know it happened in my own constituency with factories established over 100 years. They were let go out of it while they were deciding whether they would or whether they would not give them a tariff, and hundreds of people were thrown out of work. You ought to be very slow indeed in referring to the Fine Gael industrial policy. I know that the Minister was not reared in that school. He has had, perhaps, a hard time, considering the position he is in with his colleagues, with the reference about the profiteering manufacturers and so forth. He has had a job, probably, to try and get industrial development going as he would like it. I must say, however, I felt disappointed when I heard his statement to-day. There was certain development shown in it but it seemed to be only the natural development that has been occurring over the few years since the war ended and since materials became available and the natural result of the industrial policy that had been got going by Fianna Fáil. He had nothing, unfortunately, to show us of some major development during the past year in industry. I am particularly concerned here about the City of Dublin and the 15,000 unemployed in it at the moment. There is nothing to offer any one of those for employment in the statement we got to-day—nothing new. Apparently some efforts are to be made—we have to wait to see with what success—to provide for the rural unemployed under the land reclamation scheme and the rivers scheme and so forth, but there is nothing on earth being offered to provide anything extra for the 15,000 unemployed in Dublin. Nobody need come along and tell us that these people will not work even if they can get it.
We had an answer from the Minister for Social Welfare in reply to Deputy McCann only last week and only 26 men out of that number have refused employment over some certain period. So that is not the case in Dublin but there is nothing held out by the Minister's statement to-day to provide work for them. I hope the Minister will give attention to that fact. After all, the people in Dublin, the unemployed particularly, have to depend on the Minister to take them out of their difficulties. They have to depend on his activity in developing industry to try and find the work for them that will give them a means of livelihood. I hope that he will realise, as he said himself when winding up his statement, that he has the greatest opportunity for advancement at the moment and during the last year that we ever had in our history since this Dáil was founded. I hope he will take advantage of it.
Deputy Lemass to-day said that the industrial development policy was not properly defined. I think that is correct. When one considers the statements that were made by Ministers up to some months ago—I am glad I have not seen any of them in the last few months and I hope we are at an end of them— one could not blame industrialists for not wanting to undertake further development. I hope we are now at the stage when efforts will be made to continue the drive for industrial development, and that no attempts will be made to decry it by making accusations against the body of men who have been doing the job.
There is an industrial advisory authority to be set up. We do not yet know what its powers will be. I think the Minister said to-day that it would be fully independent of his Department. I do not know whether that means that it is going to get absolute powers. I suppose we shall have to wait for information on that until we see the Bill. Deputy Lemass said that he thought it was a mistake—and also I think Deputy Larkin—to have announced the setting up of this body as far back as February when, apparently, the Department was not ready to introduce the necessary legislation. I am afraid that announcement will result in a "wait and see" policy on the part of industrialists because they are not going to put more money into enterprise until they know what the position is to be. For that reason I suggest to the Minister that the Bill should be introduced as early as possible.
I agree with Deputy O'Higgins on one point—I think we are all in agreement on it now—and that is in regard to turf development. Deputy O'Higgins told us that Deputy Lehane referred to this last year. That is quite correct. But the Deputies could have read in the turf development programme that was prepared by Fianna Fáil in 1945 or 1946 all the things that were advocated by Deputy Lemass to-day. Turf development is no new thing on our part. Even though we got a lot of sneers and jibes from the people opposite we tried turf development in 1934.
You did not do much about it.
But all are agreed to-day that turf development is good national policy. The emergency showed that to be so. It is good from the point of view of employment, and it is good to have your own fuel to depend on. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give his attention to it and will try to develop it further. Apparently we are all pretty well united on turf development now.
As far as I could gather from the Minister's statement about the quantity of machine-won turf that is to be produced within the next five years, the estimated amount is not likely to be anything like sufficient to meet the needs of the people. Therefore, I suggest to him that he should try and develop the production of hand-won turf. Turf societies might be able to help in that way. There were some in existence before the emergency which proved very useful and gave very good value. Away back in 1934 and 1935 I bought turf through some of those societies and I had no complaint to make about the quality of it. I admit that we got bad turf during the emergency. It was that, I think, which put people against turf. We will have to break down that prejudice, and the producers will have to realise that it was a very wrong thing for them to send to Dublin some of the stuff that they did send.
It was not the producers.
The stuff was definitely bad. Some of it was just sods of grass. You cannot blame the merchants for that.
In certain cases I do.
That was the condition in which the consumers received it.
I agree with you absolutely on that.
And that is what the people in Dublin are concerned with. I think we should all unite to try and get the work done properly on the bogs and have the turf brought in good condition to the consumer.
The Minister referred to-day to the tourist traffic. When he was speaking, I could not help recalling what we heard some years ago about the tourists—that they were eating us out of house and home—though at that time we were getting from the tourists the money which actually enabled us to pay for our food imports. I am glad that the people opposite seem to have learned something since they went into office. I hope the Minister will use his best endeavours to develop the tourist industry further. We may have reached the peak in regard to it now, so that I think more organisation will be required in the future to keep up the tourist trade. I probably will not agree with some of the steps the Minister will take, but I hope that he will do his best.
Recently, when I listened to the statement that was broadcast here by the representative of E.C.A. about the development of our tourist traffic and the earning of more dollars, I could not help thinking what a pity it was that the Government, as they have done in so many other things, did not reconsider their attitude towards the Atlantic air service which, if in operation, would have earned us more dollars. Some few weeks ago, I read a statement made by a representative of one of the air lines—I think it was TWA—in which he said that they had made a profit of £250,000 on their North Atlantic air route in 1948. We were told that if we had started the Atlantic air service, there were bound to be losses, and that we could not afford them. From the point of view of earning dollars, I think it is a terrible pity that the Government did not reconsider their attitude towards that service as they have done in the case of other things.
I would ask the Minister to try and use his influence with Córas Iompair Éireann. I do not suppose he can interfere directly with Córas Iompair Éireann any more than he can with the Electricity Supply Board. In fact, I do not know what his powers are. I trust that the Minister will use whatever influence he has so that we can have reconsidered the completion of that engineering shop that was actually being set up to build chassis. I understand that it has been abandoned under the new régime. Taken in conjunction with the repairing works for aeroplanes that were contemplated at Collinstown, and that were abandoned last year, the two projects would have provided considerable new employment for craftsmen and would have been a most useful thing to us from the point of view of national defence. We will have to think of those things in those terms apart from cost until we become a more developed country. We cannot continue depending on foreigners for what are essentials to us in time of emergency. We shall have to learn a lessen from the recent emergency and try to provide these things for ourselves. Naturally, they will cost a considerable amount at first, but ultimately those things will pay us well. I appeal to the Minister to examine that matter still further and perhaps he may feel inclined to revise his views on it.
Will the Minister tell us why petrol is still rationed? So far as I can see, there is plenty of petrol for all purposes. What is the idea of keeping it rationed?
He mentioned to-day that the chief trouble in the building industry was a shortage of craftsmen. I am told that there are as many craftsmen employed in the building trade around Dublin now as were employed before the emergency. Maybe I am wrong, but that is what I am told.
There is a very definite shortage. The real shortage in connection with building is the shortage of skilled workmen.
Before dealing in detail with some of the matters arising on this Estimate, I must say I am a little confused as to the relevancy of some matters, notably the cost of living. It has been customary to deal with that on this Estimate, but I understand there has been a threatened transfer of some functions to other Departments. I take it, however, that I may discuss on this Estimate what has been customarily discussed on it heretofore, notwithstanding the change in the forms of the Estimate now presented.
On that basis, then, the first preliminary, I suppose—and it goes to administration more directly than anything else—we will raise, is the question of the actual cost of the Minister's Department. One of the things expected by the country from the Fine Gael Party, whatever about other Parties, was that there would be a reduction in administrative costs, and it is apparent over all the Estimates for this year that such a reduction in cost is not possible. In fact, for reasons which we dealt with on the Vote on Account and the Budget, it is apparent that administration will cost more than ever, but in this regard there are some matters touching this particular Estimate where we can ask more specific questions.
One question I would like to ask is, how far administration costs are affected by the machinery for maintaining rationed commodities on the present rationing system, and similar matters, and whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce cannot, the emergency having passed, secure a reorganisation within his own Department with a view to economising in mere administrative tasks. I purposely put that as a question to the Minister, a question on which I am prepared to take a reasoned answer. I am not putting it as an argument, but as a question.
May I draw attention to the fact that we have made very drastic reductions in staff and cost? The Deputy has chosen the worst Estimate he could have chosen to make his point.
On purpose, but I want to approach it from this point of view. It seems to me the transfers effected in the Supplementary Estimate amount only to some of the savings; they really amount only to a book-keeping device to some extent. But, quite apart from that, I am asking that question as no other speaker has asked it, for this reason, that obviously this is the Department that represents the Department of Supplies as well as the Department of Industry and Commerce. I am right in that, I take it. Taking these two Departments as being represented by the Department of Industry and Commerce, it was inevitable that during the war there should have been a greater expansion in that Department rather than in any other Department—possibly only the Department of Defence would have a comparable expansion in personnel. The emergency having passed, it should be possible to effect certain substantial reductions here, and one of two things would be expected.
Normally, one would expect that that reduction in administrative costs should be reflected in the net on the total balance sheet for the State. On the other hand, as against that, one can readily understand that increased costs in regard to salaries and so forth, and the changes following the war, will largely negative that, and perhaps it would be unreasonable to look for a completely net saving. The Minister will appreciate that I am trying to be eminently reasonable in this. I could take the unreasonable attitude that some of his supporters took before the election, namely, that we had a certain cost in a certain year before the war and we should be back to that. I am not trying to tie the Minister to that, but I will ask him if he can amplify on that point.
Perhaps if I quoted for the Deputy's information on that point just a short passage from the statement I made when introducing the Estimate it may help him:
"Excluding the provision for flour and wheaten meal subsidies and taking account of the other changes effected not only in the current year but last year, the Estimate which I am now presenting to the Dáil shows a net decrease of £3,735,965 as compared with last year. There are decreases in practically every sub-head of the Vote and in the course of my remarks I will deal with them."
There are decreases in practically every sub-head.
That is so. I quite appreciate that point. But the question is whether the decreases shown really reduce the net administrative cost for the State or in how far do they represent something that has merely been taken out of this Vote and transferred into another Vote?
The Deputy realises that at the moment I am only answering for this Vote.
I appreciate that I could very easily go outside the scope of this debate and be very properly pulled up by the Chair for doing so. I am interested in finding out how far this represents a net saving to the State. If the Minister can make a net saving of that nature within the Department, he is obviously then working the Department more efficiently and, if that is so, I am as anxious as anybody else to congratulate him. But my congratulations would be premature if this saving really represents a transfer and if there is some increased expenditure under some other Vote. I know the Minister can say very quickly that I am quite competent to study the Estimates. The fact is, however, that no matter how deeply one studies these Estimates one finds it difficult to appreciate fully the exact figures. Perhaps between now and the time the debate concludes the Minister will tell us how much liability exactly has been transferred on the purely administrative side and how much has been completely eliminated and how much of that survives under some other head.
From the Minister's opening remarks I understand that we had a subsidy on wheat and the general control over the import of wheat has now been transferred to the Minister for Agriculture. I am perfectly sure that on that particular activity there is a certain saving as far as the Minister for Industry and Commerce is concerned. I am also equally satisfied that there must have been some staff engaged on that particular work because of the complexity of the import of that commodity, apart altogether from the distribution of it and the attaching to it of a subsidy with special emphasis on the adjustment made by the present Government to differentiate between one type of flour and another. I feel that all that involved a considerable staff. In view of the transfer of that particular section to the Department of Agriculture that staff I take it either has or has not been taken out of this Vote. I question that again because the Minister said that he would allow this to be accounted for in his Vote in the present financial year. I may be wrong in that.
The reference I made was with relation to the transfer of the Statistics Branch to the Taoiseach. So far as the transfer of flour and wheatmeal is concerned, when these functions were transferred to the Department of Agriculture there was, at the same time, a transfer of personnel necessary to operate that scheme.
I am grateful to the Minister. To that extent, then, we must have some doubt as to the reliability of the apparent saving shown on this Vote. I simply want to know from the Minister if he can explicitly show that there is an actual net saving in administration without any loss of efficiency. Can he also show, at the same time, that that net saving does not merely represent a transfer into another Vote? If the position really is that there has been no change, but merely a transfer, I think we should be told on some other Vote as to what that actually represents. It is questionable if good service can be reduced under administrative costs. We must be reasonable in our approach to that. The trouble is that in the past people were not always reasonable about the expenditure involved in giving good service and in running the schemes for which so many people clamoured. It is no harm to point out that when these schemes are put into operation at the instigation of those who clamour for them they involve a certain cost. Perhaps the Minister would give us some specific information on this? I do not expect him to give us that information to-night, but perhaps he he would have it available before the end of the debate.
There are a number of other matters which arise on this Estimate. I could follow Deputy Michael O'Higgins by giving the debate an unpleasant turn, but I do not want to do that. I do not want to go back on what was done or was not done. I think I could start with a more favourable handicap than Deputy O'Higgins in that respect. I do not make these remarks for the purpose of scoring debating points at the expense of Deputy O'Higgins. I merely want to divert what I have to say into the proper channel. Two large problems, amongst others, loom up for the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Briefly, they are two problems of which the ordinary citizen is acutely aware. One is the problem of finding the wherewithal to live, or earning a sufficient wage which will enable the ordinary worker to live, and the other is the problem of ensuring that that wage can purchase the wherewithal to live. More succinctly, they are the problems of the cost of living and unemployment. These two problems are in urgent need of attention. Though the Minister can possibly show a favourable trend in certain respects, the fact is that the repercussions of such a favourable trend are not felt amongst the rank and file. The important step then is to hasten the beneficial results of that favourable trend so that the ordinary people may benefit and benefit immediately. Now, in order to do that one is compelled to trace back the history of some of this problem and the history of statistics in relation to it. I think the only fair statistics on which to work are a consistent set, and the only consistent set that I can find available are those published in our own Trade Journal and Statistical Bulletin.
