Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 1 Jun 1950

Vol. 121 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Vote 50—Industry and Commerce (Resumed).

I wish to make a plea to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to which, I hope, he will accede. Nobody, I think, on either this side of the House or on the Government side can look with complacency or satisfaction on the present state of industry and commerce in this country. It is rather a sad commentary on almost 30 years of home Government that we find that we are actually poorer in the most valuable of all materials—that is, the human person, the number of human beings—than we were on the day we took over the Twenty-Six Counties from the foreigner. That, to my mind, is due to the fact that we have not made the strides that we should have made in the sphere of industry. When we read of the industrial and trade development of this country during the period of Grattan's Parliament and consider the immense expansion that took place then, it must make all thinking Irishmen feel uneasy to find themselves in the position in which we are in at the present time. The whole matter needs very careful investigation to see what just has been holding up development and what should be done to promote development now.

There is no doubt that, since the passing of the Act of Union, this country has been like a one-armed man, and a one-armed person is a very handicapped person in the struggle for existence, particularly when that one arm can be paralysed any day at all at the will of another person. That is exactly the position in which we are in. We must have a better balancing arm than we have to our agricultural arm. I know that there are very great difficulties to be overcome. I know perfectly well that a good deal of the period in which we have had control of our own affairs has been a disturbed period. Certainly we could not expect to make a great deal of progress during the years of the world war, but surely for the last two or three years, when things became rather normal and when raw materials were becoming available, the opportunity has been there to do something much beyond what had been done up to that time. Then we had the great advantage that we never enjoyed before— Marshall Aid. I think that Marshall Aid has been largely misapplied in its use.

My plea to the Minister is that for the development of his own Department and for the expansion of industry in this country, he should insist on getting a very large portion of that Marshall Aid. I do not think that he should allow an erratic Minister to collar practically the whole thing and to misapply it in the development of land that is very costly to develop and which, when brought into production, will have to be maintained in production at a very heavy cost. When the means to do that are not there, that land will be liable to relapse into decay and into disuse whereas, on the other hand, if the same sum of money were applied to the purchase of first-rate machinery for the promotion of the industrial arm, we would benefit even the farmers very much more than they are being benefited by the present use of Marshall Aid because we would create a home market and a purchasing power that would leave the farmers able to carry out such reclamation and to bring into fertility such land as would be necessary.

When I hear a Deputy like Deputy Beegan giving his views on this matter I listen with very great respect indeed. I must say that it is very disheartening to find our people still fleeing from the countryside, to find that our schools in the rural areas are becoming smaller and the attendance lowering steadily and to find that congregations are becoming smaller. In the towns, the position is not a whole lot better because we see people in the towns disposing of their property — whether voluntarily or through necessity I do not know. We see people who are not Irish and who have no traditions behind them acquiring this property, even in the towns. It is not a source of satisfaction, and I think it should not be a source of satisfaction to any thinking Irishman, to see that vacuum which is created both by the flight from the land and the weakening of the native position in the town, filled by a large influx of people such as we see coming into the country at present.

I feel that the time may be pretty near at hand when those who pay the piper will call the tune, when those people will exert an influence, a power, especially employing power, and a power of patronage, altogether beyond their numerical strength. I do not think it is good.

Here we have for the first time an opportunity of financing industrial development. That opportunity of financing industry in such a way that control will not be handed over to foreigners is being lost. I know that we have safeguarded the bulk of our capital to some extent, but control has been given over to a great extent to foreigners. I do not think that the original idea is working out on the basis on which it was intended to work. Very often the people who enter the industrial sphere here have much bigger interests abroad and there is a tendency to subordinate their interests here to the bigger interests they have elsewhere. I would like to see 100 per cent. Irish control of our industries. I know that that is not possible and I am not objecting to the introduction of foreign capital for development purposes here, but I think we should take every opportunity of encouraging our own people to fully finance industrial undertakings in so far as they can do it. It may, not have been possible to do that in the past. The present Government has a better chance of doing it now if it applies the funds to which I have referred to that purpose.

Some of us have rather a defeatist attitude towards industrial expansion. Some of us think the country is too poor and too small to hope for anything in the nature of large-scale industrial expansion. Denmark, Holland, Belgium and Switzerland are smaller countries than ours; they are infinitely less fertile. Yet, they have achieved an amazing industrial development. They are able to carry comparatively heavy populations. I know that it is not fair to make a comparison between this country and Holland or Belgium. Belgium has very valuable possessions out-side; so has Holland. But what about Switzerland? I think something has been lacking in our policy up to this. I can guess at a few of the causes for that.

I think the whole problem should be examined with a view to formulating some long-term policy. That is why I make the plea that a better use should be made of Marshal Aid while it is available. I do not know if we have pursued the right lines in the past. We can never hope to rival the products of Britain in the matter of mass production. We have not got the population, the influence abroad or the means of pushing our goods which would make it possible for us to compete satisfactorily in the world markets. I think Switzerland provides us with a very good example which we might usefully follow. The Swiss insist on the high-grade article and the precision instrument. They have a high reputation for the excellence of their workmanship. It is difficult for a nation to push its industrial products without a mercantile fleet, an army or an navy, without foreign possessions and foreign spheres of influence. But there is one thing which will always win a market; that is the sheer excellence of the product itself. I would advise the Minister to establish a very high standard and then to protect industry as much as possible under that standard. That is the only chance for a small country like ours. If you do not do that, you may put on tariffs and create monopolies, but, in the long run, it is the people who will have to pay the piper.

The cost of living has been referred to. Every housewife knows that housekeeping costs have gone up. Some Deputies enumerated various, household requirements that have gone up in price. I would like to refer to the present high costs of boot and shoe repairs. These are a be heavy burden on any family exchequer particularly where there are young children. Even for ordinary repairs at the present time one pays almost as much as would have purchased a pair of boots or shoes pre-war. I ask the Minister to look into that matter.

Several Deputies referred to the high electricity charges cast upon people outside the city boundary. There is a real hardship in that respect in the Ballyfermot area. I appeal to the Minister to exert whatever influence he can to insist on some amelioration of the position there. The present charges cast a heavy burden on the people living in this particular district. I hope the Minister will bear in mind the various points to which I have referred.

Mr. Byrne

I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the possibility of increasing employment at the dockyard. For some years we have been told that there is a new print for a graving dock. A graving dock at the North Wall would give a good deal of employment. It would take a couple of years before it would be completed but, on completion, it would enable shipbuilding and ship repairs to be carried on to a greater extent than is the case in Dublin to-day. The building of the future graving dock is in the hands of the very able officials of the Port and Docks Board. They have an energetic and live board there and they have a splendid manager. I see no reason why we should not immediately go for the big things because in a new graving dock at the North Wall would be one of the biggest things ever done in the City of Dublin. It would provide employment for many people who at present occasionally go across to Birkenhead and the shipyards of Britain and Belfast. I see no reason why we should not be able to build and repair the biggest ships it is possible to think of in our city. I earnestly appeal to the Minister to see that the graving dock will be gone ahead with without delay.

May I assure the Deputy that neither my Department nor myself is responsible for the delay, if any, which may have taken place.

Mr. Byrne

I am aware of that but I desire to encourage the Minister to put on extra pressure. Before the Minister interrupted me I was just going to ask him if our steel factory is producing and whether it will be ready to supply the necessary materials when the time comes, if the blue prints are put into practice. In connection with the steel factory I should like to know if in the course of a year or two—I hope a year —the municipality, with the aid of the Government, will embark on the building of two new bridges—(1) a transport bridge beyond the Custom House and a bridge where the Metal Bridge is at present.

The construction of these two bridges would provide a good deal of employment but a large amount of steel and of cement would be required for the job. I hope the Minister will ensure that adequate supplies of steel and cement will be available and that a number of workers who are anxious to get work will be given employment on the construction of those bridges, employment which, I am sure, will last for a few years.

I want to refer now to the keen interest of everybody in this House in regard to tourist development. Anyone who went to the North Wall or to Dún Laoghaire last year or the year before and saw the conditions under which the tourists had to queue—some of them were our own people who came over for a holiday and were returning, and others were visitors— could not but have been very badly impressed. They could not fail to be badly impressed. The position at the North Wall was that passengers for the boats had to queue and that there was no waiting-room or toilet facilities of any kind. I understand that an effort had been made this year and I hope an improvement has been effected. I wish also to say, in reference to the treatment of passengers at the North Wall, that British Railways are in the same position over at Dún Laoghaire. Though very frequently there are queues a quarter of a mile long, no rest-room nor washing facilities, where women and their children can wait, are provided. These travellers must naturally have a bad impression of things and they are bound to blame Ireland for it. These companies are controlled to a certain extent from across the water. I hope the Minister will ensure, as I believe he will, that travellers will be given better facilities.

The question of travel tickets arises too. I have seen passengers from the other side of the water, who were encouraged by the Tourist Board to visit this country, having to queue up to get travel tickets in order to get home again. I know of instances where people had to queue for a day or a day and a half in Westmoreland Street to get a travel ticket and then told to return the next day. In the case of a person on holiday in this country who is told to come back the next day, it may very well be that he is down to his last five shillings. Because of that delay he will have to find an extra night's lodging somewhere and it is more or less the case that his friends have to come to his rescue. There ought to be a more satisfactory method of issuing travel tickets to those who are travelling to and from any part of Britain to our shores.

Deputy Larkin to-day made a very fine and reasoned contribution to this debate. He used words of which few may have taken very serious notice. He said that there is a lull before the storm. He suggested that during the lull we should take steps to ensure that there will be no storm. I join with him in appealing to the Minister and the Government to see that negotiations will go on and that satisfactory agreements will be arrived at between the organised bodies who in a very short time will be making demands on their employers in order to meet the increased cost of living. If the cost of living has gone up 5 or 6 per cent. and the organised body of workers, as a result of that splendid organisation that they have, give notice that it will be necessary to give them an increase in their salaries or wages to meet that increase in the cost of living, I earnestly hope that the unorganised or the smaller groups of people will receive the same treatment. Take, for instance, those people who are not permitted to strike or to embarrass the public. I earnestly hope that the Government will do the big thing and that, if any board awards a 5 per cent., 6 per cent., 7 per cent. or 10 per cent. increase to organised workers to meet the increase in the cost of living, all the other parties — from the old age pensioners and the persons on poor law relief and those in Government employment ——

I do not think that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is in charge of old age pensions.

Mr. Byrne

My point is that if the organised workers are awarded an increase because they are organised I hope all the other groups of people will be given the same consideration. These smaller group of people have to buy the same types of goods at the same prices as the organised groups of people. Whether they be civil servants, old age pensioners, Gardaí or members of the Army, I hope the Government will do the big thing and see that the same award is made to these people.

One of our colleagues to-day referred to lightning strikes. I earnestly appeal to all Parties to see that lightning strikes will not take place and that the workers of this city will put their case in the hands of their Labour leaders and of their elected representatives. Labour leaders, both inside and out-side of this House, are a sensible body of men who will look after the workers' interest. There is no harder job than that of a Labour leader because he has so much to put up with and so many points of view to listen to. Then there is always the agitator who wants to upset the efforts of the Labour leader and to cause a disturbance of some kind. I earnestly hope that the lightning strike has come to an end.

There has been a good deal said about Irish manufacture. I have just made my contribution indicating where I think Irish manufacture and Irish workers can get increased benefits. In our desire to establish big industries, we should not fail to help the old ones. I hope they will not be neglected. I was glad to hear so many compliments and tributes paid to the Minister. I should like to join in complimenting him on the efforts he has made on behalf of the country. So far as his Department is concerned and, indeed, all other Departments, I want to say that I have never received anything but the greatest courtesy and kindness from each and all of them. My final tribute is that I would like to thank the people of Tipperary for giving us Dan Morrissey.

This Estimate has been under debate for the past few days. I do not think there is very much left for me to say. I should like, however, to comment on the reduction in the Vote about which the Minister has told us. He says there is a reduction of £1,064,000. I hope that is not due to the discontinuance of any schemes that were in operation or to a reduction in the amount of the subsidies that were being paid by the Fianna Fáil Government.

In his statement, the Minister said that the principal heads under which reductions were made were: provision for food subsidies, county council turf production and in the provision for the repayment of advances under rural electrification. If these schemes have been discontinued, I do not think we can compliment the Minister for showing a reduction in the Vote. The reduction in the amount for food subsidies means an increase in the cost of living. I did hear one supporter of the Coalition Government agree that there was an increase in the cost of living. Others of them have been trying to tell the people that there has been no increase since 1947. Surely, the people of the country are not so foolish as to believe that.

Let us take the Minister's statement. He says that he is saving £210,000 by way of subsidy on the cost of tea. Something has happened to all that tea. People do not purchase tea for the purpose of throwing it into the sea. What the Minister's statement amounts to is that the people who consumed that tea paid £210,000 more than they should have paid for it. People can get only a certain quantity of tea on the ration. If we have more than enough tea to go around after giving every person a ration of tea, then we should have no rationing of tea at all. The position is that all the essential foodstuffs are now off the ration: tea, sugar, bread, butter, bacon, clothes and boots. In spite of the fact that people are paying increased prices for all these essential commodities, we are told that there has been no increase in the cost of living.

I listened to-day to Deputy Larkin make a plea for higher wages and for a higher standard of living. Why did he do that? Simply because he agrees that the cost of living has increased. He did not tell us — none of the Labour people told us — that he was satisfied to ask the labourers in the country to pay increased prices for butter, tea, sugar, bread, boots and clothes. Why did not Deputy Larkin tell us that he was opposed to the action of the Department of Industry and Commerce in creating a black market in those commodities? I know myself that the Minister was very partial to those who were implicated in the black market during the war because those who lost their licences had them restored immediately he came into office. I suppose he is going to continue having a black market here. He has shown his attitude regarding those commodities since he is prepared to have—because actually that is what it amounts to—a black market by the Government, by having those essential commodities increased in price in order to save subsidies.

The Labour people must agree with me that those who are going to suffer most as a result of the subsidies being taken off are the workers. Take the case of road workers, of men working in the bogs and of casual agricultural labourers. At the moment I am speaking only for those who work in the country. The stable diet of those working on the roads consists of bread, butter and tea. Every one of those commodities has been increased in price. Not one worker could manage on the ration that is allowed to him. He always had to go outside the ration and to make purchases in many cases, I suppose, in the black market, in order to satisfy himself. The road worker depends largely on tea for his breakfast, dinner and supper with bread and butter. Next week he is going to pay 10d. per lb. more for his butter. He is paying more, as it is, for tea that is off the ration and more for his bread. The Labour people here have been shedding crocodile tears for him but when the test comes this evening—when the motion to refer back the Estimate is put and there is a vote on it—they will troop, mute as mice, into the Division Lobby behind the Coalition Government and vote for this increase in the worker's cost of living. Speaking in this House, they shed tears and make statements but they never think of the unfortunate people down the country who, as a result of their action, are going to have to pay higher prices for their food.

When the statisticians get to work to make a computation as to the standard of living and the cost of living, their figures will not be based on the agricultural labourers' standard of living. That is not the standard they will take. I suppose they are expected to live on a lower standard than, for example, the people in Dublin. The Labour people here look at this question through the eyes of the people living in Dublin. I am glad of one thing at least, that we have had representatives of the Coalition Government getting up in the House and admitting—I think it was the first time they admitted it— that the cost of living had gone up. We have been trying to stress that argument for a long time but we were always told that the cost of living was static. It is not static. It has increased, as I was very glad to hear Deputy Alfred Byrne say.

There is the question of tourism. During the years prior to 1948 the Minister, and many of his colleagues in this House, did their utmost to kill tourism in this country. They talked about the flash hotels and the amount of money that was being spent on them. Some of them went so far as to suggest that tourist traffic should be taxed. I have here a statement by Seán MacBride, made at Malahide on the 20th October, 1947, during the by-election campaign in County Dublin. He stated on that occasion that he thought the tourist industry should be taxed because the tourists, being invited over here and for whom we were advertising, were a menace in so far as they were using the food that our Irish people were being denied. To-day we have an opposite view propagated by our present Ministers, particularly the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He has realised at last the value of tourism—and I am very glad of it, as we in Fianna Fáil have known it for a great number of years as something which could be made one of our greatest industries. The Minister will agree if I say it is greater than all our exportable agricultural produce, that the amount of money coming in is greater or, if not, nearly as great. There is not very much difference between them. If you take poultry, eggs, butter, bacon and beef, you will find that it is almost as high. Different figures for tourism are given by representatives of the Government—I have seen one figure of £28,000,000 and another of £35,000,000. Which one is correct? If we were able to find out the correct figure, we might be able to assess its value in relation to our other exports.

The one thing on which I would like to compliment the Minister is his change of outlook. Not merely he but other Ministers were definitely opposed to Fianna Fáil's attempt to develop the tourist industry here some years ago. It was one of the things they made full play with when they went out in the County Dublin by-election and also when they were down through the country, that we were starving our Irish people in order to give cheap food to the tourists. They have realised at last that Fianna Fáil was right when we tried to develop that industry.

After the present Government came into office, the Minister will recollect that an appeal was made for an increased grant for the Irish Tourist Association. That grant was refused at first but was given later—in October, I think. I happened to be on a deputation to the Minister on that occasion. I do not say that he was entirely responsible for the refusal, but it was part of his work to get it and it showed how the land lay. In so far as the Government's intention was concerned at that particular time regarding the tourist industry, they were not very much enamoured—I could see that— but since then they have begun to realise that it is better to get down to hard facts about our industries and not always be concerned with prejudice against Fianna Fáil. It was prejudice, pure and simple, prejudice against Deputy Lemass because he was one of those who did so much to foster and develop the industry in its earlier stages. He may be thanked to-day that we have such a good tourist trade. It would be better still if the Government had not been so quick in getting rid of our Constellations when they came into office. It would be even better if they had not got rid of our short-wave station. People all over the world could be told all about our country and our short-wave station would be the best way to advertise it. These things had to go by the board, as they were some of the Fianna Fáil schemes and it would not be in keeping with the policy of the Coalition to agree with anything that Fianna Fáil had done. For years before that, they had been trying to sabotage everything that Fianna Fáil introduced for the benefit of the people.

At present, a greater effort than ever should be made to develop the tourist industry. It has been computed by American representatives of the Economic Co-operation Administration that it was worth at least £12,000,000 to this country last year. It is the greatest dollar-earning industry we have and unless we develop it and try to induce the Americans to come here, we will miss this means of earning dollars. It should be one of the great concerns of the Government, and particularly of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to earn as many dollars as possible. There is no other industry in the country that will give us those dollars in such quantity. We have to repay the Marshall Aid at some future date. I do not know if we have to pay the interest in dollars, but at any rate we will have to pay the dollars back.

There is another matter of vital concern to the country, which comes within the jurisdiction of this Department—the question of unemployment. The Irish Trade Journal shows that we had, in February last, 72,058 on the live register. When speaking on this Vote in 1947, the present Minister, Deputy Morrissey, informed the Minister of that time here that he could find employment for every able-bodied man if he were in the position which the then Minister occupied. He is in it now and has been in it for two years. Why has he not done that?

I want about 800 men now and cannot get them.

There were about 18,000 who left the country last year.

You have 72,000.

Does the Deputy only multiply by three when he goes about it?

The Minister's officials can tell him where he will find 72,000.

All I want is 800 and cannot get them.

I take the figures supplied by the Minister's Department. Are we being misled again, if he says there are not 800.

What date is the Deputy quoting?

I am quoting February, 1950, the last figures in the Trade Journal. Does the Minister state that we have not any of those unemployed? He is looking for 800 men and I am very glad to know that he is in the position that he has to look for men.

We are advertising for them in the papers every day and over the radio.

May be Deputy Larkin was right that the wages are not high enough or the standard of living not good enough, but there must be some reason for their being no answer to the advertisements. We have heard the Minister's statement and I want to know why it appears in the Trade Journal that we have 72,000 unemployed. Two years ago we were told that we would not have any emigration; we have emigration notwithstanding the fact that we had no emigration in 1947 as actually 7,000 more people came back into the country than went out.

No emigration in 1947?

When you see that more people came back to the country than left it in that year you will find that.

You had Maximoe.

Do not be so modest about Maximoe.

These interruptions must stop.

The Deputies opposite will get all they want if they want Maximoe. They will hear about the sabotage and the saboteurs you had in this House for 20 years and they will hear where they came from.

Talk about beet for a start.

If you want interruptions you will get them.

The Deputy is only interrupting himself.

There is unemployment of 72,000 people and in addition 17,0000 less men are working on the land this year than last year. Why? We have heard the Minister say that unless we had an expansion in the output of agriculture the country would not succeed or prosper. How can the country succeed or prosper if you have not that expansion and when people are leaving the land as has happened year after year since 1947? Why? Because the production of wheat, beet, oats, potatoes, turnips, mangolds and flax has gone down and if you do not hold out some inducement to the people to produce these crops you will have further reductions. If you go on with the present agricultural policy you will have them.

Surely you cannot discuss agricultural policy on this Estimate.

I am not discussing agricultural policy at all.

The Deputy is making a very fair attempt.

I just mentioned that we were told that if we had not an expansion in agriculture the country could not succeed or prosper.

The Deputy must leave agriculture.

I also read, some years ago, statements made by present Ministers when they were in opposition about lightning strikes, the comments they made and the blame they attached to the Department of Industry and Commerce for them. You had strikes in 1947 all because of the inactivity and inaction of the then Minister, the people were told by the present Ministers. The people were starved and could not get food or fuel due to those strikes, they told them. What has happened in Dublin during the past few months when you had the bus strike? Who showed moral cowardice on that occasion? Did the Minister tell us that the taxpayers were paying two trade unionists because the trade unions could not agree among themselves as to which side was right in that dispute? Why did the Minister permit the people of Clontarf to walk for six weeks? Why did he not interfere? Why did he permit the coal strike in Castlecomer to go on for 12 months? Was the Minister active or inactive then? He had not the moral courage to face these things, but when he and the other Ministers were in opposition they had no qualms of conscience and did not hesitate when they got the opportunity of going down the country and telling the people that the then Minister for Industry and Commerce was responsible for those strikes. We have been accused of sabotage but we did not sabotage those things. We left it to the Minister. He was not asked one question in this House about his inaction. I myself refrained from putting down a question about the Castlecomer strike.

I am sorry you did not.

But nothing was done. We are at the loss of the coal which would have been produced during the 12 months and the workers were left with no wages, while the town of Castlecomer has almost gone out of existence, but no action was taken by the Government.

Why did the Deputy not settle it himself?

It was not within my scope and it was not my duty. It was the duty of the Minister to see that our industries were running smoothly in this country and he should have been prepared. When he was in opposition, however, he did not lose any opportunity—and neither did Deputy Davin —of telling the then Minister, Deputy Lemass, what he should do and what he should not do and what he failed to do.

I settled a strike there myself.

Why did you not settle this one? Because it would not suit you.

It would not suit the Deputy to have it settled.

Certainly it would have suited me because the people in Kilkenny are not like the people of Dublin. We like to see work progressing and we were all very anxious to have it settled. We felt that it was the Minister's duty but he has lamentably failed in that duty.

The previous Minister asked myself and Senator Gibbons to go down and settle a strike and we did so.

There was no suggestion of that this time. Lightning strikes still continue although we were promised peace and prosperity with the change of Government.

And we got it.

The most remarkable thing about it is that we lost more on strikes than the year before. 1949 was up on 1948 and it is an indication of how peaceful the country is when you have more strikes.

Give them for 1948.

There was the notorious teachers' strike in 1946-47, which has not been settled yet.

That is something about which the Opposition should keep quiet.

We had others since then, industrial strikes. We heard Deputy Larkin to-day prophesying dire things for the country during the next few months. Deputy Alfie Byrne referred to this as the lull before the storm and he hoped that the storm would never break, appealing to the Minister, but Deputy Larkin did not appeal; he threatened. That was their different approach: Deputy Larkin threatened and Deputy Alfie Byrne appealed.

I am very easily frightened.

I do not know which approach the Minister will react to, and Deputy Lehane might interest himself in the question also as he would be able to speak on behalf of Clann na Poblachta and get things fixed up.

I have done so already.

There is a lull at the moment and it is hoped that the people who can help the Minister will help him as well as themselves. It is not wise for the Government to have things like that happening at the present time. It might shake them in this House.

It might shake the Deputy.

They might have to go to the people and they are very chary about going to the people. They will sit in their jobs as long as they possibly can and the people will not be given an opportunity of making a change.

With regard to the erection of a cement factory which I mentioned recently in this House, the Minister has changed his mind. I was hoping that there might be a possibility of establishing it in Kilkenny. We have made inquiries and surveys and we discovered that our quarries and our position are as good as are to be found in Ireland. The Minister however has stated that it would not be economic and that he will extend the factories at Drogheda and Limerick. I would appeal to him to reconsider that decision. I am looking for that factory for Kilkenny if possible and I suppose that other Deputies are looking for it also. I should like to advocate the claims of Kilkenny. It is recognised that the stone obtainable there is equal to if not better than the stone anywhere else. Now the Minister has gone I suppose there is no use in speaking about that any further.

One thing which I should like to stress at the moment is that there has been a definite increase in the cost of living. That applies not merely to the country but to the city, and, in referring to that, I must refer to the action or inaction of our Labour representatives in the House. I mentioned that the road workers are affected by it. Their main diet, when having meals away from home, is bread and butter. They have no opportunity of providing themselves with a proper lunch or dinner, but have to sit in the ditch, boil their kettle and have bread and butter and tea, and these commodities have increased. The same applies in the City of Dublin or any other city. Higher prices are now charged for meals in restaurants. The worker who comes in from the suburbs and has to have a meal in town has to pay an increased price, due to the increase in the price of butter, tea, sugar and other commodities. If it were economic for those who cater in Dublin to supply a meal at a certain figure two years ago, before these off the ration commodities became available, it would not be economic for them to sell at the same price to-day, and consequently there is an increase in the cost of living.

What I want the people responsible for that to do is to admit it and not try to hoodwink or fool the people any longer. They have been trying to show by figures that there has been no increase and that the cost-of-living figure is static. It is not, and we want an admission of that. We want them to tell the people the truth and in that way they will get people to agree that the Government are better than they thought they were. What the Government have been doing for the past two years is merely a continuation of what they did before, hoodwinking, deceiving and tricking the people. Because of my disagreement with the Government regarding the cost of living; because of my disagreement with them regarding unemployment and the statements made before they took office, I am going to vote against this Estimate. If they came honestly to the Dáil and said: "We have done our best and we have failed," there might be some reason for our agreeing to it, but they are still trying to bolster themselves up as they did before they went to the people. They are misleading the people; they are not honest with the people; and they are not telling them the truth. For these reasons, I intend to vote against it.

I find it very difficult to understand the attitude of Deputy Walsh and some of the other speakers on the other side. When they speak on the Agricultural Estimate they complain that the prices of food are falling and on this Estimate they complain that the cost of food is going up. They seem to speak with two voices and I personally cannot understand their mentality.

My principal reason for intervening in the debate is that yesterday I had a question down to the Minister in connection with the appointment of directors to the Board of Córas Iompair Éireann. I felt that agricultural producers were entitled to some representation on that board and I asked the Minister what I regarded as a relevant supplementary question to which the Minister refused to reply. My supplementary question was:—

"Having regard to the fact that this is an agricultural country and that the whole economy of the country is dependent on agricultural produce, does the Minister not think that agricultural producers are entitled to some representation on a national form of transport which is transporting such a large percentage of the goods they produce and buy?"

The Minister, as I thought, very discourteously, did not make the smallest attempt to reply to that question. He said, in reply to the main question, that the millers and live-stock exporters had representation on the board. If the Minister regards millers as agricultural producers, or the middle man who buys live stock and exports it as representative of agricultural producers, he certainly has a very different view from that of his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, who regards millers as racketeers, sucking the lifeblood out of the agricultural producers and who has not got much greater respect for the middle men as he describes the cattle dealers who rob them at the fairs. I think the Minister should reconsider his view, if it is possible for him to do so now, and should see that agricultural producers get some reasonable representation on the board of this national monopoly transport organisation.

The Minister has not got the excuse often put forward before that there is no organised body of agricultural producers he can turn to. There are tens of thousands of members of an organisation known as the Beet Growers' Association Limited, and there are tens of thousands of producers who are members of the various co-operative creamery societies and who are organised in a body called the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. If the Minister is going to use that as an excuse, I want to point out that here are two vast organisations of agricultural producers which he can contact with a view to getting a representative.

Some time ago, the Minister told us that he was dealing with the question of restrictive practices. There is a position obtaining at the moment between the Motor Traders' Association and the petrol distributors in which, because of some agreement between these organisations, it is absolutely impossible for a person to get a petrol pump in many of the villages which at the moment have no petrol supplies. The Minister has said that he is investigating the matter and I should like him to tell us how far he has succeeded in that respect.

The Motor Traders' Association put a notice in the paper stating that they had nothing to do with it. They washed their hands of it, like Pontius Pilate, but when you go to the Petrol Distributors' Association, or to any individual petrol company, you find that they say they cannot do it, because, if they supply a particular applicant with petrol, they will be boycotted by the motor trade, although the motor trade say they have no interest in what persons the petrol distributors supply petrol to. The result is that there are villages and small towns all through the country which have no petrol supplies and people living in these areas have to travel, six, eight and ten miles to get their petrol from the particular supplier to whom the Motor Traders' Association or petrol distributors dictate they shall go. Some time ago the Minister was questioned in the House about children's bus fares in Cork. The Minister said that a penny fare would apply during school hours. That is not operating in Cork at present. There is a penny fare in operation from 12.30 to 1.30 but it is useless so far as school children are concerned. The children go to school in the morning, go home for the midday break, return to school after lunch and go home again. The best they can achieve on this arrangement is one journey at the penny fare and three journeys at the full fare. The Minister should take up that matter again with Córas Iompair Éireann.

There is another matter with which Córas Iompair Éireann are very much concerned. A private company started tours in Cork rather cheaply and successfully. For the first time in their history Córas Iompair Éireann came down and ran tours in the same direction, at a lower fare than the fare the private company was charging, while at the same time Córas Iompair Éireann were charging the ordinary people travelling from Cork to Crosshaven, a distance of 12 miles, 4/-. Yet, they could take people on excursions, where they were in competition with this private company, at about a quarter of the particular fare. If Córas Iompair Éireann want to provide facilities, they should do so and not wait until a private company has developed a little business and then rush in to grab it. They had ignored that business until this very day.

As far as industry is concerned, I would like the Minister to do more than give lip service to the decentralisation of industry. While you have Dublin City growing and expanding and becoming top-heavy, there are towns in the country dwindling, decaying and falling to pieces, such as Kinsale, in my constituency, and Passage West, where the houses are falling and the whole place has an air of neglect and destitution. Dublin City is expanding out of all proportion to the size of the city we can afford in this country with a population of less than 3,000,000.

Apart from saying that we would like to have industry developed in rural areas, the Minister should do something about it and see that industry is developed in these particular areas and thus save himself, the country and the Department of Social Welfare from the effects that will follow from too great expansion of the capital city.

I want now to refer to the attitude adopted by the Department of Industry and Commerce towards air services operated from Cork. Efforts are being made to expand and develop the Dublin airfield, in which a lot of State money has already been sunk. In Cork, a group of individuals, without asking the Department to do anything for them, put their hands in their own pockets and provided an airfield that is very suitable for smaller planes. The Department have recognised it and will permit unscheduled charter services to be operated from that airfield but say that they cannot allow scheduled services. Aer Lingus is adopting a dog-in-the-manger attitude. It will not run the services themselves. Like the Motor Traders' Association as far as petrol is concerned, they say that they are not a stumbling block but they are going behind the scenes at the same time and preventing any other company from operating services which they themselves are not prepared to operate. The attitude of the Minister and his Department in that matter is a very short-sighted one and the people of Cork feel very badly about it.

The Department proposes to expend a considerable amount of money on establishing a weather station somewhere at Roche's Point. That weather service will serve very little useful purpose whereas, if it could be established somewhere in the location of the existing Cork airfield, it could provide very valuable facilities for the airfield in Cork. The lack of a weather station is the principal reason the Department of Industry and Commerce is using for refusing to grant a licence for scheduled flights from Cork Airfield. If they are spending these thousands of pounds on a weather station, that fact should induce them to put it in a place where it will serve as a weather information service and also provide facilities for the airfield.

These are the few points that I wanted to bring to the attention of the Minister. I hope he will take notice of them. I trust that he will give in his reply some information as to how far he has succeeded in getting the petrol distributing companies to provide the ordinary little facilities that we are asking for, by supplying petrol to those whe are prepared to erect pumps in villages that already have no petrol supplies.

I regret that the Minister is not here because in the few minutes that are left me I should like to say, I am sure on behalf of the House, how greatly we deplore the ingratitude which he has manifested towards one of the most stalwart supporters of the Fine Gael Coalition. I refer to Deputy Davin. Deputy Davin, like his colleague in the Labour Party, Deputy Larkin, is, as I have said, a pillar of the Fine Gael Coalition.

This matter does not arise.

The speech of Deputy MacEntee is worthy of a better attendance on the other side of the House. I ask for a count.

The reference to Deputy Davin has no connection whatsoever with or relevance to this Estimate.

Let everybody hear him. I am asking for a count.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present,

The Minister, I gather, is responsible for the appointments to the Board of Córas Iompair Éireann. I wish, on behalf of this House, to protest against his patronage being reserved for members of the Seanad. Surely, representatives of the British trade unions who are members of this House, can make just as ornamental figures on the board of any transport undertaking as some of those who have been honoured by the Minister's patronage? I am prompted to say that because of the ingratitude the Minister has shown to some of the leading stalwarts of the Coalition.

They have not to be bought.

Deputy Davin——

Deputy Davin has no connection with this Estimate.

No, Sir, but he has connection with what I am going to say now. I say that Deputy Davin, like his colleague in the Labour Party, Deputy Larkin, has given devoted service to the Coalition Government——

What has that to do with this Estimate?

I am going to show that. Never has he given a greater exhibition of devotion——

What Deputy Davin has done does not arise on this Estimate.

He has made a speech on this Estimate.

The Deputy will address himself to that speech.

And it was a speech.

He made a speech——

Not about himself, anyway.

——about the workers. Is the Deputy's political personality so sacred that he must not even be mentioned among us?

That is a reflection on the Chair.

No, I am trying to cenceive Deputy Davin's idea of himself—that we must not even breathe his name, he is so aloof from the ordinary cut and thrust of debate. He sits there and, occasionally——

I warned Deputy MacEntee before that reference to Deputy Davin or any other Deputy does not ordinarily arise on an Estimate. I warn him that if he persists in the line he is pursuing, the Chair will have to deal with him.

I read Deputy Davin's speech, as reported in the newspapers, and I listened to Deputy Larkin's speech to-day. Three years ago Deputy Davin and Deputy Larkin were rending the heavens about the cost of living. To-day their speeches were soothing lullabies by comparison. The furthest Deputy Davin would go is shown by the statement which he is reported to have made last Tuesday in the course of this debate. According to the report which appeared in the Dublin newspapers, the Deputy said that "Mr. Lemass might be right when he said that the cost of certain commodities had increased". Now, the question arises here: was Deputy Lemass right or not? I think most of us can answer that for ourselves, if we proceed to put to ourselves a few simple questions. Has the price of bread increased since this Government took office? Can Deputy Davin say yes or no to that? Has the price of flour increased? Has the price of tea increased? Has the price of potatoes increased? The price of potatoes has increased to such an extent that they now cost 4d. per potato. I paid 4d. for a potato to-day here in this House. Has the price of meat increased? Has the price of bacon increased?

Has the price of tripe increased?

Has the price of clothes increased? Has the cost of transport increased? Has the price of oatmeal increased? These are questions which Deputy Davin might ask himself, or does he not know and does he not care?

Will you answer the Deputy's question?

I am going to make my speech in my own way, if I am permitted. The Deputy went on to say that the increases given to the workers have more than offset any increase in essential commodities. If that is the case, will Deputy Davin, who sits here as a member of the Labour Party, a member of a trade union which is affiliated, I think, to the Irish Trade Union Congress, tell us, not in the course of this debate but on another occasion, why it is that the Trade Union Congress has felt it necessary to give notice that it proposes to terminate existing agreements and to seek for increased wages?

Deputy Davin is very happy. He is far above all mundane concerns like the price of oatmeal, the price of bread, the price of butter, the price of tea, the price of sugar, the price of clothes or the cost of transport. For him, so long as the Coalition is in power, God is in His Heaven and all is right with the world. Deputy Davin has the ear of the Minister for Social Welfare. Deputy Davin has the ear of the Minister for Local Government. If Deputy Davin wants a little thing done in his constituency which will secure political support for him, these Ministers are available and they are always at his service and, therefore, so far as he is concerned, everything is working out to Deputy Davin's political profit. Accordingly, with Deputy Davin the Coalition comes first and, as he said, the increases given to the workers have more than offset any increases in the price of essential commodities.

Deputy Larkin apparently shares Deputy Davin's views. With him, too, the Coalition comes first and the dupes who voted for him and his colleagues in the Labour Party are a very poor second indeed. His speech to-day was an undisguised piece of political demagogy designed to mislead the workers as to where the real responsibility for the plight in which they now find themselves, lies. It was designed to rouse the workers against their employers in order to shield the Government. He attacked the management of business, the people who have invested in business and, of course, he attacked the Fianna Fáil Party. In doing that Deputy Larkin was speaking according to his brief, following faithfully the directives he brought back to this country in 1931. Since he entered Irish politics it has been his purpose to align the workers against Fianna Fáil.

In his speech to-day he referred to the policy which the then Fianna Fáil Government propounded towards the close of 1947 as a preventative against the inflationary rise in prices which has since taken place, a policy which was designed as a safeguard against inflation and as a preventative against a rise in the cost of living. The fundamental basis of that policy was that food prices must be immediately stabilised and then, as circumstances warranted it, brought down. Concurrently with the stabilisation of prices, the workers' organisations were to refrain from pressing claims for increased wages.

That is the policy which was, bear in mind, accepted by Deputy Larkin and his colleagues after the 1948 election. How was it received by them before that election when they had, not the economic interests of the workers in mind, not the economic interests of the community as a whole in mind, but a definite political objective? Deputy Larkin and his associates, who control the Trade Union Congress, met that policy with bitter hostility. They took every opportunity to misrepresent it and they turned all the resources of their propaganda to blacken those who had put it forward. The purpose of that proposal was distorted in the most malignant way throughout the general election of 1948 but as soon as, let me remind the House again, the election was over and Fianna Fáil were out, Deputy Larkin transformed himself from a roaring lion into a cooing dove. It was the first spring of the Coalition and the voice of the turtle, in the person of Deputy Larkin, was heard throughout the land. The reason, of course, was quite simple. Deputy Larkin's pals were in power and nothing must be done to disturb or disquiet them. The wages of the workers were, as I have said, eventually stabilised at an agreed figure, a figure which could have been reached if Deputy Larkin had been as amenable to reason and to argument in 1947 as he was in 1948 and accepted the proposal in the shape in which it was put forward.

Wages could have been stabilised at the figure, as I have mentioned, that they were stabilised at in 1948 and at which they have remained stabilised ever since, but the cost of bread was not stabilised, nor was the price of flour. Bread prices went up, so did the price of meat, bacon, tea, oatmeal, clothes, boots and transport and still, through the whole course of this rise in prices, Deputy Larkin never once said one word in criticism of the Government whose policy was responsible for the increase. On the contrary, he supported that policy on every possible occasion in this House by his vote. The subsidies which would have prevented an increase in the prices of these essential necessaries of life were curtailed or were not provided for at all. They could not be provided, for, under the leadership of Deputy Larkin, the Labour Party had voted to make their provision impossible. The Deputy voted to turn out the Fianna Fáil Government which had undertaken to provide subsidies to prevent an increase in the price of the essential foodstuffs of the people and they are now directly responsible for the plight in which the workers find themselves.

Now that the workers are beginning to take notice of the trick which was played on them by Deputy Larkin, the Deputy comes into this House and stages the shadow show to which he treated us this morning. The people are not going to be fooled by that. They are not going to be soothed by the soothing syrup of Deputy Davin who thinks that some commodities might have gone up in price, but that the increases given to the workers have more than offset any increases in the price of essential commodities. The people know, despite what Government statisticians say, that the cost of living to them and their families has gone up. They know that the price of meat has gone up over what it was in 1947. They remember what they had to pay for bread in those days and what they have to pay now. They know that the cost of bus fares has gone up.

Did you not say that Córas Iompair Éireann was driven into bankruptcy because we refused them permission to increase bus fares?

Listen, I am not going to reply to the Deputy's interruptions. I have only a few minutes left to cast my pearls before him.

You will have another chance.

The people, as I was saying, are still aware of what prices were when the Fianna Fáil Government were turned out and what they are to-day. They know that Deputy Larkin, Deputy Davin and Deputy Dunne and all the members of the Labour Party, are equally responsible with the Government for that.

And for putting Fianna Fáil out.

Precisely. We had a policy——

To control wages.

We had a well considered policy which would have kept the cost of living down.

Read Deputy de Valera's statement.

It would have stabilised food prices and it was only when Deputy Larkin made it quite clear that he was going to use that situation for political purposes that the Government came in here and said that if Deputy Larkin did not learn sense we, on behalf of the people who gave us their confidence, would make certain that Deputy Larkin would not be allowed to bedevil the economic situation in order to advance his own political ends, that he was not going to be allowed to play ducks and drakes with the whole community in order that he might get what he has been aiming to get in political life. The point is—and it is no use trying to divert me from it—that it is not the Minister for Industry and Commerce only who is to blame; it is not only the Fine Gael element in the Coalition that must be blamed. The responsibility is shared equally by every member of the Coalition Government and every Deputy who supports the Coalition Government. If the cost of living is going up, it is going up largely because Deputy Larkin and his Party turned out the Administration which was prepared to do something to keep the cost of living down, to keep it down in the only way in which it could be kept down—by subsidisation of the essential foodstuffs of the community out of the proceeds of taxation.

It went up 31 points in the last year you were in office.

What is it to-day?

It was because we knew it was going up that we had a policy to deal with that special problem.

31 points.

You inherited our policy and to the extent to which you have been successful——

31 points.

——to the extent to which you have been successful in limiting or halting the trend, that is due solely to the fact that you have taken over our policy. But you are not operating it as it should be operated. I shall come, however, to that later. It is because Deputy Larkin, Deputy Dunne and Deputy Davin share a measure of responsibility for the position which is now developing that they come in here and make the shallow, insincere speeches which we have heard from them in the course of this debate. The whole purpose of these speeches is to dupe their followers into believing that they are politicians who are really concerned with the interests of the workers and are anxious to press their claims. But, if any of the workers take the trouble to read these speeches, they will see for themselves that Deputy Larkin and Deputy Davin really devoted the burden of their argument to whitewashing the Government and to absolving it from the responsibility for the present increase in the cost of living.

This Coalition Government, of which Deputy Larkin's Party is a vital element, pledged itself to reduce the cost of living. It has signally failed to keep that pledge and Deputy Larkin and the politicians who consort with him in the Labour Party cannot now get away from their responsibility in that regard. But they are now trying to do that by placing that responsibility on other sections of the community; the employers are being blamed; the people who have invested in Irish industry are being blamed; the farmer has not escaped. Deputy Larkin devoted a large part of his speech in attacking, by implication, the farmer. The industrialist was attacked directly; so was the investor in Irish industry. Of course, the Fianna Fáil Party had to bear a very large part of the brunt of his criticism. According to Deputy Larkin, everybody except, of course, Deputy Larkin and the Government which he supports and, which, without that support, could not endure, is responsible for the present situation.

Deputy Larkin devoted a large portion of his speech to an attack upon employers and those who make profits. But he said nothing about the Government, which is the greatest profiteer in the country. This Government, for instance, is taking £10,000,000 more in taxation than was taken in 1947— £10,000,000 which, if properly utilised, would considerably reduce the cost of living to the worker. One of the biggest elements in the cost of living is, as everybody knows, taxation.

Taxation does not arise on this Estimate.

We are talking about the cost of living.

Taxation does not arise on this Estimate.

One of the biggest elements in the cost of living is the cost of tobacco and taxation forms——

Taxation does not come under this Estimate.

Tobacco is not as high as it was. That is a bad break.

One of the biggest elements in the cost of living is taxation.

Taxation arises in another way and the Deputy knows it. He cannot deal with it on this Estimate.

Any person who has to buy clothes——

I am ruling definitely that taxation does not arise on this Estimate.

I shall not go further than to say that if we had that £10,000,000 devoted to increasing the present subsidies, which have been so considerably reduced, in order to bring down the cost of living——

The Deputy will not get past the Chair by a side wind. I have ruled that taxation cannot be dealt with. Taxation can be discussed in a definite way. The Deputy knows that. It cannot be dealt with on this Estimate.

I am not proposing to deal with taxation. I am proposing to deal with the expenditure of £10,000,000 in increasing food subsidies in order to bring down the cost of living. We already have subsidies for various purposes.

The flour millers, for instance.

Precisely, and I think we will soon have a subsidy towards the cost of rural electrification. We have a number of subsidies. The purpose of these subsidies is to place the commodities which are subsidised within the purchasing power of the generality of the community. If we had £10,000,000 to spend on further reducing the cost of butter, or meat, or wool to the manufacturer, or leather to the boot and shoe manufacturer, we would have cheaper meat, cheaper boots and cheaper clothes; we would be able to bring down the cost of living. We should have that £10,000,000 to devote to that for that purpose. I do not know whether we have or whether we have not because I cannot examine that question; but we ought to have it because we are paying £10,000,000 more than we were paying in 1947. Since we cannot discuss where we will get the money, we must content ourselves with saying that, if Deputy Larkin really wanted to bring down the cost of living, one of the things he should do is to use his powerful influence with the Government to reduce taxation or, if they will not reduce taxation, to take the £10,000,000 and devote it to increasing food subsidies so that we might bring down the cost of essential foodstuffs to, as I have said, the generality of the community.

And if a certain industry, about which the Deputy knows, could operate on a tariff of less than 80 per cent. the article would cost less. If that were operated more efficiently, the article would cost less to the consumer.

I do not know what this has got to do with it.

It has a good deal to do with the cost of living.

I do not know what this has got to do with what I am saying. I want to correct a statement which the Minister may have allowed himself to make somewhat rashly. He said that during 1947 the cost of living had gone up by 31 points. My colleague, Deputy Childers, has given me some figures. The figure for August, 1947, was 100; for November, 1947, it was 97. Something may have happened in between.

What happened between August, 1946, and August, 1947. That is the new index.

It is the one on which you are operating.

You had to change it on account of the rise.

Why not change it back? Apparently it suits your purpose to keep it as it is. You regard it as a reliable figure. Surely, you are not suggesting you are keeping it there in order to deceive the people.

We did not want to fake any more.

Why accept the fake? Why not let us have the full index as it used to be? Why not revert to the other one. We all know the reasons.

Would the Deputy tell me about the 80 per cent.

The Minister should keep his temper. He should not be so rattled.

I am not rattled. I only get rattled when I think of the 80 per cent. tariff.

I do not know what the Minister is referring to. I do not know whether that remark is directed to me or to somebody else.

It is directed to the cost of living.

I think the Minister is forgetting himself. I think he is unworthy of his office if he proceeds to indulge in tactics of that kind. The Minister has his own private affairs. Other people have their private affairs.

It is not a private affair. It is a public affair.

In relation to any undertaking with which I am associated, I can only say that we are giving more employment and producing goods at a lesser cost than ever they were produced before. Not only that, but we are producing so competitively we are able to export 20 per cent. of our production all the world over. If the Minister can point to any undertaking here that can compete with that record, I shall be very glad and I will give it a warm mead of admiration. I move to report progress.

May I not move to report progress? Deputy MacEntee has completed his speech.

You will have an opportunity of hearing me again.

Deputy MacEntee has reported progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 6th June, 1950.
Barr
Roinn