Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 31 May 1950

Vol. 121 No. 7

Estimates for Public Services. - Committee on Finance. Vote 50—Industry and Commerce (Resumed).

I would like to correct a statement I made before the adjournment of the debate. I referred to an investigation made into the possibility of developing Valentia slate quarries. I understand that investigation took place four years ago and the present Minister is not responsible for having sent down the manager of the Killaloe quarries to make that investigation. I maintain that our slate quarries should be developed in the same way as any other industry.

With regard to industrial development generally, I do not think we have the proper degree of control. In the manufacturers' journal for last month I find a striking complaint about foreign control. In the Irish Times of 4th February, 1950, there was a statement about the dissolution of the firm of James Crean and Company. That firm was taken over by a combine and they paid £3 for every £1 share. At a meeting of the federation it was said that people would sooner sell stuff sponsored and supported by foreign manufacturers. It would be nice to have the Minister's views as to how we could rid ourselves of that domination. The Industrial Credit Corporation was set up for the purpose of assisting Irish industries. According to a statement made by Mr. McEvoy at the last meeting of that body most of the money invested has been advanced to industries supported and sponsored by foreigners. Until such time as we shake off the shackles of foreign domination and influence we can never successfully develop our own industries. The following statement was made at that meeting:—

"A matter which is giving us more worry than the Control of Manufactures Act is the growing practice of transfers of trade marks by companies operating outside this country to companies operating here. If the present process is carried on to its logical conclusion, it will mean ultimately that we shall have nothing in this country but Irish manufactured goods carrying foreign trade names."

It is also stated that in the majority of cases the international trade mark carried with its transfer a clause forbidding the export of products made here carrying that trade mark or name. That is a very serious matter. Another statement made at that meeting was to the effect that before the war we had an Industrial Credit Corporation set up for the development of industry and the greater balance of the money subscribed by that body to industries was to industries fostered and sponsored by foreigners, and that seems to be the policy to-day. I think the Minister should take note of these statements. If we are to build up our industries we must build them up independent of outside influences. Deputy Major de Valera said this evening that our only hope was to make ourselves independent of outside influences. That applies in particular to banking and credit.

The Deputy had all that on the Budget and it is not relevant on this Estimate.

Then I cannot deal with it?

No. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has no responsibility for it.

I accept your ruling. Unless the Minister takes a very definite stand against foreign influence in our industrial development, we can make no real progress.

Ní theastaíonn uaim mórán a rá ar an Meastachán so ach amháin tagairt a dhéanamh do na cúrsaí a bhaineann le tionscalú na tíre seo. Is dóigh liom go bhfuilmíd go léir ar an tuairim chéanna gur cheart an tír seo do thionscalú i dtreo is gur féidir le daoine slí bheatha a bhaint amach dóibh fhéin in ionad é a bheith orthu an tír seo d'fhágaint, fé mar atá fé láthair. Do b'é an chuspóir a bhí ag Sinn Féin fadó ná gur cheart monarchain do chur ar bun sa tír seo chun obair do sholáthar do mhuintir na tíre agus gan ligint dóibh dul thar lear. Go deimhin, do bhí an chuspóir sin acu le leas na tír do chur chun cinn, mar do thuigeadar chomh thábhachtach is a bhí sé tionscail do chur ar bun anseo i slí is nach mbeimis i dtaobh le tíortha eile thar lear chun slí bheatha a sholáthar d'ár ndaoine féin. Dá bhrí sin, ba cheart dúinn leanúint de'n chuspóir sin. Ba cheart go leanfadh aon Rialtas a bheadh anseo i mbun na tíre den chuspóir sin agus ceapaim go mbeadh sé fuar acu bheith ag brath ar chabhair ó na daoine ar feadh aon fhad ama muna ndeinid é sin. Sin é an chéad rud a theastaíonn uaim a rá ar an Meastachán seo, ach sé an rud is mó atá ag déanamh buartha dom fén scéal go léir ná gur baolach go bhfuil faillí á dhéanamh againn i tionscal na móna. Rinne mé tagairt don cheist seo cheana agus arís nuair a bhíomar ag plé an Bhóta ar an gCuntas, rinne mé tagairt dó. Fuair mé locht ar an Rialtas mar nach raibh aon airgead gur fiú trácht air á sholáthar le haghaidh tionscail na móna. Chím go bhfuil laghdú ar an Meastachán seo i mbliana. Im thuairimse, fé mar a chitear dom é, ceann de na fáthanna is bun le sin is ea gan sinn a bheith sásta dul ar agaidh le tionscal na móna fé mar ba cheart. Nuair a bhí an tAire ag tagairt don rud seo, do léirigh sé don Teach seo go raibh cailliúnt airgid mór ar an tionscal sin. Is minic a bhíonn cailliúnt ar rudaí agus má bhímid ag cuimhneamh ar fad ar cheist chailliúna, ní mór an dul cinn a dhéanfaimíd. Ní foláir dúinn bheith ullamh chun dul ar aghaidh agus féachaint chuige go ndéanfar an tionscal thábhachtach seo a chaomhaint i gceart. Chím nach bhfuil ach £5 mar chomhartha Meastacháin sa leabhar seo. Is dóca gurb é an fáth atá le sin ná nach bhfuil fhíos ag an Aire go fóill cé mhéad airgid a cuirfear ar an tionscal agus cé mhéad a thíocfas isteach. Ach deireann sé go bhfuil Bord na Móna le breis agus £90,000 a chaitheamh ar an tionscal i mbliana. Deireann sé go mbeadh teacht isteach de níos mó ná £80,000 agus gur cailliúnt, mar sin, méid na difríochta idir an dá fhigiúir sin. Ba mhaith liom a iarraidh ar an Aire an bhfuil sé chun Meastachán breise a chur os chomhair na Dála i mbliana—fé mar a gheall sé a dhéanfadh sé—agus an amhlaidh ná béidh sa Meastachán ach an méid a dúirt sé atá idir an méid a cailleadh ar an mhóin i rith na bliana so caite agus an méid a thiocfaidh isteach tar éis na móna atá idir lámha a dhíol.

Nach bhfuil fhios ag an Teachta go rí-mhaith go bhfuil trí sort tionscail ann?

Tá a fhios sin agam.

Cad 'na thaobh, mar sin, nár dhein tú iad a dheighilt i do chuid chainnte?

Mar nílim ag déanamh ach tagairt ghineralta do'n scéal.

Ní féidir é sin a dhéanamh gan iad do dheighilt.

Ba mhaith liom a chur in a luighe ar an Teachta gurb í an chuid de'n tionscail móna is annsa liom ná an chuid de'n tionscail a bhíonn ar siúl ag na daoine féin ag a baile.

Ní cheart don Teachta Ó Liatháin bheith ag cur isteach ar an Teachta Ó Ciosáin. Ba cheart dó ligint do'n Teachta a gcuid cainnte a dhéanamh gan bheith ag cur isteach air.

Tá mé ag iarraidh, gan aon teasíocht nó aon cros-chainnt, ar an gceist seo do chur fé bráid an Aire—gur ceart níos mó a dhéanamh ar son tionscail na móna agus go háirithe an chuid sin de'n tionscail a bhíonn ar siúl ag na daoine ag a baile. Sé an leigheas is fearr do'n scéal ná margadh a fháil le haghaidh na móna a baintear agus a sábháltar ag baile. Má bheidh ag ár gcumas an mhargadh sin d'fáil—agus déarfainn, go bhfuil an margadh sin ann ach é a chur ar fháil—annsan béimíd ar an mbothar ceart.

Having spoken in Irish, with a few interruptions, I shall say a few words in English, but not for long. First of all, I desire to refer to the trend in employment in this country. I am glad that there is an upward trend, even though it is small. It is a pity that the Minister, in his opening statement, did not tell us to what extent that increase—I think of 12 per cent.—which he mentioned is due to the expansion of the old industries or to the establishment of new industries. I think the Minister said that 60 new industries were started during the year. However, he gave us no figures to indicate the amount of employment that arose in connection with those newly started industries. That would be very useful information to have, because it would give us an idea as to how far we were progressing in the direction of getting more employment for our people by establishing more industries as opposed to the expansion of activities in connection with industries that were already there. The Minister said that there was an increase in industrial employment last year as compared with the preceding year of from 184,000 to 206,000 persons. Well, that is not so much, but it is something.

It is 22,000 in 12 months, which is not bad.

There is another side to the picture——

And always was.

——because, while there is a little increase in the number that have got employment in industrial activity, there has been more than a corresponding decrease in the employment of our people on the land. I consider that a very unfortunate thing. We should all do our best and give every encouragement to the establishment of industries here, but if in doing that a position were to come about whereby people would leave the land and go into industry it would not be very good. It would mean a continuation of the flight from the land. Last year there was a decrease in the number of people employed on the land of no less than 47,000 as compared with the preceding year. In 1948 the number of people engaged in employment on the land was 499,542, while in 1949 the figure was 452,500, a decrease of roughly 47,000. That does not appear to be a healthy sign. While everybody must admit that it is satisfactory to see more people being put into industrial employment, still, when we find when we look at the other side of the picture that for every one that is being put into industrial employment two are leaving employment on the land, I think that is a very bad state of affairs. As I have said, 47,000 people less were employed on the land in 1949 as against 1948. The difference between 47,000 and 22,000 is 25,000. I would like to know what has become of the 25,000. I am afraid that a good many of them have left the country altogether.

Now, I would like to refer to harbour development because I consider that it is a matter of very great importance. It is now three or four years since plans were laid for the development of our harbours. I am afraid that any great progress has not been made since. I know this is a matter that could not be dealt with overnight. Still, I would like to know from the Minister, when he is replying, what advance has been made towards developing the harbours of this country. I am chiefly interested, of course, in the Tralee and Fenit harbour. There have been delays in connection with that project. I do not know who is to blame.

Are you keeping in touch with local happenings down there? If you were you would know who is to blame.

I do not think that the local people can be blamed entirely for the delay that has arisen in connection with the development of the Tralee and Fenit harbour——

I can assure the Deputy that I am not responsible for it.

——because I am afraid they have had to wait on advice and direction from the Minister's Department. Whether the delay that has occurred was avoidable or not, I do not know. I am not in a position to say. I would ask the Minister to give it his special attention as it is a matter of very great importance to the people down there.

The Deputy does not know enough about it to know who is to blame, but he knows enough to blame me.

I do not think I blamed the Minister. I said that I did not know whether the delays that have occurred were avoidable or not. If they are, we should try and get over them.

When speaking in Irish, I referred to the turf industry which is my chief bone of contention. I see here a token Vote of £5 for the turf industry. The Minister, in his opening statement, said that there was to be an expenditure of £94,000 on the turf industry. Deputy Lehane interrupted me when I was speaking in Irish and wanted me, I think, to distinguish between hand-won turf and machine-produced turf. The chief branch of the industry in which I am interested is the home produced turf. I am sure Bord na Móna will be able to deal with the machine-won turf, as they have been doing for years, in a satisfactory way. Every encouragement should be given to the producers of hand-own turf. There is no use in talking about giving them encouragement until such time as we find a market for it.

May I ask the Deputy one question—who took the decision to abandon the hand-won turf schemes?

Who took the decision? I should mention here that I am not so much concerned at this stage with who took the decision. It certainly was not anybody here on this side of the House who took that decision.

They were on this side of the House then.

That is an old accusation on the part of the Deputies opposite, that it was some member of the Fianna Fáil Government who put an end to the hand-won turf. It certainly was not. Perhaps the Minister could tell me how that came about?

Certainly. I can give the day and date for it.

I would like to hear it, later on. However it came about, what I am trying to impress on the Minister is that there should be some future now for the hand-won turf industry and that no worth-while attempt is being made to develop it.

Will the Deputy help me? Perhaps he would like to help?

Would he suggest where I can find a market for either hand-won turf or machine-won turf produced in Kerry?

Yes. I remember some weeks ago Deputy McQuillan had a question down about this hand-won turf. He suggested, of course, that the use of coal should be prohibited west of the Shannon. I do not know if I would be prepared to go as far as that with Deputy McQuillan, but certainly I would be prepared to advocate to the Minister the use of turf in all our State institutions.

It is being used.

It is not being used.

If it is not, it is the fault of the county councils.

That is the worst of it. Even in certain institutions adjacent to the very bogs themselves, turf is not being used. I suggest that it should be the business of the Minister and the Government to find out exactly to what extent turf is being used in our public institutions. I have referred to this question on a few occasions and I have asked questions here of the appropriate Minister, if he could tell me in how many public institutions turf was being used as fuel instead of coal. There were no figures available to give me any information about it. That is one aspect of the matter which should engage the Minister's attention. There may be other ways. I do not see why turf could not be used in certain factories all over the country. That possibility should be explored as well. We talk about providing employment for people by starting industries but, in my opinion —and I can say it from my own knowledge—the turf industry would give more employment than 50 other industries if it were properly organised and if, as the Minister has said, there were a market for it. Let us try and find a market.

The Deputy has not been very helpful so far.

I have given one suggestion, anyway. I could give more of them to the Minister and I may give them later on. In his opening statement, the Minister referred to the fact that we imported £60,000,000 worth of goods during the year that could be manufactured at home. That is a very big amount, and it would seem to me that the "Buy Irish" campaign is not succeeding as well as it should. I know, of course, that the Minister has been advocating the use of Irish-manufactured goods, but I think it is not enough to make a speech now and again about that particular aspect of the case. We should go all out on a campaign to get the people to purchase Irish-manufactured goods. It is a patriotic thing to do and it is our duty to do it.

Bhí ionadh orm ag éisteacht leis an Teachta Ó Ciosáin ar cheist na móna, mar ba mhaith liom a rá go bhfuil meas agam air mar dhuine macánta, ach sílim nach raibh sé macánta in a chuide cainte mar gheall ar scéim na móna.

Sin é do thuairim fhéin. Níl ann ach tuairim.

Tá fhios aige go raibh trí shaghas scéimeanna ann— an chéad cheann—tionscal na móna lámh-bhainte; an dara ceann—an scéim ar a dtabharfaidh mé scéim leath— uath-oibreach chun bainte; an tríú cheann mar gheall ar inneal amháin d'úsáid. Maidir leis an gcéad cheann, bheartaigh Fianna Fáil deireadh do chur leis an scéim sin—agus cruthaiodh sin cheana. Chuir Bord na Móna deireadh leis an dara scéim, agus tá fhios againn go léir go bhfuil méadú agus feabhsú mór ar an tríú scéim. Sin í an fhírinne ghlan iomlán agus ní féidir í sin a bhréagnú.

An bhfacais an Páipéar Bán?

An bhfaca tú an Páipéar Bán a cuireadh amach i 1946? Más áil leis an Rialtas rud mhaith a dhéanamh ar thionscal na móna——

Interruptions can be disorderly in Irish as well as in English.

Sin é an méid atá le rá agamsa ar an gceist sin, agus sílim gur leor san.

It was heartening to many of us during the past year to observe the efforts of the Minister for Industry and Commerce towards progress in Irish industry. I followed his speeches with great interest and, if I might say so, with great sympathy because I realise what tremendous uphill work it is for any Minister— and this goes for the present Minister's predecessor too—to put into the people of this country a proper enthusiasm with regard to our industrial development here and supporting Irish industry generally. It seems that a lot of work has yet to be put into our industrial drive here. One would feel sometimes that the Minister would have to go nearly so far as to get a mallet to hammer into the heads of our people that it is in their own interests to support Irish industry in every possible way. The odd thing about it is that the industrialists themselves—and I mean "industrialists" in the broad sense, people engaged in business and industry— show an extraordinary want of enthusiasm. If these people who are most closely concerned from the selfish point of view would only approach the question of the industrial revival properly the Minister's job would not be half as difficult as it is. I am sure that the Minister in his efforts often felt disheartened at the poor response he got from people from whom he would expect a good response, people who, one would think, should need no push at all.

I had an experience not so many months ago and I think it would be well to relate it—although there are few people here who are showing a lively interest in the debate—because it will show the attitude of some of our industrial firms to the question of articles of Irish manufacture.

Some time ago I wanted to get a big bottle of jet black ink and I went into one of the big stationery shops here in Dublin. I was offered a bottle of "Parker Jet Black", as I think it was called. I said to the assistant: "I want a bottle of Irish ink." She told me first that she did not know if there was any Irish jet black ink made. I said: "I think there is. If you inquire you will find that jet black ink is made in Ireland." I said I would come back next week and that I was sure she would have a bottle for me. She promised that she would. I called back the following week and the assistant who was there then did not know whether an inquiry had been made as to whether or not a bottle of Irish jet black ink was available. I decided to go further about it and I went to another of the big stationery shops in Dublin and asked for a bottle of jet black ink. I was there presented with a bottle of "Swan Documentary". I said to the assistant: "Look, could I have a bottle of Irish ink?" I was told no, they only stocked "Swan Documentary". "Well," I said, "I think that is odd, but however I will go further." I went to a third stationery shop and asked for a bottle of ink. I was again offered a bottle of "Swan Documentary". I said: "Look, I want a bottle of Irish jet black ink", and I was told by the assistant in this particular shop that although they themselves manufactured ink they were just out of their own jet black ink at the time but that they would be able to let me have a bottle during the coming week.

I asked: "Why do you not stock Irish ink when you are out of your own?" and I did not get a very satisfactory explanation. I went to a fourth shop, having got the bit between my teeth by this time, and I asked for a bottle of jet black ink. The assistant there offered me a bottle of "Waterman's Midnight Black". I said to him: "Look, I want a bottle of Irish ink." And he told me that they had not jet black Irish ink. I said to him: "I think this is a shame. This is the fourth big shop in Dublin which I have visited looking for a bottle of Irish jet black ink and in each one of them I have been offered a bottle of English or imported jet black ink. In each case I have failed to get a bottle of jet black ink made in Ireland." He told me that he, too, thought it was a shame. I then pointed out to him that he was an employee of an Irish industrial concern depending upon the business which the people of Dublin and the people of Ireland gave to that firm for his livelihood and yet in a small matter of that kind I was unable to get from him an Irish-made article. It would not be quite fair if I did not finish the story. He promised he would get me a bottle of this jet black ink and post it to me, and I am glad to say that he succeeded in this, and that it was a very excellent ink indeed. I do not think it would be right to start advertising the particular ink in this House, but in any event I can say that it is an excellent production and as good as any of the imported stuff. I do hope that my small efforts in this matter in those four shops will do something to help the Minister in his drive to get people interested in themselves and foster Irish industry in such a way that they themselves will reap the benefit.

I have had a number of complaints about Irish sparking plugs. I think that most of the Deputies here who drive cars will agree with my experience that the Irish sparking plugs supplied in the cars here are as good as the Lodge or Champion plugs which many of the garage people invite buyers of new cars to get. I have had a very satisfactory experience with Irish sparking plugs in my own car. I have been told fairy stories, as I believe them to be, about the miraculous change which drivers notice in their engines after throwing out the Irish and putting in Lodge or Champion plugs. It might be no harm if I said that I have driven 26,000 miles on the one set of Irish sparking plugs and not one of them has been removed from the engine since I got it. I think that is sufficient tribute to pay to them.

I should like the Minister to direct his attention so far as he can to the placing of worthwhile industries in the Irish-speaking areas. We would all agree that that would be well worth doing for many reasons which can be gone into on another Estimate and on which I do not intend to elaborate now. The Minister, however, should get the Industrial Development Authority to pay special interest to the Gaeltacht areas.

With regard to the question of newspapers and periodicals coming in here, I made an effort when the Estimate for the Department of Education was being discussed to raise the matter of imported newspapers and periodicals, and particularly Sunday newspapers. The Leas-Cheann Chomhairle at the time thought it was not the appropriate Estimate and, after a short discussion, I said I would raise it on the Industry and Commerce Estimate and now the opportunity has arrived. What I said with regard to these imported Sunday newspapers on that occasion was reported in the Press the following day and one result was that I got letters from quite a number of people who showed a very lively interest in the subject. One of those who wrote to me was Father Devane, S.J., who a short time before had written a booklet entitled The Imported Press, which sets out the case extremely well. Father Devane sent me a copy of that booklet and also wrote me a letter in which he said he regarded this matter of the imported Press as one of very great importance. I was, of course, very gratified to get a letter from Father Devane.

There is a rather odd situation with regard to restrictions on newspapers coming in here. The first odd feature is that Sunday newspapers come in here completely free of duty. What directed my attention to this matter, in the first instance, was the fact that, during a visit to Collinstown a few months ago on a Saturday evening, I saw three of the Aer Lingus planes with the passenger seats out being converted into cargo planes and I was told that every Saturday evening these three planes fly to Manchester and come back, each bringing three tons of British Sunday newspapers so as to be in time to meet the people coming out from Mass on Sunday morning, even down in Deputy Corry's constituency. I was more surprised when I heard that the Department of Industry and Commerce had not done something about restricting the import of these newspapers and putting a tariff on them.

The figures are interesting. I think all Deputies were supplied with this booklet of Father Devane's. I do not suppose that all Deputies read it, but it is very interesting reading. The position with regard to the import of these newspapers and periodicals is astonishing. It appears that under the Finance Act, 1932, a duty of a penny per copy was imposed upon all imported periodicals, wholly or mainly in the English language, with a preferential rate of three farthings in respect of periodicals from the British Commonwealth and the question to be asked about that preferential rate is: what happens the extra farthing? We know that the buyer of the periodical has to pay a penny more than the price of it, of which the Revenue Commissioners get three farthings.

The thing is not unimportant, because, according to the figures given by Father Devane in this booklet, figures which he got from the Revenue Commissioners, we imported, in 1947, 4,571,556 daily newspapers. The tax collected on that number of newspapers was £12,698, but the buyers of those papers paid an extra £6,439. I suggest to the Minister that if the tariff is to be operated as a revenue producing device he might make it the full penny. In that year, the Exchequer would have benefited to the extent of £6,300. These figures, I should say, relate to daily papers which are subject to a flat rate of two-third pence under the Finance Act, 1934. I was speaking in the first instance about periodicals, in respect of which the rate is a penny per copy, with a preferential rate of three farthings. In 1948, the import fell somewhat. The tax collected was £11,459 and the sellers of the papers or the importers got £5,729, because the buyers paid that amount in excess of the tax. In 1949 the figure had gone up to 5,335,020, which yielded a revenue to the tune of £14,819 and again somebody profited to the extent of £7,409 which seems to me ought to have gone to revenue. That is a total of £19,500, in three years. That is the position with regard to the daily newspapers.

On the figures given, again by Father Devane, in this booklet, for periodicals, we get some striking facts. In 1947 we imported 18,500,000 periodicals other than Sunday newspapers and daily newspapers. In 1948 we imported 19,500,000. In 1949 we imported almost 23,000,000. The tax with regard to these particular publications is one penny with preferential of three-farthings. In those three years the number of farthings which the sellers of these newspapers got, which should have gone to revenue was very great and made a total of £63,000.

I have left until last the Sunday newspapers. In 1947 we imported free of duty 15,704,988 Sunday newspapers. If these had been taxed at one penny each the yield would have been £65,500 practically. In 1948 the figure had gone up to 17,271,072 which, at a penny a newspaper, would have yielded a revenue of £71,962. In 1949 we imported free of duty 20,268,360 Sunday newspapers. A penny on each of these would have yielded £84,500.

It may be suggested that if a penny tax were put on these papers the number bought would be reduced, the people would not be prepared to pay the penny. It would be well worth trying. I am not so much interested in that aspect of the matter and I am sure the Minister is not either, as in the type of matter that is imported.

I pose this question: why were Sunday newspapers exempt in the first instance? There was a device used in the 1932 Finance Act for exempting imported Sunday newspapers from the tax which was put on periodicals and the dailies were brought into the picture in the 1934 Finance Act. All the time the Sunday newspapers were excluded. They got out of it in this way: there was an exemption in respect of those imported periodicals whose front page or cover exceeded 320 square inches. It was an easy matter for the newspapers to arrange and so they got in free of duty. All that time we had only one Sunday newspaper published in this country, from 1932 until recently, when the Sunday Press was published.

I may be wrong but I am wondering if the Minister's predecessor was not influenced by that fact. If he did put a prohibitive tariff on British Sunday newspapers, it would have the immediate effect of increasing the sales of the Sunday Independent. I hope I am wrong in that but if I am right I hope the Minister will not be actuated by the same motives and that, although we have now two Sunday newspapers, one of which is professedly antagonistic to the present Government, the Minister will not let that affect his mind. I press upon the Minister as strongly and as earnestly as I can that this is a matter to which he ought to direct his immediate attention. We have two Irish Sunday newspapers catering for people of every political point of view, one might say, in the present set-up in any event, and it would be a good thing if we had more. I do not see how our newspaper industry can prosper as it ought to prosper in face of the terrific onslaught by cross-Channel publishers. I am told that recently the Sunday Express opened an office opposite the Independent office and that they are making tremendous efforts to increase the circulation of the Sunday Express here.

It might not be a bad thing if I took up the time of this House in reading long extracts from Father Devane's booklet on the imported press but I do not intend to do that; but I certainly commend the booklet to Deputies who are interested in this very important branch of Irish industry, the newspaper industry and the publishing trade generally. This matter affects very seriously the position of Irish writers. Father Devane also made reference in his booklet to the very great number of children's papers that are being imported. Irish writers have a limited market and from a monetary point of view writing in Ireland is a poor profession which does not yield the livelihood that it ought to yield. It is the duty of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to ensure that these writers, who are people of merit, will be able to secure a decent livelihood in their own country.

The mass attack that is being made upon the business of writing, the business of publishing, the business of printing here, makes it impossible, almost, for our Irish writers and printers or publishers to develop in their own particular spheres. I know there is a multitude of problems facing the Minister for Industry and Commerce every day. I can see it would be almost impossible to expect one individual to give due attention to all the different problems of industry and commerce which will arise here. But, apart altogether from the purely material side of this question of the imported Press, there is the cultural side, there is the moral side.

I am not very well qualified to speak upon the type of Sunday newspaper that comes in here because, perhaps fortunately for myself, I am not living in a town and we have not got the same facilities where I go to Mass on Sunday for getting these papers as the people in the towns and cities have; the market just is not there for them and they do not come there. We have to rely upon the local newspapers and the Irish Sunday papers. If what I am told is true—and I believe it to be true —apart from the material aspect and apart from the effect on writers, publishers and printers, there is the moral aspect which, I submit, the Minister should take into consideration and give great attention to.

Strictly speaking, that should be, and I am sure it is in the Minister's mind, the more important aspect of the case. I do not want to take up the attitude of making a sermon about this, and I believe I have said enough to indicate what my views are. Looking at this question from any point of view, the absolute prohibition of these papers would be no loss to this country. I would, of course, make an exception with regard to publications of an educational or cultural kind, of a scientific kind, papers which have some value; but the stuff I am referring to now is the kind of paper that goes in for sensationalism; it is what we know as the Yellow Press, and I think there would be no dissentient voice when I say that it would be no loss to this country if the Minister put an absolute prohibition on their importation. Even if that did entail a slight loss in revenue, I believe nobody here would object.

Speaking in regard to industry generally, everybody recognises now that the days of laissez faire are gone. The Minister for Industry and Commerce must necessarily have his finger in the pie, so to speak, with regard to every industrial undertaking and industrial effort in this country. It is the same all over the world and I think I can fairly say this—and in so saying I have no intention or desire to flatter the Minister, and I use the word “flatter” in its literal sense—that since he took over the responsibilities of the Office of Minister for Industry and Commerce he has proved himself fully capable of handling the job. I am glad to say that he has made a good job of it. He has justified the experiment which was made and if he keeps going as he has been going and if he puts the same enthusiasm into his work as he has been putting, then he will serve Irish industry and commerce and he will serve Ireland well.

In connection with this Estimate, I want to ask the Minister a question which I addressed to the Minister for Finance in connection with the Budget and which relates as much to his Department as to the general conduct of finance in this country. That question is: what is the attitude of the Government towards financing this country through an economic depression?

The Minister knows very well that, roughly, there are two alternatives with regard to the future of world trade in the next five or ten years. If there is a war there will be no economic depression of the ordinary pre-war type. There will be all sorts of stresses and strains imposed upon the community. There will not be an over-plus of goods. What steps will the Minister take in his Department to provide for that emergency? Will he give to the House some idea of the steps he is taking to provide long-term storage for essential raw materials?

Will he indicate whether he has made any plans or made any preliminary investigation with regard to the storage of fuel oil or petrol in the event of a war? At the present time the number of agricultural tractors is rapidly increasing year by year. Our dependence on agricultural tractors in contrast to horses is growing year by year. Should a war break out, we shall be in a difficult position with respect to maintaining tillage if, as a result of the war, fuel supplies become short. What steps is the Minister taking so far as his Department is concerned, in relation to that matter?

Has anything been done in the way of preparing blueprints for the dispersal of repair facilities on our railways? The facilities that are at the moment being concentrated in two districts, Dublin and Dundalk, are desperately vulnerable to bombing of any type. Has the Minister made any plans for creating stock piles of essential raw materials?

If he does not think there is going to be a war, and if he has not bothered to make preparations for a war, has he considered what will happen if there is no war? So far as I can gather, almost inevitably the very high level of trade in this country and in Europe will decline to a certain degree. The sellers' market will be over; there will be keener prices for agricultural products and, although we may avoid the kind of depression the world faced in 1931, it is hardly likely that the present level of trade will continue.

I asked the Minister for Finance whether he subscribed to Lord Keynes' conception of what should be done in a time of crisis. He never gave me a proper reply. I said: "If you consider the speeches made by Government Ministers that in this country there is a boom, and if you believe that Lord Keynes' solution for unemployment in times of depression is to pump prime, to borrow more money for State schemes, to spend more money on State schemes for national development, to discourage private saving and encourage more capital investment—if you believe these things, what is your view in regard to the present level of borrowing?" because, according to Lord Keynes, the principles which are so far as I know the ones held by every Government, except Communist Governments, are in times such as we have at present to finance everything out of income. Now is the time to restrict borrowing to the maximum limit possible or at least we should keep some reserve which we can use at some later stage when the depression comes.

Reserve that for the Finance Bill.

If the Minister believes that there is no war coming and that we can borrow——

On a point of order, I suggest that the Deputy's remarks are completely out of order on this Estimate.

I was about to intervene, but I wished to give the Deputy a sufficient opportunity of making his remarks relevant to this debate.

I do not wish to go beyond the bounds of the subject matter of this debate but I understood that the Minister was responsible for keeping an eye on the current level of trade, production and consumption, particularly of retail consumption, and that he was the advance guard of the Minister for Finance in relation to the measures which should be adopted to restrict any unhealthy tendency.

I am not going to interfere with the Deputy if he pursues that line but the Deputy was making what seemed to be a Budget speech and which had reference more to the problem of borrowing than to the administration of the Minister's Department.

That was being done deliberately.

I wished only to ask the Minister to consider that problem and I have not yet got an answer. However, I have dealt with that subject. Getting down to details in connection with the Estimate, I should like to ask the Minister to give us more information in regard to what is going to be done by the Tourist Board in connection with the tourist industry. I happened at one time to be a European director of a travel agency. I was there for four years and learned a lot about the technical side of tourist development. When the Tourist Board was started here I understood that one of its most valuable functions was to be the development of tourist resorts— recommending to the Government the expenditure of moneys on improving resorts by means of the construction of breakwaters, shelters, concreted roads, lawns, gardens and so forth. Many of these resorts have a charm for people who have a particular love for this country but they are still very bleak in their general amenities, judged by foreign standards. I should like to ask the Minister whether he proposes to encourage the Tourist Board to go on with that work. A great number of these resorts need that kind of development, which cannot possibly be provided by the local authority. I should like him to tell us more about what his policy is in that regard.

The steps taken by the Government to encourage Americans to come to this country have been taken far too late. It is very pleasing to know that the Economic Co-operation Administration have made arrangements for some of our hotel proprietors to visit America to discover the needs of Americans in regard to hotel amenities, but I think myself the Minister should have been informed of that the day he came into office. Everybody knows that Americans have higher standards than we in certain matters. The problem is whether we can afford to provide them with the amenities which they seek in hotels—central heating, shower baths, bars, and certain types of food. These were known to the hotel managers in this country for some considerable time past. They were known before they were invited by the Economic Co-operation Administration to visit America. Building materials became available in plentiful supply about the year 1947 and since that time there has been an unwarranted delay in deciding what should be done and if anything could be done. I may add that a considerable number of other types of visitors also looked for these amenities.

The Minister has informed us that very few hotels took advantage of the loans made available under the original Tourist Board Act but it seems to me that the Minister could at a much earlier date have made the necessary alterations in the rules for obtaining these loans to suit our conditions. When we started the Tourist Board, the war came on and it was impossible to deal with the problem at that time. If the present method of offering loans for the improvement of hotels is inadequate, it seems vitally important that a change should be made as soon as possible. Full regard should be had, naturally, to the needs of housing in this country and the possible absorption of labour materials which might be occasioned by too great an expansion of hotel development, but the trend at the present time, with the exception of certain areas, could not have the effect of reducing the rate of building so far as local authorities' housing is concerned.

From what I know meeting foreign tourists in this country, a great deal more is required in the way of simple amusements in local resorts—a great deal of indoor amusement, provided not only by hotels but by other institutions, athletic amusements, etc., if this country is to be regarded as a delightful place to visit in all circumstances, and in the circumstances of our climate.

Next I come to one more matter of detail, namely the publicity we do abroad. In my time, I have read the tourist pamphlets of every country in Europe over a period of years. The pamphlets issued by the Tourist Board represents a valiant effort to try to illustrate the various regions of Ireland of interest to tourists but, judged by standards abroad, they are grossly inadequate. One of the most difficult things is to produce photographs of this country which will show something distinctive in the way of scenery to foreigners. It is very easy for us to see photographs of Killarney and Kerry and to appreciate the beauty of these places but abroad you require the very highest class of publicity. That is a matter which should have received the attention of the Tourist Board from the first day this Government took office. This whole question of publicity for tourism is not co-ordinated in a general way and it needs far more attention.

Anybody who doubts what I say should go and see the film of the life of the late W.B. Yeats in which is shown, I suppose, the most beautiful specimens of photography that ever have been taken in this country. These photographs have something distinctive about them. The Minister for External Affairs can be congratulated for his efforts in producing that film. The Minister for Industry and Commerce can take an example from what his colleague did through the Cultural Relations Committee to see whether far higher standards could not be promoted in this country so far as tourist publicity is concerned.

I do hope that the Minister will very soon be able to announce the Government's plans for stimulating industrial exports. So far as I know, a number of alternative plans were prepared before our Government left office. There, again, during the war it was impossible to stimulate industrial exports on any considerable scale. Materials were not available. But, as far as I know, plans were in preparation. I had considerable experience of trying to assist the stimulation of industrial exports at one time and I found that— I still believe it to be true—very, very substantial help would be required if a maximum effort is to be made, substantial help coming from the Government not only in the form of organisation but also in the form of actual grants.

It should be possible for the Minister to have made up his mind in regard to certain matters long before the present time. It is quite evident that a board of some kind is needed to collect data on markets, on the tariffs that exist in other countries, on methods of distribution in other countries and on the type of advertising required. If that board does not do the work itself, it should give certain exploratory grants to industrial groups wherever it is considered exports might be possible. I remember examining that particular problem in relation to the woollen industry before the war. I found that industry consisted of units, for the most part so small or so specialised that it was very difficult to persuade any individual manufacturer to undertake the necessary expenditure of a purely exploratory kind to investigate how he could conform, for example, with American fashions in tweeds, how he could relate something which was Irish and different to what suited American ideas. I found it still more difficult to persuade groups of manufacturers to work together on that because they naturally work on an individual basis and a joint effort seemed to them at that time to be too great. It seemed to me then that it was quite clear the Government should step in and give such a group very definite assistance for a short period and be able to say to them that they had now no excuse for not making the maximum joint effort possible.

I do not think that the Minister needed the joint industrial development authority to give him advice on that matter. I think he should have continued the work of his predecessor and invited existing organisations to discuss various plans with him. I believe such a board could have been in existence if the Minister had given the attention he should have to the whole question. The Minister informs us that the prospects for industrial development seem fairly satisfactory in his view. He gave figures in regard to the number of new factories or extensions of existing factories that had been completed since he took office. I think it would be only fair if the Minister would give us more information about the employment in these various units: how many of the factories are employing at the present time, shall we say, over 100 people; how many are employing over 50 and less than 100; and how many are employing less than 50. That would give us some idea of where we are heading in regard to industrial development.

In regard to the future of industry, I should like to repeat what Deputy Lemass has already said. We need to have a very special drive to complete our industrial development. It would seem there again that the real field for examination is in relation to building materials, the heavy engineering industry, substitutes for wood, fertilisers and turf. It would be interesting if the Minister gave us some further details in regard to investigations made by the industrial development authority in relation to these particular projects.

One of the principal reasons for stimulating the production of cement, which has been very long delayed, is the urgent necessity of making more concrete roads. From the point of view of national economy the Minister will be informed, if he asks the Department of Local Government, that over a period of some 16 or 20 years there is a very great saving through making roads in concrete. Maintenance costs are much lower on them than they are on any other type of road. That would leave more money available to improve the thousands of miles of county roads, most of which are yet unsurfaced. If the Minister would expedite the production of cement we could have the main roads improved by using concrete. The Minister could find out also from the Department of Local Government the amount that would be required for any particular programme over a certain period and he would find that possibly his present plans for the cement industry, when they do emerge and see the light of day, will be inadequate, if he considers the over-all importance of using concrete on roads, apart from housing or any other form of activity in which cement is used.

I think it is essential in the course of this debate to refer to the fact that, whatever efforts are being made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to give employment or stimulate employment through continuing to a certain degree the Fianna Fáil policy in regard to tariff protection, and whatever employment has been given as a result of high agricultural prices here and as a result of Great Britain being forced to buy food produced by us at very, very high prices, the employment policy as a whole has been distorted and, instead of an increase in employment in industry, the Government have admitted now that 30,000 people on balance left this country in the past two years. I invite the Minister's attention to that matter.

It is not easy to find the cause of the flight from the land. First of all, whatever the Minister has done, he has failed to provide a substitute for employment on turf and for the 15,000 people who were employed on turf when he came into office. Secondly, so far as I can gather, he has not succeeded in carrying out the promises made by the smaller Parties in the Coalition to bring industry on a large scale into the Gaeltacht. So far as I know, quite a high proportion of the new factories and extensions of existing factories are in Dublin. When we were in office we succeeded, as far as I remember, in securing that one-third of the new factories would be in the provinces and two-thirds in Dublin. We thought we were doing rather well by measures that were short of actually compelling people to place their factory at a certain point. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has been able to keep up that record in regard to prospective industrial development.

The factories that opened last year covered 17 out of the Twenty-Six Counties.

I heard that in the Minister's opening statement. I asked him the total number. I asked him, whether, in connection with the 60 extensions, he was able to keep up the record of the last Government, which, at a time of great difficulty during the economic war, insisted that one-third of all the factories should be in the provinces. It should be much easier now because economic conditions are more stable and it should be possible now to improve on the record of the former Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Seán Lemass.

Some people have asked the Minister whether he has been able to continue industrial devolution on that level. Apart from that the Minister has not, I think, showed the necessary spirit of co-ordination with other Ministers of the Government in relation to telling them where he is failing to give employment, namely in the Western areas and in the congested areas. On the one hand, there is the Minister's statement that some 200,000 people are now employed in industry and several thousands more than that in the previous year; on the other hand, there is the known fact that there are fewer grants of various kinds available for the small farmers living in areas like north-west County Leitrim, fewer grants available to them to repair their roads. The farm improvements scheme has terminated. That gave employment to 14,000 persons a year. The land rehabilitation scheme is not yet in operation and the employment that was afforded by the farm improvements scheme is not being provided in any other form. As I have said, the policy of providing employment, such as exists in the present Government, is a distorted one. It has the effect of creating good conditions in one area but of leaving the main problem of emigration from the Western and the congested areas untouched.

This Estimate was not, as it has been tried to make out, an Estimate presented by the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce. One would imagine from some of the speeches delivered by Deputies on the Opposition side of the House that we were discussing an Estimate which had been introduced by Deputy Lemass. His name does not appear at all in this Estimate. I am afraid that many of the Deputies on the Opposition side of the House have not read or paid sufficient attention to what the Minister had to say in his opening statement. Is it not about time that the Deputies opposite made speeches of a more cheery nature and put an end to gloomy forebodings and expressions of opinion to the effect that this country is bankrupt?

When Fianna Fáil was in office and when some of my colleagues who were then on the Opposition side of the House said that the country was bankrupt and so forth I said: "Nothing could bankrupt this country so long as the people work. Get that into your heads. You could not bankrupt the small farmers of this country. They will exist and continue to exist when possibly nothing more will be heard of us who are now members of this House." Therefore, for goodness' sake stop the gloomy talk that the country is bankrupt or that it is going bankrupt. It is the best and the happiest country in the world to-day and we should be proud to be able to say so. At least that is my experience.

I feel that it is the duty of the members of this House to do what the Opposition in our sister country do in the case of a Minister who introduces his Estimate and who has done good work during the year. The Opposition there always co-operate and they pay a tribute to the work done. While the Minister in charge of this Estimate does not want to have bouquets thrown at him, at the same time he needs a little encouragement now and then if he is to carry out the very difficult tasks that lie ahead. It is true, although perhaps a great many people would disagree with the statement, that, as far as the carrying on of the business of any country is concerned, it is much more difficult to carry on the business of the country in peace-time than it is in war-time. References have been made by Deputies to the difficulties that beset this country in war-time. With the exception of a shortage of supplies there were no difficulties at all in so far as the Government of this country was concerned. In fact, our only difficulty was to keep out the money because it was coming in so quickly. Is that not so? Now that things are coming back to normal, now that the countries who were engaged for six years in the manufacture of armaments and weapons of destruction are engaged in producing goods for their people which in the course of time will be on the market in competition with our goods, difficulties arise. Many of us shall soon have our eyes opened and shall have something more to do than to offer undue criticism here of the things which were accomplished by the Minister during the past year.

Let us go through this Estimate briefly: there is no need to ponder on it. There has been a decrease of 400 in the number of persons engaged in the Minister's Department and a decrease in the cost, amounting to £150,000, in respect of the provision of salaries and so forth.

There is also a reduction in respect of subsidies for tea and sugar. There is such a thing now as unrationed tea and unrationed sugar. Many of the Deputies opposite think that that policy is not a good policy and that it has the effect of raising the cost of living. Has it? I do not think it has. Is the ration of sugar and the ration of tea sufficient for the individual needs of the people of this country? Is it or is it not? I find that it is. Therefore, if there are people who want sugar over and above the ration, and if they are willing to pay the unsubsidised price for it, why not let them do so if it saves the State £30,000 or £40,000 or £100,000? That money which is saved is not going into the pockets of the Ministers—it is going towards the general upkeep of the country. Is there anything wrong in that? Deputies talked about people having to pay so much extra for tea, and so forth. Well do I remember a certain period in the history of this country when the people were glad to pay 30/- a lb. for tea and God knows what they paid for sugar. Those days are gone. If the aggregate of the amount saved in respect of the non-payment of subsidy on unrationed tea and unrationed sugar is spent on the improvement of the general position of the people throughout the country I think that that is a good policy and one that in the long run will have very beneficial effects on the country as a whole.

Another happy feature so far as I personally am concerned, and again I may not find support all round—not even on this side of the House—in respect of what I am going to say, is the reduction in the number of Price Control Orders from 141 to nine. I hope to see the day when all price control is dispensed with. My friends in the Labour Party may not agree 100 per cent. with me in that respect but they are entitled to their opinion and I am entitled to mine. I am a fairly long time in this world and I am a firm believer in competition and in the old law of supply and demand. I agree that in the present abnormal conditions there may be some reason for a certain amount of control but, taking the long view, I feel that the less Price Control Orders we have in this country the better. That is my honest opinion. I may be wrong and, of course, I may be right.

I come now to the question of turf production. A great deal of criticism has been levelled at the Minister so far as his policy in regard to turf is concerned. There, again, Deputies do not seem to realise that our State is composed of 26 counties and that the outlook of the people and their mode of living both in respect to fuel and food is not general. Take, for instance, the people who live along the eastern seaboard. There is no turf worthwhile talking about in those counties. We know what we suffered in that connection during the six years of the war. God knows I do not want to see the same circumstances arising again, so far as the people of my constituency are concerned. While saying that I wish the best of good luck to those counties in which turf is abundant. If they think that by using turf they are going to give more employment than is at present available, then I say "more power" to them. Do not blame the Minister because employment is not as great as it was during the war. Surely Deputies must realise that conditions prior to and during a war are altogether different from those which obtain after a war. Does not everyone know that wars make and unmake nations and peoples? Some people become millionaires as a result of the outbreak of war while others become paupers. One could not expect that the same number of people would be employed in the cutting of turf after the war had ended as were employed during the six years of war.

With regard to turf production, some Deputies seem to forget that we have such things as harbours along the east coast. Large sums of money have been spent on them, and most of the trade done in those harbours is in coal which comes from Great Britain. I would say that, so far as turf production is concerned, the Minister is doing his best. He has already stated that it is proceeding in many counties. He hopes that, as a result of his efforts, the revenue derived from the sale of turf will about equal what is expended on its production. Again, I would say that you cannot do everything overnight. The Minister must get time to do all the things that he is expected to do.

Take the question of rural electrification. That is a scheme that will take time. First of all, plans have to be made. You cannot just run around and put up wires at random. Various difficulties arise and it takes time to overcome them. Notwithstanding all the difficulties which are confronting the Minister and, for that matter, which confronted his predecessor, good progress has been made in regard to this scheme as evidenced by the facts and figures which the Minister gave to the House. I am afraid that many Deputies allowed this information to go in one ear and out the other, because not one of them referred to it.

So far as rural electrification is concerned, I find that, in 1947, 432 miles of line were erected and 1,286 consumers connected. In 1948 the mileage was 1,480 and the number of consumers connected 7,287, while in 1949 the mileage was 1,997 and the number of consumers connected 13,087. The mileage increased between 1947 and 1949 by over 1,500, while the increase in the number of consumers connected between 1947 and 1949 was no less than 12,000. If these figures do not denote progress, I do not know what does. As far as I am personally concerned, I would say the same with regard to this progress if Deputy Lemass were on this side of the House instead of being on the opposite side. He would get the same compliments as far as I am concerned.

The next thing the Minister dealt with was the Industrial Development Authority. I am not going to weary the House on that, because I have a bitter recollection of the criticisms that were levelled when that authority was set up. It is sufficient to say that it was born in a whirlwind of suspicion and distrust and was subjected to meaningless criticism. What is the object in setting up this Industrial Development Authority? To make it possible—and I want to emphasise this —with the co-operation and collaboration of those who are vitally interested to increase the efficiency of our industries, to enable people who are interested to start new industries, and to enable those already engaged in industry to extend and develop their industries. I would be absolutely in agreement with many of the views expressed by members of the Opposition if I thought for a moment that the members of this Industrial Development Authority were going to go around poking their noses into every little business in the country, but, being sensible men, I believe they are going to work in harmony with our industrialists. I hope and believe that, in a short time, the two interests will work in harmony, and that as a result of the setting up of this authority there will be, as I am sure we all hope, an increase in industrial production.

The Minister has given some figures. I find that during the last two years an extra 20,000 persons were put into industry. The numbers engaged in industry went up from 184,000 to 206,000 as against 166,000 in 1939. Again, I want to give credit where credit is due, and to say that from 1933 to 1939 there was a considerable increase so far as the numbers engaged in industry were concerned, and that from 1939 to 1948 there was also a big increase in numbers. I think that the members of the Opposition, instead of twitting the Minister and saying that he is carrying out the Fianna Fáil policy, should take credit for the fact that he has, to a large extent, to carry out their policy. Surely, it is not held by anyone of commonsense that when a new Government comes in its first duty would be to change everything that the previous Government had done. If that were to be so we could have neither law nor order. If the Minister is carrying out part of the policy of the previous Government, or even a part of the policy which they had hoped to carry out if returned as the Government, it is credit and not criticism that he should get from the Opposition for the policy that he is pursuing at present. The only note of warning that I would like to sound, as far as industrial activity is concerned, is that we will have to hasten slowly. This is a matter in which you can go just too quickly. It is one thing to build a factory and another thing to keep that factory in operation. Those with business experience, especially of factories or milling, or of any industry in this or in any other country, know the innumerable difficulties that confront those who have the responsibility of keeping factories going for 365 days of the year. That is one of the things we must keep before our minds, that we could go too fast. We must remember that we are less than 3,000,000 people and unless we are able to produce whatever articles we manufacture, at a price that will not alone meet competition here but enable us to export, our last position will be worse than the first.

Do not forget, when you are talking of industrial production, that hand-in-hand with it must go agricultural production. We cannot buy the imports essential for the successful carrying out of our manufactures unless we export—in other words, we need money to buy what we bring in here. That is one of the difficulties that confronted the ex-Minister and the previous Government and one which will confront the present Minister as well, in regard to industrial products.

I was glad to hear the Minister's remarks about cement. Deputy Childers does not seem to have heard them, since he put certain questions to the Minister as to what steps he was taking in regard to the manufacture of cement. As far as I know, the Minister stated he does not propose to erect a third factory but proposes instead to extend the Drogheda and Limerick factories to such an extent that the increased output of the two will be sufficient to meet the maximum needs of the building industry. I think the maximum quantity of cement required to meet all our demands is in the region of 620,000 tons. At the moment, our two factories are producing 450,000 tons, thus necessitating an import of roughly 200,000 tons, which costs us a little more than that produced locally. In the two together, the Minister hopes to have sufficient cement in the course of a year or a year and a half.

There is another factor which I suppose has influenced him in coming to that decision, that is, that the erection of a new factory would cost something well over £2,000,000 — say £2,600,000—while extensions would cost in the region of £1,900,000. There is a very big difference there. Besides, cement would cost 10/- a ton extra as a result of the setting up of a new factory. I think the Minister is doing the right thing in extending the two factories instead of erecting a third.

There again I want to sound a warning note to anybody who knows anything about this business. Surely Deputies do not think that the demand for cement will continue at its present rate? There will come a time when there must be a slowing down in the demand and if we had four or five factories half idle, we would be in a difficult position. At present we are making up the leeway lost during the war. That is another factor which possibly weighed with the Minister when taking the decision to extend the two factories rather than build a third one.

I regret that certain remarks were made here—I do not know whether the Deputy meant them or not—about the danger of the workers looking for increased pay. Many Deputies are very careful in speaking of this—I do not know for what reason. Whether Deputy Lemass really meant to convey to the workers that now is the time to look for increases I do not know. Why he should have done that or why he should have invited the Minister to take the initiative in having a conference with the workers, passes my comprehension.

As a worker myself, having some experience of workers and knowing what hard work is, I do not think it is the Minister's duty at all to go out to meet trouble like that. The leaders of the trade unions are very well able to look after the interests of their workers and there is no necessity for Deputies to make suggestions of the kind that were made. There are certain implications in those suggestions which would not be for the good of the country. If Deputy Lemass thinks it is good national policy to play politics in a thing like this, I want to warn him that he is playing with dangerous weapons. I say this deliberately and honestly to all concerned, the workers especially—and I would love to be speaking to 30,000 of them now down in College Green and not here—that at the moment it will require the co-operation of them all to carry on our transport concern. No one knows better than the ex-Minister that the very undertaking of which he was the head is in a bad position at the moment, not through his fault—and one just cannot change over the responsibility overnight to the present Minister. The financial position of that concern cannot be denied—and no one has alluded to it in this debate when talking about increasing salaries or wages. I would say to all those engaged in that undertaking, that it is in their interests to take its present financial position into account. They must also bear in mind how long the people—the humble labourer in the bogs, the small farmer on the mountainside—can afford to put up an annual sum to the tune already mentioned here and which had to be provided by the Minister for Finance. If we bear those things in mind, we will think twice before we start to play politics in a matter of such major importance to the future of this country.

The reason I speak so strongly on this is that I want to safeguard, if possible, the workers—and there are 15,000 to 20,000 of them. I believe in the dictum that the continuity of employment is always more important than either wages or conditions. We need that continuity and therefore I regret the tone of certain speeches in dealing with this matter. It is too serious to be made the plaything of politics or the subject of challenges to the present Minister. We need the co-operation of all concerned and, if that comes, please God we will be able to get over the difficulties that face us at the moment and which can be surmounted and solved only by everybody acting together.

I think Deputy Coburn misinterprets the whole approach to the subject by Deputy Lemass. It was for the reason that the Trade Union Congress themselves demanded the lifting of the ceiling and the reopening of the issues with regard to wages, that Deputy Lemass asked the Minister if he had gone into this matter and commented on the fact that he made no reference whatever to it in his speech. He urged him to go into it very carefully and to go into conference about it, so that all those evils to which the Deputy has referred would be avoided. The attitude of the Government seems to be one of vagueness, of not making any statements on certain very vital questions like this. The statement by the trade unions indicated their feeling that there is a rise in the cost of living although the Minister for Finance when pressed on the point on his Budget statement said that inflation was about somewhere or other but that it was not here. His attitude was one completely vague and evasive. The Government must themselves have known for months that there was always the menace of a further devaluation and a further rise in the cost of living. They do not seem to have given any attention whatever to a study of commodity prices and I suppose really that the rise in commodity prices takes them by surprise.

I am not going to pursue what to some extent has been the main issue in the debate because it has been very well put by Deputy Lemass and others. I rose mainly to speak about a few subjects which arise on the Estimate, one of which concerns very much my own constituency, that is, tourism. Although he is taking these Estimates at the same time as he is taking the Supplementary Estimate the Minister did not make any statement about exactly what will be done with the Supplementary Estimate and it leaves us in a rather difficult position. So far the policy has been a very negative one. I know that very much to my cost as a Deputy because Tramore has been completely neglected although it was picked out as one of the first places to be developed.

A very considerable sum, over £13,000, was spent on draining and preparing large playgrounds there. A company was started which I think has since disappeared, the property of which the Tourist Board owns at present but is has been completely neglected. They purchased space not far from the railway near the shore which is to be a centre of amusment. They took over premises from people who occupied them and cleared them as well as a hall which was quite a nice hall for entertainments. It has been completely neglected and the windows are broken so that it cannot be used by the people. The body who look after Tramore, the Commissioners, offered to purchase some of the premises from them and were refused. The place has been left there and it must do great injury to Tramore for this season as indeed it did last season. I want to know what the attitude of the Government is and especially what they are going to do about Tramore.

It may be that they are overshadowed still by the statements which were made originally by the Taoiseach and the Minister for External Affairs. Just before the general election in December 1947 the present Taoiseach said:—

"The number of tourists and their total expenditure in the country must be controlled and reduced. The tourist industry played an important part in their balance of payments and was of great advantage to the country in normal times, but until the danger of inflation was overcome and the cost of living substantially reduced the trade must be limited, as the expenditure by tourists played a large part in increasing the inflation and driving up the domestic price level and the cost of living."

The Minister for External Affairs said something very much on similar lines in November 1947:—

"There are other methods of raising taxation. One of the reasons for the increased cost of living, certainly in our cities, is the influx of tourists, of foreigners, who, quite naturally, come in here because they can buy more food and various luxury articles. Why not tax the tourist traffic? Why not have a purchase tax on luxury articles? Why not tax the exports taken away by these tourists? I suggest that if a purchase tax were put on luxury articles it would yield a return more than enough to meet adequate food subsidies."

It was a complete misunderstanding because there is plenty of food in this country which tourists purchase and consume in the country and they provided the very best market for farmers to sell their produce to. That must have little or no effect on the cost of living.

The attitude of the Government still seems to be overshadowed by that consideration although Mr. McMullan challenged them in his statement for making these attacks on the tourist trade and although American experts had such influence on the Minister for External Affairs in connection with Economic Co-operation Administration that he was forced to admit that it was the best dollar-earning trade that we have. He admitted that both in January and in June, 1949.

There is no policy regarding tourism. If there were it would not merely affect the Department of Industry and Commerce, although that would naturally be the centre for it, but also the Department of Education and broadcasting. The Department of Education is in charge of the museum and the art galleries and you could use broadcasting for the purpose of getting tourists to come and in developing all the cultural aspects which are so much developed in other countries. Take even the publicity side. The amount spent by the Tourist Board is about the same as would be spent by one city in Britain on trying to induce visitors to come to it.

There is one other matter about which I should like to ask the Minister. He has not indicated what his attitude is towards the very strong representations which were made to him with reference to the whole traffic of daily and Sunday Press and publications. It was pointed out to him that the total amount of imported papers is about 23,000,000, with the result that Irish publications are going out of existence altogether. Over 5,000,000 daily papers are coming into the country; Sunday papers amount to 20,000,000, and periodicals 22,900,000. Novels are coming in to the amount this year of 742,000. There is a tax on daily papers. Does the Minister propose to quota these papers? There is no tax whatever on the Sunday newspapers. I suggest that if we are to keep anything like an Irish mentality in this country, some strong policy should be adopted by the Department in order to protect our publications in this country, such as they are. In other countries of the same size as this country, there are far more native papers and publications of various kinds produced and we are overshadowed and crushed by the influx of these into this country. The Minister himself, at a meeting of industrialists and trade union leaders on 21st April, 1949, drew attention to this factor in these words:

"One of the most difficult problems facing industrialists was to meet the high pressure publicity and advertising from British competitors. It would be impossible for individual firms to meet that on their own. British manufacturers had an immense home market and they had the advantage of the publicity and advertising in British daily papers and in the weekly and monthly magazines circulating here."

so that he is not unaware of the problem and it is very disappointing to find that he has not taken any measures to protect our industry here.

The greater part of the debate on this Estimate has been devoted to a discussion of the recent announcement by the Trade Union Congress in relation to the demand of the workers for increased wages. The attention of the House was focussed on this point by the statement by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is a good thing that it should be discussed. Listening to the debate, it seems to me that the breadth and scope of the Estimate is so great that it raises what appear to me to be fundamental issues so far as industry is concerned, the payment of workers and the functions of the Industrial Development Authority. It is perfectly obvious that we have in the House two minds on the question of the development of Irish industry. Apprehension has been expressed with regard to the Industrial Development Authority from the point of view of those who fear what they describe as undue interference with industry. Deputy Coburn indicated his view by saying that he believed the less control there was, the better. I think the Minister in setting up this authority took a very effective step, so far as the promotion of Irish industry is concerned, and a step that was abreast of the times. Deputy Timoney remarked that the days of laissez faire are gone, but I do not think that everybody appreciates that yet. Very many Deputies are still living in that condition of mind created by what is known as the Manchester school of thought.

In my view, industry in this country can prosper and go ahead only if it keeps in step with developments taking place in democratic countries in most parts of the world. The concept of what is described as free enterprise appears to the minds of many as the untrammelled right of the employers to build their industries in whatever manner they think fit, without any regard whatever for the public good and with little or no regard for the rights of those who make the industry, the workers. The attitude of mind which prompts that opinion is, in my view, completely out of date. It represents no more than a reversion to the old capitalist dogma of the survival of the fittest. The use of the phrase "free competition", which is really an abuse, is very often no more than covering up of the merciless exploitation of workers.

There must be control of industry in this country as of industry in every country—control for the public good. Employers in this country, because of their privileged position, must be made to realise—many of them do realise it, but very many of them do not—that their primary duty is to the nation, that they have the privilege of producing and manufacturing goods for the use of the nation and that their activities must therefore be subject to the national good. To talk in terms such as those which were used to-night in statements to the effect that the less control, the better, reflects a complete lack of appreciation of what is happening at present in this country and in Europe generally. Any examination of the condition of the peoples of progressive countries will show that standards of living can only be maintained by a degree of control on the part of the Government, and, in so far as the Industrial Development Authority will exercise that control, or will exercise direction and leadership in relation to industry, it will be a very good thing and a very much needed thing.

I do not think that Deputy Lemass in his contribution to this debate served this country too well by suggesting that it was the function of this Government or any Government to give leadership, as it were, to the workers' movement. I think it would be an impertinence on the part of the Government to usurp the legitimate functions of the trade unions. We have had too much in the past of the policy of workers being told what the ceiling of wages is to be and how much they will be allowed to earn. It is a good thing that the present Minister has not assumed the right to dictate to the workers what they should do in present circumstances. The trade unions of this country are very well fitted to determine what is for the good of their members and the nation.

The trade unions of Ireland are more representative of the nation than any other organisation. They embrace persons of every degree of political thought and their object and ideal is the material improvement and welfare of those whom they represent. I do not think it could be said that they are led by irresponsible people. I am aware of the fact that, when they put forward the recent proposal to terminate the agreement whereby workers received an increase of 11/- within the past two years, they were fully appreciative of the consequences of their action. They also understood that employers can very well afford to lift the ceiling without endangering in the least the national economy. It is merely raising hares to suggest that there is any need for Government intervention in this situation.

The question of the increase in the cost of living is a very debatable one. Before the advent of this Government, whenever opponents of the Government then in office made any attack because of the increase in the cost of living, or when trade union representatives appeared before the Labour Court in an endeavour to establish a case for higher wages because of the increase in the cost of living, they were invariably referred by spokesmen of the Government or representatives of the Labour Court, as the case might be, to the cost-of-living index figure. The cost-of-living index figure has remained stable, it could be said, since the advent of this Government. At the same time, those of us who have had close contact with the problem of the wages of workers in relation to living costs, are aware of the fact that in many respects the cost of living continues to increase, not to the same degree as during the years of the war.

Fundamentally, Deputy Lemass's approach was wrong, in this respect, that he proceeded on the assumption that many people proceed upon, that the 1939 rate of wages, which is regarded as the standard by which present rates should be judged, was a living wage and that we should accept that as representing a fair standard of living. In fact in 1939 the vast majority of the workers were not receiving a living wage. So that when present rates of wages of workers are compared with the 1939 rates and the present cost of living is compared with the 1939 cost of living, it should be always borne in mind that in 1939, with the exception of some of the skilled trades and highly organised trades, workers were not in receipt of wages adequate to meet their living problems.

I feel that, in present circumstances, trade unions are very well justified in seeking an increase, in seeking a revision of the agreement which has existed. It must be remembered that that agreement was a purely voluntary agreement as between the unions and the employers' organisations. It has been lived up to by the unions and has been honoured by them, much to the disadvantage of workers in industry.

During the war, a very definite ceiling was placed on wages. Machinery was in operation whereby employers, no matter how much profit they made, were given plenty of opportunity to evade the responsibility of increasing the wages of their workers. The unions now, at least, are free to negotiate as best they can and, in taking the step they have taken, they are doing no more than their duty to the people whom they represent.

I want to refer to a number of other matters which have been mentioned by the Minister in his introductory speech on the Estimate. The first is a matter that has been mentioned by many Deputies, namely, rural electrification. It is good to learn that the rural electrification scheme will be pushed in the coming year and that the policy of bringing electricity to rural areas will be pursued with vigour. I would draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the cost of electricity to people in rural areas is almost prohibitive. I have had cases of cottiers in County Dublin who are being asked to pay a cost per unit which is 100 per cent. more than the price city dwellers pay. That is a hardship. The cottiers to whom I refer are either agricultural workers or county council workers, whose wages are from £3 to £4 per week, whereas city consumers, being industrial workers or white-collar workers, have a very much higher wage or salary rate. If rural electrification is to become popular and is to be regarded as more than a necessary evil, it is essential that something should be done in connection with the charge for electricity to people living in cottages in rural areas. A similar case might be made in respect of many of the small landholders, who find it very difficult to meet the charge imposed by the Electricity Supply Board for the installation of this very much needed amenity.

The Minister referred to the turf industry. It is well that he devoted a considerable part of his speech to the Government's proposals in relation to the turf industry. On many occasions, in the House, I have endeavoured to bring the Minister's attention to what I consider to be a basic problem so far as this industry is concerned, that is, the question of wage rates in the industry. Now that all the tumult and the shouting has died in regard to the hand-won turf industry, now that it has been generally accepted by everybody, including the members of the Opposition, that the hand-won turf industry was foredoomed to failure, in any event——

That is not so.

It is so.

——and that it was no more than an emergency measure at best, and now that the present Minister is pursuing a policy of bringing the maximum amount of mechanisation to the bogs, which is the only way turf can be produced economically in this country, we can discuss this thing, I think, in a less heated atmosphere than was possible a couple of years ago.

The potential employment available on the bogs, in my view, is practically unlimited. It is limited only, if it is limited at all, in so far as moneys provided by the State may be limited for the initial opening of the bogs and for the purchase of machinery for the working of the bogs.

The history of turf production, in so far as the workers are concerned, has been an unhappy one. We have not yet reached the position where we can say we have succeeded in convincing the workers that participation in turf production can be for them a beneficial experience, financially and in other respects. We have not, in other words, succeeded in making it a popular occupation, an occupation that would be sought after. Until we succeed in doing that, I do not think we will make a success of this industry; I do not think we will be laying the foundation of ultimate success for the turf industry.

When I say this industry has had an unhappy history, I need only mention that in the heyday of the hand-won turf scheme, when men had no option but to go to Clonsast or Allenwood or Corduff South, or any of the other turf camps, and work there for 1/- or 1/1 an hour, when they had no rights in regard to wet time and when, in fact, they struck in defence of their rights to organise, efforts were made to starve them into submission. In those days of the hand-won turf scheme on the bogs of Kildare and Offaly, where turf was produced in greater quantity than in any other part of Ireland, we had the example of one worker, whose name I will not mention. His picture appeared in the Irish Press along with other pictures in a recruiting campaign to bring more workers to Kildare and Offaly. That worker produced 598 cubic metres of turf in 48 hours, the equivalent of four normal days' work for any man. He did four times as much work in one day as the other workers could do, and that was in the heyday of the hand-won turf industry. He kept six wheelers going. The ordinary turf-worker would be put to his best to keep three or four wheelers going. That man came back the following year, but he could not pass the doctor because his heart was strained.

That is a serious indictment of the system of turf production which has gone on. It is a piece rate system entirely and workers are compelled, by virtue of the fact that the time rate paid on the bogs is and has been so low, to go on a piece rate. There has been an unhappy and an undesirable situation as far as turf workers are concerned ever since this industry was stopped. I think it would be a good thing if more people went to see what has happened and what is happening on the bogs of Kildare, Offaly and elsewhere. It would be a good thing if people went down there in the bad times of the year, if they would choose a bad evening, because they could see the night shift going on from 12 to 8 o'clock in the morning. Those men have to go out on the bog to work, with an east wind blowing. People can see them sweating, no matter how cold it is, when they are working the De Smithsky and the Ackerman machines. They are working on a piece work basis, with the result that only the best can survive and make good wages.

So long as we have that situation existing we are not going to make a success of turf production. I do not think it is fair that only the most perfect physical specimens, the best types in this country, should be catered for by Bord na Móna. That is what is happening under the present system. I think there should be an adequate time rate paid to men working on turf production. They are receiving 1/4d. an hour and that is not adequate; it is not even as much as is paid to farm workers in many areas, and God knows, farm workers are paid low enough. I repeat that 1/4d. an hour to turf workers is inadequate.

If we are to make a success of the turf industry something will have to be done about it. The Minister indicated in reply to a question some time ago that 80 per cent. of the workers on the bogs are working on piece rates and are earning relatively good wages. The question of the wages being good or relatively good is a matter of opinion. There is this fact to be remembered. that in order to earn substantial wages in the employment of Bord na Móna the workers are required to put out a far greater volume of work than they would be asked to do in any other industry in this country. They are called upon to show a far greater degree of effort.

I am aware that Bord na Móna has its difficulties, but I think the difficulties it has in relation to the cost of production are not insuperable. I do not think, for instance, that it is fair that a figure of 39/- per ton should be acceptable to Bord na Móna as payment from the Electricity Supply Board for turf provided for the generating station. It seems to me that that figure is not an economical one. It does not afford the board an opportunity to provide the workers concerned with a fair wage. In the long run it simply means that the man who is working down in Clonsast, or in Allenwood or Boora, or Littleton or Lyracrompane, or in any other part of the country in which he may be, is paying by his efforts and his sweat for the provision of electricity to people who in many cases may be far better off than he is from the point of view of material well-being.

I think that matter should be looked into and some system should be found whereby, if the industry is unable to pay a higher time rate, some means of subsidisation should be introduced. I suggested on another occasion that the Minister might consider imposing a tax, a nominal tax, upon coal imports. If a nominal tax, say a tax of 1/- per ton were imposed on coal imports, it would provide something in the region of £100,000 for the Exchequer. I do not see why that could not be done without causing any increase whatever in the retail price of coal. I think it could be done, without imposing any hardship on the consumer, by requiring the middle-men in the industry to pay that 1/-. It would not break them and it would be a pretty big thing so far as the turf industry is concerned, if that amount of money could each year be devoted to the purpose of improving the lot of the turf workers.

I hope that the Minister, when replying, will give some indication of how soon we may expect developments in so far as the provision of houses for turf workers is concerned because, allied to the question of wages for turf workers, there is the question of the provision of proper housing. A hostel life is not a natural life for men. We have been dependent for the production of turf on men who are accommodated in hostels and there are problems connected with such a life of which anybody who has seen anything of hostel life is very well aware. It is not a natural thing to bring three or four hundred young men out into the middle of a rural area, remote from towns and from places which they are accustomed to frequent, many of them from towns or cities. It is not a healthy thing and in time, if the industry is eventually to become part and parcel of our national set-up, as I believe it will, I think that hostel life will have completely to disappear. By speeding up the building of houses, by building turf villages in Kildare, Offaly, Tipperary and elsewhere where we have hostels at present, the Minister will be taking a step in the right direction so far as the workers are concerned.

The Industrial Development Authority as we know is also charged with the responsibility of securing the establishment of new factories in areas which have hitherto been undeveloped. In this connection, I should like to draw the Minister's attention to one problem which is likely to arise, because it has already arisen in County Dublin. I think it will be found that demands will be made upon the authority and upon the Minister for the establishment of factories in villages or towns where services in the shape of water and sewerage are not available. Adequate services of this kind are essential as we know to the promotion of industry and the establishment of factories.

I think the Minister might consider the possibility of empowering the authority to grant or to allocate funds, or even to lend money, to local authorities to provide these services in areas such as I have described. I have in mind the proposal to establish a factory at Swords, County Dublin, where the water and sewerage services are completely inadequate and where the cost of providing such services, if imposed on the local authority, would mean a very great burden. I think something should be done, either partially or totally, in the matter of the provision of moneys for this purpose by the authority and the authority should be empowered to do it. I have nothing further to add except to say that I hope my remarks, particularly in relation to the workers in the turf industry, will be considered by the Minister and that he will give, when he is replying, some indication as to whether anything will be done in this matter of the inadequate time rate paid to workers on the bogs.

It is rather strange, when we hear so much about industrial development and about new industries being started, that out of the £12,000,000 odd which is being borrowed in this country for capital charges, only £20,000 of that is being given to the Department of Industry and Commerce and that all this talk of new industries and the development of existing ones has a counterblast in the words used by the Minister for Finance towards me when I raised this matter on the Budget, that "not one penny" of that £12,000,000 will go to the development of industry. I have in mind in speaking on this matter the position of a big industry set on foot by the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass, in the town of Cobh—the Irish steel industry. That, as Deputies are aware, was just started and opened in 1939, a week before the war broke out. It is at present giving full and decent employment to somewhere round 350 able-bodied men. Lying there side by side with the present mill is three-quarters of the machinery required for a sheet mill, to make provision for supplies of corrugated iron in this country. It has been lying there since 1939. There was no hope from 1939 to 1947 of getting the balance of that machinery. I asked the Minister here recently if he had any intention of completing that mill and of installing the balance of the machinery as the mill would give employment to roughly from 150 to 200 more workers, who would be employed in producing something for which we have to pay the foreigner now. If the Minister wants some suggestions as to the extension of industries, there is one for him.

I think the Minister would be well advised if he took the full plans that were prepared for Irish steel and let the whole lot of them go through in order to give the employment that was originally intended to numbers of our able-bodied men. There is a present of an industry for the Minister. He will have no trouble at all with it. It would be well worth the while of his Industrial Development Authority to go down and investigate the position and get the industry going. The previous Minister had his own intentions with regard to it. He had guaranteed the money for the completion of the sheet mill. That was somewhere around November, 1947. This is May, 1950. The industrial-drive men with the new ideas have come in.

The Minister spoke here of putting industries in 17 out of the Twenty-Six Countries. My thoughts immediately went down to Fermoy, to the condition in which that town is now and to the number of unemployed in the labour exchange there. I wonder when the Minister is giving out his next industry whether he would remember the condition of affairs there and send the industry down there. He should also cast his eye on Youghal. That also wants a heavy industry badly. He is aware of the need for extending the cement factories. Despite anything that may be said, I believe the Minister is right in extending the present ones rather than starting a new one.

Deputy Dunne advocated some degree of control by the Government. I think a little control is a good thing, but there is such a thing as overdoing it. There is another industry with which the Minister and I are very well acquainted, an industry that a colleague of his in the Cabinet was anxious to see going up the spout. I refer to the beet industry and to the fact that we are at present paying £12 per ton more for foreign sugar to the Formosans and the Cubans than we could afford to pay to our own producers, either in the field or in the factory. This year we are bringing in 36,000 tons of the stuff that the Deputies enjoy when they go down to the restaurant here-a brown looking substance that is called "sugar". That substance is costing the Irish people £12 per ton more than would be paid for Irish sugar produced in our own factories.

That is the question. I believe the Minister has some control. Did the Minister receive any suggestions as regards price? If so, what was the result? We are paying the Formosans to-day the equivalent of £6 a ton for beet. Why? With £7 10s. per ton for the same article produced by our Irish farmers I could bring into being the Utopia about which Deputy Dunne spoke a short time ago. I could pay £5 2s. 6d. to every farm worker engaged in the production of beet if we got another 30/- more per ton for beet. For that 36,000 tons of sugar £480,000 more is being paid than it would cost to produce the same quantity of sugar in an Irish factory from an Irish field with Irish labour. There has been talk about the condition of affairs in Córas Iompair Éireann. I make the Minister a present of this; there is room in the four sugar factories for to produce 80,000 acres of beet. These four factories could handle that quantity every year. At present prices the poor old farmer would get £4,063,000 out of it. If you buy from the Formosans the same quantity will cost £7,200,000—that is £3,000,000 odd more. These are the factories we are going to blow up; the beet will go up the spout after the wheat and the peat.

Did you ever hear of Carlow?

I will come to the Deputy's tomatoes in a few minutes. We will deal with that industry, and I will go from that to the dual purpose hen.

Before the Deputy goes from beet, he might make a reference to all the years during which we paid a substantially high price to the Irish farmer for beet when we could have imported sugar from abroad much more cheaply.

I can inform the Minister that he will find it difficult to get a decenter or more generous Minister for Industry and Commerce than was his predecessor. I think Deputy Dunne let him off very lightly. I think it is the farmers' loss that we had a change. I am sorry to have to say that.

The farmers know that well.

As one who did his little bit to drive up that exorbitant price to which the Minister has referred, 19/8d. in two years, I must say it was not a bad job at all.

And the Deputy will fill the four factories at a price.

And the Deputy will be presenting a bill, with the help of Providence, next Monday morning for an increased price due to the increased cost of production.

The Deputy will fill the four factories at a price.

The Deputy will fill the four factories at the cost of production, plus a fair profit.

Would you fill Tuam?

The Minister for Agriculture took the responsibility for filling Tuam and I would have filled Tuam if the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Donnellan, had not gone down and stated that he had not an acre of beet as beet-growing was slavery and his men would leave him if he grew it. Let us know where we are about Tuam and so forth. However, we shall have an opportunity to discuss all that in a week or a fortnight's time when the Minister for Agriculture introduces his Estimate. I am now dealing with the position under which you have to go abroad and pay to the foreigner £12 a ton more than you would give your own people. Mind you, even at that you got it cheap because the sugar company sold one cargo of it and made £18,000 profit. Then we talk about conditions here.

I heard my friend, Deputy Coburn on the benches opposite, talk a while ago about the little bit of a black market that is now being indulged in —of course, it is on the Turkish style now, backsheesh—3/6 a lb. for butter and so forth. I cannot forget that he said that anybody could live on the the ration except people who wanted luxury but there are other things which I cannot forget, either. I cannot forget the moving appeals I used to hear in this House, day after day and week after week, from the Deputies who were then in opposition but who now sit on the Government side of the House. They were for ever appealing to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that this class and that class and the other class should be given an extra ration of rationed commodities on account of the particular way in which they have to live.

The road worker, the fellow working on the turf—those poor fellows who had to leave their homes early in the morning and take extra tea and sugar and butter with them because they would have no opportunity of getting home for a meal until the evening. All these types were lined up and appeals were made on their behalf but what is their position now? We have an extra price operating in regard to unrationed sugar and the grain of tea and the extra price of 3/6 per lb. for butter— and then the price of milk is going to be reduced.

And the double ration at the subsidy price.

The double price.

Those are the things I should like to have considered and worked out here. I want to see employment in this country. I do not want to see the position—as referred to by Deputy Kissane to-day—whereby 47,000 of our young farm labourers have left the country in the last 12 months and we are going to the Formosans for sugar, to the Argentine for oats——

I thought it was for wheat.

——to Mesopotamia for barley and to the Sandwich Islands for the spuds. I do not approve of that condition of affairs at all. We have heard a lot, particularly from the Clann na Poblachta Party, about the flight from the land. They were mad on the flight from the land but the devil a bit do we hear about the flight from the land now since they have come here.

They are building houses.

The dickens of a flight. Even the 150 or 200 workers who were employed out there in that famous factory for the production of tomatoes —are they not all gone? And now we are getting Dutch tomatoes.

I suppose there is no hope of the Deputy going?

I have been in this House a long time. I have seen a lot of gossoons like yourself come in here for a time and then go away again, and I expect that the same thing will happen to you. When I look around me at all the new faces I wonder to myself and cannot help thinking.

The Deputy must come to the Estimate and deal with it.

I apologise; I cannot help it if I am interrupted.

There should not be any interruptions either.

There seems to be a mixed grill in the Labour Party now. Deputy Dunne spoke here for the past hour and he said that the trade unions are right to look for an increase for these people. But Deputy Davin, speaking in this House yesterday, said that Deputy Lemass might be right when he said that the cost of certain commodities had been increased, but increases given to the workers had more than offset any increase in essential commodities. I read that in to-day's Irish Press. If that is so, what is all the shouting about in relation to trade union increases—or is Deputy Davin trying to lead a break in the ranks, or anything of that description? Deputy Dunne, on the one hand, says that the workers will have to get a better do and, on the other hand, we have Deputy Davin saying how well off they are.

I must also express agreement with Deputy Dunne—it is very seldom I agree with him—in his references to rural electrification and to the charges imposed particularly on what you might call the poorest class of the community—or as my friend, Deputy Lehane, would say, the depressed classes—the unfortunate farm labourer. I think the charges are too high and that it is impossible for a man who is working on the land to-day to dream of having rural electrification. He has first of all to meet the capital charge for wiring and so forth, but he is not in a position to cope with that expense because of the low wage which, unfortunately, we have to pay him. That situation should be met.

There was talk this afternoon, in connection with technical assistance about a team of experts being brought over here from America. I am sure that these experts, if they were put on the job of making tea out of Deputy Dillon's Iraq barley for his cannibal queen would make a fairly good job of it. Probably it would not drive up the cost of living as high as it is gone up at present in regard to bacon. Undoubtedly this bad barley which has been imported and which is now used in the admixture scheme and fed to pigs is responsible for the fact that it is impossible to fatten them. I do not know whether the Minister is responsible for the importation of grain or not.

The Deputy is perfectly aware that I am not.

I am glad to hear that.

If you grew barley at home there would be no necessity to bring it in from outside.

It is very well the Minister knows what the position was in County Tipperary and even in his own town of Clonmel last September, October and November in regard to barley.

There must be no discussion now on barley.

I do not want that discussion now but the Minister interrupted me.

The Deputy will have an opportunity of discussing that point on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture.

If the Minister had an opportunity he could tell the Deputy a lot about it.

I shall be expecting the Minister, therefore, to come in and make a speech on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture.

Indeed you will not.

The Minister does not want to discuss agriculture.

I could discuss agriculture.

If so then we can have a good day.

He is ashamed of his colleague.

I am not, but I would not wish to have the Deputy as a colleague of mine.

There is another matter I want to refer to and that is the manner in which those who deliver milk from door to door and on every day of the week in Cork City have been treated. They have got no increase in pay since 1939.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce has nothing to do with that.

I beg your pardon, Sir, he has and, that is what I am going to speak about. When they came up to the Minister's Department to look for an increase all they could get was one-sixth of a penny per gallon.

Who got the one-sixth?

The milk retailers in Cork City.

What has the Minister for Industry and Commerce to do with that?

The amazing part of it is that he has. This new Government, sponsored by Labour, out of the generosity of their hearts, gave one-sixth of a penny per gallon to the fellow who did not get one halfpenny of an increase since 1939. Deputy Hickey and my colleague, Deputy McGrath, get up here and they make the welkin ring asking why these unfortunate fellows will not travel around delivering milk twice a day instead of once after getting this increase of one-sixth of a penny which was fixed by the Minister. Deputy Dunne has talked about the conditions of those who work on the bogs and of forestry workers and others. I am speaking for those unfortunate people who have been waiting patiently ten years, with the cost of living mounting up around them, and the only increase they can get is one-sixth of a penny.

The Deputy has not gone out of the milk business all the same.

We are a long-suffering tribe and we are living in hopes that some day something will remove the Minister for Agriculture. We have been hearing a lot of talk about the increase in prices and the increase in the cost of living. Is it because milk has something to do with the farmer that no increase can be given? There seems to be a general idea in the Civil Service that if a thing has anything to do with agriculture you cannot get a farthing or a halfpenny of an increase.

If the Deputy will allow me I would like to intervene for a moment. The Deputy has stated that the only increase given on the price of milk since 1939 was one-sixth of a penny in the gallon. The price of milk has been increased by 65 per cent. as compared with pre-war days.

The Minister is completely mistaken. I am not saying one word about the price of milk. If in order, I certainly will talk about the price of milk.

That is what the Deputy has been talking about.

I have been talking about the unfortunate man who takes a gallon in his hand and delivers milk from door to door. He knocks at the Minister's door and at the doors of other gents like him and wakes them at 10 o'clock in the morning and says: "Here is your pint of milk, sir." The Minister gives that unfortunate devil an increase of one-sixth of a penny per gallon. That is all he has got since 1939.

You are twisting now.

I am not.

The Deputy has been caught out badly.

The Deputy has not but the Minister has. Those men have an association. I would ask the Minister to go to the trouble of reading the letters which the secretary of their association has written to my colleague Deputy Hickey. They have been appearing in the Cork Examiner for the past few weeks, and they are about this one-sixth of a penny.

Deputy Hickey has no milk to sell.

Will the Deputy over there keep quiet? That is the unfortunate position. We hear all this cry about the increase in the cost of living. I would like the Minister and his colleagues in the Cabinet to realise that the costs of living, so far as the farmer and his workers are concerned, have also been increased, and that they will have to be reflected in increased prices. I know that I would not be in order in dealing with the price of milk except in so far as it affects the cost of living. I do say very definitely that a depressed class is being created in this country. If Deputies want proof of that it is to be found in the 47,000 people in that class who have cleared off the land in the past 12 months. We have the position that I have described as regards sugar and other commodities, and now we are left with oatmeal at 8/2 per stone.

There are no wheedlers in it, anyway.

I know that the Minister is a sound judge of oats. I would ask him to interview his colleague, Deputy Hickey, who took a sample from me when I got it from Grain Importers, Limited. I brought it into the Library and you could blow it off your hand. That is the kind of stuff that this nation is paying £26 a ton for to the Argentine when last year the Government would not pay 30/- a barrel to the Irish farmer.

That was the residue of what Deputy Lemass brought from Canada.

It is not; it is what Deputy Dillon brought. I can assure the Minister that it will take a lot of work to make a stone of oatmeal out of that stuff.

I invite Deputy Rooney to do what I did, to phone Grain Importers, Ltd., and ask them for samples, and they would be only too glad to give them. Let him see them for himself and produce them here. I challenge him to do that. That is where the money went and where it is going. It is this condition of affairs that is driving up the cost of living.

That statement repeated after every irrelevancy will not make it relevant.

I suggest that there is a definite increase in the cost of living.

Did you see the figure?

Any amount of figures.

The Deputy might be allowed to make his own speech.

The increase is caused by the fact that conditions in the rural districts have become so depressed that we have now to depend absolutely on the foreigner for essentials. It is that dependence on the foreigner that put us in the position of having to pay s/2d. a stone for oatmeal and that is compelling us to pay £12 a ton more for sugar to the foreigner than the price at which it can be produced here. It is that dependence and that uncertainty created in our agricultural world that is driving up the cost of living.

Is the Deputy advocating that I should control the prices of the farmer's produce, to keep down the cost of living?

The Minister and his Party made promises. Is the Minister going to live up to the promises?

The Deputy is advocating that the farmer should get for his produce the cost of production plus a fair profit.

He is getting it now, for the first time—and the Deputy know that.

He is not. That is the difference. He is not getting it.

The Deputy should have heard Deputy Childers, who was talking about the extraordinarily high prices the farmers were getting.

He was not. I was here when he spoke.

Have the Deputies finished?

The Deputy has continued very long on agricultural policy. He should come now to the Estimate before the House.

I am coming, Sir, or still dealing with the increased cost of living.

The Chair is of a very different opinion.

I now come to the industrial Vote.

The Deputy is seeing it for the first time.

Under rural electrification, I notice a reduction of £299,000 in the Vote. I wonder what is the reason for that?

The Minister gave it.

To what use was this £325,000 put last year? The scoring down has gone beyond all hope. That sum of money could be spent very advisedly in doing something for the cottiers, who find it physically impossible now to pay even the basic charge for putting in the line, not to mind the wiring. Deputy Dunne complained about the unfortunate man with £5 a week wages, unable to do it, so how can anyone expect the ordinary agricultural labourer, with only £3 a week and six or seven kids, to find enough money to pay the basic charge for rural electrification and afterwards face the other charge for wiring—two capital charges on him? One would think that some of this money would be devoted on that line. Some of the money being saved on this Estimate should go in that way. It would be far more essential in that way. I do not wish to delay the House unduly, but this is perhaps one of the most important Estimates that we will have to deal with.

One would not imagine that by listening to the Deputy.

If I had not hoped that the Minister would relish greatly the words of advice I have given him here, I would not have bothered speaking. It is to try and help him that I came. I have made the Minister a present, on which I hope to congratulate him, if he and I meet here on the Industrial Estimate again and if he is over there and I am here.

There will be no doubt about my being over here, whatever about the Deputy being over there.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Barr
Roinn