Committee on Finance. - Vote 50—Industry and Commerce (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (14th Dáil) – Thursday, 10 Jul 1952

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

Mr. S. Collins

When progress was reported last evening I was inquiring from the Minister whether it was not possible to break down the bulk buying of tea immediately. The Minister is no doubt aware that one of the heaviest increases in costs as a result of the removal of subsidies is in the increase in the price of tea. It is the general beverage of the poorer classes and I feel, and I think every Deputy in the House feels, that the sooner the central buying authority goes out of the way and that you have direct imports by former tea importers, the sooner the question of price will readjust itself to its competitive level. I am aware that the Minister pointed out on a previous occasion that there are considerable stocks on hand but I think there should be a ready avenue of disposal for those stocks by throwing trade open through the normal channels. It would be in the interests of the trade and in the interests of the people generally to have a wide variety of tea and a wide range of prices.

I am sure that my colleagues in the Labour Party will deal extensively with the problems that have arisen in connection with Córas Iompair Éireann. Córas Iompair Éireann is one of the largest employers operating under State auspices. We are painfully aware of the chaotic state in which that company finds itself in connection with its revenue but we have, too, a duty to those people who have given a lifetime of service in the transport system and who may now find themselves in some danger. I know that the Minister intends to have a conference with the various union leaders in connection with that matter to-morrow and I am sure the Minister will be able to resolve some part of the scare that has arisen because of the threat of pending dismissals. It may be that the situation is not as grave as rumour would have it. It may be that it is not as serious as some people would believe it is. I feel the Minister would be doing good work if he allayed to whatever extent he can rumours that are flying around in relation to the general employment position in Córas Iompair Éireann.

The problem is a complex one. We have the doleful record of this transport company. The Minister has indicated that Córas Iompair Éireann will lose this year an amount in excess of that already budgeted for. The transport system is in the melting pot. The Minister may have some idea of the best method of solving the present problem and we would be grateful to have some indication as to what that solution is. These continued losses are like an ulcer that becomes more infected year by year. The drain on the public purse will have to be arrested.

Representing the rural constituency of West Cork, I do not want anybody to labour under the misapprehension that we in that area think it is the duty of the Minister to establish industries in West Cork. That is a duty primarily for the people in the area. It is they who should create the stimulus that will ultimately lead to the establishment of industry there. There are, of course, problems in connection with the establishment of industry in that area. There is the difficulty of transport. There is the isolated nature of the peninsula. I would appeal to the Minister in so far as it lies within his power not to forget that particular area.

We are facing, too, in the rural areas the seemingly inevitable decay of the small provincial towns. That decay is not primarily due to the trade recession because it has shown itself over a number of years. The problem is one that must be handled on a national basis. It is not peculiar to my constituency, but in my constituency the decay is becoming more marked.

Finally, I regret the saving made on this Estimate by the removal in part of the subsidies. The result of this reduction will cause vicious impact on that section of the community least able to bear the burden.

Mr. McGrath

Deputy S. Collins and Deputy Morrissey have both spoken on the present position of Córas Iompair Éireann. Deputy Morrissey maintained that the railway is an essential service. I believe it is an essential service. I do not intend to criticise the action taken by the previous Government, the board established by that Government or the powers that were given to it. We hear a good deal about the subsidisation of Córas Iompair Éireann. If the traffic that is now carried by rail was diverted to the roads, would not the taxpayer and the ratepayer have to pay more heavily still for the maintenance of the roads? Córas Iompair Éireann carries a good deal of heavy traffic by rail. The permanent way is maintained by the company. If that heavy traffic is diverted to the roads, no local authority will be in a position to cope with the maintenance of the roads and keep them in a condition in which they will stand up to the traffic passing over them. Despite the fact that the subsidy is a heavy one, in the long run it may prove to be a lighter burden on the people, because I believe that it would be cheaper to subsidise Córas Iompair Éireann rather than try to maintain the roads in a fit condition to carry all the heavy traffic that would be diverted to them. That is a matter that the Minister and the Government should seriously consider.

Mr. Madden

Divert the traffic from the roads to the rail.

Mr. McGrath

We all know that the roads were never meant to carry the traffic they are being asked to carry now and we all know that the people who are using the roads for a certain amount of their traffic are putting the less economic portion of their traffic on the railway. That is a well-known fact. The big, bulky commodity is sent by rail and they deliver the handy stuff themselves. I maintain that this question of whether or not subsidies should be continued to Córas Iompair Éireann is a very serious matter. I believe it will cost the country a much larger sum if it is not done. These people using 12-ton and 20-ton lorries should be made pay for the permanent way as well as those who use the railways. During the emergency the only means we had of carrying anything was the railway. No matter how bad the fuel was, Córas Iompair Éireann managed to carry on. When you had not a car or lorry—except a very small number—the railways carried the heavy traffic. If some people had their way, the subsidies would be cut off Córas Iompair Éireann and Córas Iompair Éireann would be closed down, throwing 20,000 men out of employment; but an emergency might arise again and the time might come when we would have no transport and would have to start over again at much greater expense.

I think the economies being carried out in Córas Iompair Éireann are not being effected in the best way. My experience of the Cork position is that Córas Iompair Éireann is furthering the centralisation of industry. From the 1st January to the 23rd May, 23 double-deck buses were sent from Cork to Dublin for repairs. We are told the reason is that the plant is in Dublin— but there is one thing, the money is collected in Cork. Now we have the latest development, in one of the biggest lathes in the southern part of Ireland being brought from Rocksavage, in Cork, to Dublin to do the work. The next answer, when men are being put off in Rocksavage, will be that the plant is in Dublin. This lathe is a loss to more people than Córas Iompair Éireann in the south. I understand it was used for extra heavy work by Rushbrooke Docks, the Cork Harbour Commissioners and the Rocksavage Engineering Works when they got a job too heavy for their particular work. The transfer of a lathe like that from a centre like Cork is a great injustice. I hope it will be restored as speedily as possible and not be kept in Dublin to provide the excuse that the work could not be done in Cork because that particular lathe and plant is in Dublin. That is the excuse made for shifting these double-deck buses to Dublin for repairs. I would suggest to the Minister that when he is having this conference with Córas Iompair Éireann he should point out to them that in big centres like Cork, Limerick and other places they should seriously consider that those people are entitled to have some part of the money that is collected from them returned to them in wages.

I am quite satisfied that the Minister is going to resume his policy of encouraging industry. That policy was interrupted by the war and later by the change of Government. We had evidence of that when he attempted to start a chassis factory at Inchicore and had procured some of the most up-to-date machinery and tools in the world. When the change of Government took place, the incoming Government decided that as Córas Iompair Éireann would not be able to use all the chassis they could manufacture there, Córas Iompair Éireann should not run that factory. They did not even consider the point that the Sugar Company, the Electricity Supply Board and other semi-State bodies would require chassis also. The machinery that was bought for that factory was sold, I believe, because it was for a Fianna Fáil project, because the idea had not been thought of by these people themselves. That was the only chance we had of developing a heavy engineering industry. It was a sad loss to the country that the men working there had to go over to work in Park Royal in England, manufacturing what should be manufactured here. Every city representative of Labour is aware of that.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

We are aware of it now, too, when many are going across to work in England.

Mr. McGrath

We are aware of the orders that had to be given in the last year and a half, when those people could have been working in that chassis factory, if the machinery and tools had not been sold at almost scrap prices.

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not come under review now—only the 12 months. There is no motion to refer this Estimate back.

The people showed pretty well who spent beyond their means. Mayo and Waterford proved that the people were not satisfied with that. I think we will go back to Cork for a while. I would like to know from the Minister if there is any hope regarding this airfield at Cork. In 1947 I put down a question about the Cork airfield and was told the position was being examined. Nearly every reply given since then has been the same. Notwithstanding that Deputy Cosgrave, when he was Parliamentary Secretary, went down there and had a few flights himself, no progress has been made. The people in Cork maintain that they should have an airfield as well as Dublin and Shannon.

I would like to get the definite reasons why it is not being proceeded with and why other companies are not allowed to co-operate if Aer Lingus do not co-operate. Over 300 planes have landed there is perfect safety. I would ask the Minister to make some definite statement in regard to the matter. Let him tell us whether we will get it or not. I understand that the company which is there is quite prepared to develop that area and make proper runways if they are promised a scheduled service there.

I would also like to know if there is any truth in the statement that the Lee hydro-electric scheme will be held up through lack of finance. That statement was made to me in Cork, and I was not in a position to either deny or affirm it. I would like if the Minister would assure the people of Cork that that particular scheme will go ahead as planned.

I think also that the Minister should seriously consider the question of accommodation for transatlantic tankers at Haulbowline. I know that Haulbowline is the property of the Department of Defence, but I think it comes within the Minister's sphere to see that ships coming to Rushbrooke for repairs or ships calling to Cobh or Cork should be able to be refuelled at Cobh. Those ships were refuelled there before the war. For that purpose a hulk was used against the jetty, but, apparently, the jetty was unable to stand up to the strain. I think that the Minister should do everything he could, in co-operation with his colleagues, to see that we get a jetty there with a depth of 31 feet of water.

I should also like to draw the Minister's attention to the prices of commodities. I do not think that the Prices Body are all that the Minister set out. There was a particular case brought to my notice some months ago. I am a member of a board of a voluntary hospital which purchased a wireless set for £18. The same week a sanatorium committee, of which myself and Deputy Keane are members, purchased exactly the same wireless set for £18, less 33? per cent. discount, which reduced the price of the set to £12. When I saw the manager's orders, I telephoned the secretary of the voluntary hospital and requested her to get in touch with her supplier with a view to getting the 33? per cent. discount. We were told that these terms applied only to local authority hospitals and that the retailer would be struck off the trader's list if he allowed the discount. It was the same retailer in both cases.

I made some inquiries as to the initial discount which was given when the retailer was able to sell the wireless set at a cost of £12 to a local authority hospital. I was told that this discount was 25 per cent., which would bring the manufacturer's price for this article to £9. This meant that, before the ordinary person got that wireless set, there was 100 per cent. extra cost put on it. I am afraid that is happening in regard to a lot of commodities and that retailers are being compelled to charge fixed minimum prices.

I put down a question to the Minister some months ago after hearing about these fixed minimum prices. The Minister told me that nothing could be done until the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill was brought into being. My view is that if there is a Prices Advisory Body it should look into these matters. It should be aware of the kind of cases about which I am talking. While a lot of people blame the manufacturers, I think there are too heavy charges altogether in regard to the distribution of goods in this country. I do not think any article should cost 100 per cent. more than the cost of manufacturing, distributing and delivering it to the consumer.

We hear the manufacturers being attacked repeatedly by the Labour people but I think that the rates allowed in a great many instances in regard to distribution are too high. I do not agree with the principle of a fixed percentage in any trade. Twenty-five per cent. may be all right on a cheap article costing about £2. When an article costs £20 or £30 and when it entails the same amount of labour to sell it, I do not think that the same 25 per cent. should apply in that case. I will agree that where more capital is spent in purchasing the higher priced goods the percentage should be put on a sliding rate. With all due respect to the Prices Body, I think they have a lot to be responsible for.

As regards Fuel Importers, I would like to draw the Minister's attention to the American coal. American coal was brought into Cork in 1947. There were 10,000 tons of it put down in a place called Church Road, Blackrock, and a pretty big rental was paid for storage. I understand that about 4,000 tons of it were sold to the sugar company and that the remainder was transferred to Cork Park again. Transferring coal from one place to another costs a lot of money. I think the coal should have been got rid of during the past five years. It is not a good thing to be keeping this supply of American coal in Cork and paying a high rental. There is a big supply of coal there, besides the 6,000 tons I am talking about, and which was brought in in recent years at a pretty high price.

Instead of having that coal stored up at a very high rental paid to Messrs. Fords—£90 per acre is the rental—the Minister should consider cutting his losses now and selling the coal at the same price as the English coal. A small amount of the coal could be kept on reserve if that is necessary, but some method should be devised which would not entail very heavy expenditure for storage. I understand that the contractor in Cork carries out the work of this body on a percentage basis. I suppose the more that is spent, the better for the contractor. I think it is a terrible mistake. I do not know whether or not coal deteriorates, but it is a great mistake to hold coal for five years and pay rent for the storage of it. That must cost a great deal of money.

I want to thank the Minister for the encouragement he has given to industry. I do not think the gloomy picture painted by Deputy Collins last night is a true one. Recently, unemployment figures have not increased. Every Deputy gets these figures, and should know that the unemployment figures have been decreasing for the past couple of months.

In Cork, we have four new factories on the Kinsale Road. We believe that there is every prospect of a reduction in the unemployment figures in the near future. I would ask the Minister to continue protection of our industries, especially while there is any unemployment in the country. It is better that our people should be employed than that we should employ people in foreign countries to produce goods for us.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister's speech yesterday was noteworthy. It appeared from the account which he gave of last year's activities in the Department of Industry and Commerce that the year that has just passed marked the end, for a time at any rate, of industrial expansion. That being so, it is important that a survey should be made of future prospects of further industrial development. That survey should be undertaken by the Industrial Development Authority on a comprehensive basis, taking into account the possibilities of establishing new industries or of expanding existing industries. Such a survey would be possible only through some Government agency. It is obvious that individuals or groups could not undertake it and would not have available to them the information that would enable them to assess the situation accurately.

It is foolish to imagine that there is unlimited scope for industrial expansion based on the home market. The experience of the past year and, in fact, of some years since the end of the war, shows clearly the difficulties in the way of certain industries. The home market is dependent on 3,000,000 people. Even if the 3,000,000 people were a great deal more wealthy than they are, their power to absorb the output of certain industries would be limited. The experience which has been gathered in recent years, especially in particular industries, points to the need for a careful assessment of the market situation and a realistic approach to the prospects for particular industries.

There is no great need to give examples. I do not want to elaborate at length the cases I have in mind. There is certainly evidence based on the experience in recent years that in particular directions we have developed to the maximum extent the possibilities of the home market and that future development depends on export trade.

I need only mention the situation which has developed and which has continued for some time in the boot and shoe industry. That industry has had the maximum possible protection for a number of years, and the results show that, unless an export trade is possible, there are too many boot and shoe factories in the country for the supply of the home market. It may be that, if these factories vary the type of goods produced, they will capture part of the market that is not already available to them, but the quality of Irish-manufactured shoes leaves nothing to be desired. They are of a very high quality. The experience of recent years shows that these industries must get and maintain a hold on the export market if they are to survive and to continue in full production and to avoid having to go into part-time production at different times.

The same is true to an extent in other directions. There has been quite a substantial development in the dressed meat trade. The possibilities and the usefulness of such a trade require little elaboration. Recent price fluctuations in the United States indicate that the possibilities of a permanent trade with the United States may not be as hopeful as seemed to be indicated some time ago.

I believe that a work which the Industrial Development Authority, in collaboration with the foreign trade section of the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of External Affairs, could usefully undertake would be to survey accurately, as far as it is possible, from published statistics and from contacts with markets abroad, the present position, and thus enable industrialists and manufacturers in this country to have a picture of conditions and a picture of the prospects of permanent markets for particular goods.

Any haphazard approach to industrial development, in the belief that if industries are started half the battle is won, is likely to cause great hardship and great dislocation. Industries should be based on the prospects of a sure market or on as certain a market as it is possible for the experts who are available to Government Departments to decide. The benefit of surveys and experience should be given to the persons who are prepared to establish new industries or to expand existing industries.

I do not think there is any need for alarm because there was no industrial expansion in the last year. Deputies are familiar with the speeches and the announcements that have caused this temporary setback. It is true that there is a world-wide trade recession and that that recession has had its reactions on this country. It is equally true that, since this time last year, ministerial speeches, Government pronouncements, all the gloomy prophecies, the pessimism and the lack of confidence have had serious reactions on trade and on business. It is not unreasonable to expect that this would be so. I notice that, in a recent speech, the Minister urged people to buy, and to buy now. Maybe he has given belated recognition to the effect which all the gloomy speeches have had on the national economy. However, it is unreasonable to expect people to buy now on the advice of one Minister considering that the Taoiseach, the Minister for Finance and the members of the Government as a whole have, since their election last year, repeatedly told the people that they were spending too much, that they were living beyond their means, that they would have to restrict their expenditure and that they would have to curtail their outlay and outgoings. These gloomy speeches have aggravated the situation and it has culminated in the serious trade slump which has been experienced in this country during the last six or eight months. The situation has become more serious in some industries and trades than in others.

The Government did not rest at gloomy speeches and announcements. It went further. The Budget which was introduced this year contained proposals for increasing the price of foodstuffs. This inevitably pointed to a reduction in the volume of money which would be available for nonessentials or for expenditure in other directions. If people are obliged to pay more for food and for essentials, they will have less to spend in other directions unless there is a substantial rise in incomes. Due to the withdrawal in some cases of the food subsidies and to the partial abolition of the bread subsidy, the cost-of-living index has risen by 15 points since this time last year. The latest figures available show that the cost of living has increased by five points. It is reasonable to assume that it will have shown a further increase when the May figures are published.

I inquired some time ago, by way of parliamentary question, what effect the withdrawal of the food subsidies would have on the cost of living. The reply given to me stated that the increase would amount to ten points. Adding this to the rise that had occurred up to last February, we find the cost-of-living index number has increased by 15 points during the last 12 months. I do not suggest that the food subsidies have any inherent virtue, nor do I believe that anybody favours subsidies per se, but the sudden withdrawal of these subsidies will cause reactions that it is impossible to assess fully. The worst thing for any economy is a drastic change in any direction. The modification of the food subsidies and the consequential rise in the cost of essential foodstuffs will inevitably mean widespread demands for wage increases. Nobody can seriously suggest that the increases which have taken place in the social welfare benefits will offset the cost of essential foodstuffs, except, of course, for the classes to which these benefits are applicable. These benefits will not offset the rise that has occurred in the cost of essential foods, taking the community as a whole.

As I said already, the partial withdrawal of the food subsidies will mean widespread demands for wage increases. Can anyone imagine what will be the effect of these widespread demands for wage increases on an economy that shows no expansion, on an industry that has been working either part-time or short-time, and on a business that has felt the effects of credit restriction? I do not want to be misunderstood on this matter. Anyone can say that bank advances are up, but does anyone suggest that the bank advances given three, four, five or ten years ago are adequate to finance business to-day? Is it not quite obvious that, if credit is restricted, if traders are obliged to reduce overdrafts, if the bank accommodation afforded to them is limited in time or in extent, the effect will extend far beyond the particular trade concerned? Traders in every type of business in the country have felt the impact of credit restriction. This restriction has been reflected in a reduction in demand, and this, in turn, has been reflected in the number of persons unemployed.

A few moments ago Deputy McGrath said that the employment position had improved somewhat in recent months. Of course, that is only a seasonable improvement. The fact is that there are already 6,000 or 8,000 more persons on the unemployment register than this time last year, and but for the seasonal improvement which takes place at this time of the year the figure would be substantially higher. Up to recent weeks there were 13,000 more persons unemployed than this time last year. Any reduction in the unemployment figures, even a temporary reduction, is to be welcomed. If the present credit restriction continues a number of businesses, a number of industries and a number of manufacturing concerns that were keeping workers on in the hope of improved conditions will be obliged to terminate their services permanently. It is quite illogical for one Minister to hope that there will be an increase in the purchasing of particular goods, if at the same time Government policy, Government direction and the whole tenor of Government speeches informs the people that they are spending too much and living too well.

I believe that that situation has been greatly worsened by the campaign initiated this time last year by the Minister for Finance and continued right up to the present week. It is significant that the only Minister who has suggested that people should buy now is the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It may be that the results which have affected industry, the unemployment, the short time and the part-time which have characterised so many industries in the past six or eight months, have not yet caused other Ministers to recognise the serious situation that has arisen.

Reference has been made to the fact that our trade deficit has improved in recent months. We always said it would improve. We recognised that the trade deficit, which assumed serious proportions towards the end of 1950 and continued throughout the greater part of 1951, would not be a permanent feature of our economy. That situation was, in the main, caused by the influence of the Korean war. When the Korean war broke out, great numbers of industrial concerns, of individuals and Governments sought to buy wherever and whenever they could, and prices increased as stocks were accumulated. These anticipatory measures to protect countries' economies in different parts of the world would have been sound, if a world war had occurred or if the conflict had extended, but the situation that arose was not foreseen.

The war did not extend and prices proceeded to fall. Goods could be purchased more cheaply in the past six or eight months than in the previous 12 or 18 months, and the result has been that the prudent anticipation of a number of individuals, of Governments, including the Government here, caused temporary dislocation, but that temporary dislocation was elevated into a national hue and cry. The Party opposite were out for scalps, and they proceeded to make a concentrated assault on their predecessors, never thinking for a moment it could have a boomerang effect. The results in recent months indicate clearly that responsibility to a great extent for the present situation in this country must be laid on the Government. They could not shield the country, and nobody expects them to shield the country, from outside influences, to save the country from the impact of a slump which has extensive ramifications, but if, added to that slump and the difficulties which it creates, we have in speeches by the Taoiseach and right through every ministerial announcement, crisis, gloom and pessimism, suggestions that we are near disaster, that our situation is critical, that we are living beyond our means, spending too much and spending recklessly, and exhortations to reduce expenditure and curtail consumption, the situation is greatly aggravated.

It is quite significant that these speeches are in line with the recommendations made in the Central Bank Report published towards the end of last year. That report suggested that the Governors of the Central Bank advocated a reduction or withdrawal of food subsidies in order to reduce consumption, and a reduction in consumption is very likely because of the substantial rise in the cost of bread, butter, tea and sugar. Deputies forget the outcry there was when butter increased in price by 2d. per lb. in April of last year. It increased somewhere about this time last year by a further 2d. per lb.

It is now 10d. per lb. more than it was after the second increase and 1/-more than it was in April, 1951. Bread has increased and tea and sugar have increased. If people's incomes remain as they were, if the income of families remains static, they will be obliged to spend more on essential foodstuffs, and it is obvious that they will then have less to spend in other directions. Either the approach to this matter will have to be reconsidered, or the Government appear to be at variance in the directions being given and the speeches being made.

I think it is significant that the proposed national loan has again been postponed. I understood from the speech made earlier this week by the Minister that the Government would shortly be floating that loan. When I inquired from the Minister for Finance to-day I was told that the by-elections and the fact that this was the holiday period meant that the Government were postponing it again until the autumn. I asked further, whether the Government had had discussions with the associated banks with a view to inviting subscriptions by the banks to that loan. I have no doubt, although the Minister did not answer that part of the question, that discussions have taken place, and I have equally no doubt that the indications given prompted the Government to postpone the loan until the prospect appears more hopeful.

I agree with Deputy Morrissey, who said yesterday that the public should subscribe to the loan. It is a national loan, required for essential national undertakings, but unless the Government gets a much better reception than ordinary traders, industry, business and every type of enterprise that has sought bank accommodation or assistance in the past 12 months, it is impossible for this loan, if it is of any size, to be adequately subscribed. There will have to be a loosening up in the approach to the need for credit facilities for industry and commerce generally. If the present situation continues, to a large extent development in this country in the immediate future will depend on the extent to which State investment can be undertaken in particular directions.

The fact that such investment is necessary is in itself clear evidence that serious economic conditions had been reached in the country. Anyone who is familiar with the experience after the first world war, and, in fact, any war, and the experience during the 1929-30 slump, recognises that it is at times of economic crisis like these two periods that Government investment must be undertaken to the maximum extent.

It is a strange transformation in the short space of the past 12 months that the industrial expansion, the expansion in trade, the increase in employment, the general economic development which took place, to a considerable extent, by private enterprise, has been retarded and reversed. I find it difficult to believe that our economic fortunes can have undergone such a transformation in the short space of 12 months, but the fact that industrial expansion has, temporarily, at any rate, been retarded is in itself a warning to the Government. Whether employment is to be maintained and our economy sustained in the immediate future will depend on the extent to which the Government can invest through State organisations such as the Electricity Supply Board, Bord na Móna or Irish Shipping and undertake drainage, land rehabilitation, etc. It is to some extent a confession of failure that State investment is necessary on that scale. Deputies are familiar with the scheme which the late President Roosevelt initiated in 1932 to overcome the slump in the United States. His proposals recognised the need in the then existing circumstances for large-scale State investment.

I believe that there is and will be a substantial area in which State investment can be undertaken in this country for electrical development, drainage and so on, but the fact that it is, in some cases, at any rate, necessary points to the inability of private enterprise either to get the funds or to give the goodwill. I do not think that private enterprise in this country is lacking in initiative or ability. I think that there are many people willing and anxious, if given the facilities, to put money into industrial development, but the statistics in recent months give a serious warning. They show defects which will take more than one Minister to correct, and which, unless we want serious repercussions, must be corrected by Government action. However this Government secured office, it is the Government and the people expect from it leadership, initiative, drive and enthusiasm. In the last 12 months they have got none of these things. They have got pessimism, gloom, confusion and to some extent politics. If the situation is such as has been portrayed by Deputies on this and other Estimates, then it is essential that there should be a radical change in Government policy.

I was surprised that the Minister did not dwell at length on the situation from the point of view of employment. I am surprised also that he did not dwell on the general lack of confidence and the air of uncertainty which pervade trade and industry generally. It may be that he himself is overwhelmed by the gloom foretold by so many of his colleagues during the last 12 months. Action is required to remedy the dislocation which has been caused and the serious problem which exists in a number of industries to maintain employment. It is significant that in recent months emigration has increased and has shown no sign of abating although one of the present Government's foremost planks was the reduction of emigration. I do not think that the policy which has been operated has helped in any way to improve the situation and provide increased employment. The fact that in recent years it was possible each year to put an additional 1,000 persons into employment in industry, building houses, draining land or on the other development schemes discussed here shows what could be done and what should be done if the country had the leadership, initiative and guidance it requires.

The Minister said that he was considering the possibility of abandoning price control. Deputy Morrissey said that in any case in which the control had been removed there was an increase of price and I think that, in the main, that is so. I remember that the present Minister always said that when the price was about to go up we removed the control and when the price was about to fall we maintained the control. If that was true then it has continued since the Minister assumed office last year. When an article was decontrolled there was an increase in price. I do not think that there is a single commodity which did not show a rise. That is true with very few exceptions. While it may be true that in particular trades control is not effective at present, there are few indications that decontrol will mean a reduction in price. If that is so there does not appear to me to be any great case for withdrawing the control. If goods were sold at less than the controlled price the public got the benefit. If, on the other hand, the control is removed and there is an increase the public have no remedy. In present circumstances there is no great advantage from the point of view of the public in decontrolling prices.

Some six months ago I inquired here into the proposed increase in motor insurance premiums. As a result of that inquiry or coinciding with it, the Prices Advisory Body initiated an investigation. That investigation has now taken six months. When it was at a certain stage some figures were found to be unavailable. When they were subsequently received, they required further investigation. I think it is unreasonable, where all the facts, if not available, should have been available, that that body should take six months before making a recommendation. The public are entitled to more consideration, not so much from the Prices Advisory Body or the Department, but from the insurance companies concerned, who should provide these figures so that an inquiry of that nature could be conducted with the maximum speed. The results of that inquiry and whatever recommendation is made should be announced in the near future, so that people may be in a position to know what their commitments will be.

The Minister said that far-reaching and important decisions must be made in the near future regarding Córas Iompair Éireann. It is difficult to say much about Córas Iompair Eireann, because the matter has been discussed at length on a number of occasions in recent years. One aspect of the problem, however, which was referred to yesterday by Deputy Morrissey, I think, requires consideration. It is impossible to expect a national transport undertaking to continue to be run on an economic basis if, at the same time, competition by private hauliers continues to the extent to which it has developed since supplies of petrol became available at the end of the war. I do not think that anyone could contemplate a change which would revert to the previous conditions where competition existed between these private hauliers and the public transport concern. But it certainly appears to me at the moment that Córas Iompair Éireann is having the worst of both worlds and, possibly, the public as well. We should either make a drastic alteration such as has been done in Britain and revert to private hauliers on a large scale, and even consider the possibility of Córas Iompair Éireann entering into that or, on the other hand, see that the national transport concern is enabled to get a volume of the carriage of goods commensurate with its importance to the community.

It is certainly impossible for Córas Iompair Éireann to continue to employ the numbers employed in that concern if it is not provided either with an increased State subsidy or enabled to get a greater share of the transport of goods in the country. There is only a limited pool of goods to be carried and unless that pool is divided up between the various carriers in the country in a way in which these carriers can get sufficient to pay their way, then it is impossible for Córas Iompair Éireann or, in particular cases, for private hauliers to survive. The fact that Córas Iompair Éireann has been compelled to bear substantial increases of different kinds has in itself added immensely to its burden. Whatever decision is arrived at, it is time to take a definite decision one way or the other and arrive at a permanent policy, if it is possible to arrive at a permanent policy in the near future.

Deputy McGrath referred to the fact that if the transport of goods now carried by Córas Iompair Éireann was transferred to the roads it would mean a greatly increased burden on county councils. That is so and it will be a difficult problem for the county councils if any alteration is made in that direction. But whatever decision is taken, it should be a final decision and a decision which will enable the problem of transport to be taken out of the arena of politics and left to those concerned to deal with according to whatever situation may develop.

The Minister also referred to the fact that it was hoped to introduce legislation within the next few months to deal with the acquisition of the Great Northern Railway. I appreciate that that is a complicated matter but a number of people are, to say the least of it, inconvenienced by the delay in enacting that legislation and any efforts which are possible to expedite the introduction of that legislation should be made.

The Minister also dealt with the establishment of Córas Tráchtála. I welcome that decision. I think it is right to say that the board chosen for the purpose is a board in which anyone in the country could have the maximum amount of confidence. The persons concerned had in different ways unique experience of the problems to be dealt with and I hope that the results of that decision will enable the country to earn dollars, which are now needed more than ever.

It is, I think, significant that although our need for earning dollars is now greater than ever, there has been less attention paid to it in recent months, certainly in public pronouncements, than was the case some time previously. The decision to establish Córas Tráchtála was based on the report of a commission which was established almost two years ago and which made a very exhaustive examination of the situation and reported in record time. I understand from the Minister's pronouncement yesterday that he expects to have a full report in the near future on some investigations. I hope that that report, if it is possible, will be published so that business men and traders generally may understand the need for an export market and be given an indication of the problems to be dealt with.

There are one or two other matters to which I wish to refer. The recent alteration in the price of sugar has affected some exporting concerns. When sugar was rationed and when there were shortages, it was probably reasonable to limit the exports under licence, but in present conditions and when so many industries are encountering difficulties, we should push our exports to the maximum extent in any direction. While I appreciate that there may be peculiar difficulties in regard to the export trade between this country and Britain, I think that any industries manufacturing commodities from sugar, such as sweetened fat, syrups, or commodities involving a sugar extract, should be facilitated to the maximum extent.

I know that this matter has been under consideration between ourselves and the Board of Trade in England for some time. There is, however, one concern of which I have knowledge which has stocks available. I understand that our quota up to September, at any rate, is substantially greater than would be covered by the licences which have been given up to the present. I think that two things should be done in that regard: (1) A definite effort should be made to ascertain what are the future prospects and what imports the Board of Trade will allow; and (2) that until the quota already granted is absorbed licences should be freely given. If further restrictions are imposed after September, then the sooner these restrictions are notified to the exporters concerned the better, but if our quota is not being fully absorbed, then I would suggest that consideration should be given to the problems of some of these concerns that have accumulated stocks or are manufacturing on the basis that the full quota would be made available.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

The most important problem with which every Deputy, and particularly members of the Government, are concerned is the present trade recession and the consequent increase in unemployment. Although the Government have in the past year pressed forward and introduced a good deal of legislation, which their predecessors had been produce mising for some time but did not implement, in the final analysis the future success or failure of the present Government will depend on how they deal with the present trade recession and unemployment. Apart from food prices, prices in general have, in the last year or so, shown a tendency to come down. It is very strange that in textiles, and in the clothing, leather and footwear industries, there is increased unemployment and there is on the part of the public resistance to buying. It is curious to observe that so long as the public feel that prices may continue to fall, they will resist buying in the hope that they will be able to make their purchases at lower prices later on, but when prices are rising, no matter how high prices rise, whether people are in a position to make purchases or not, they seem to desire to buy so that they can avoid having to purchase some things at a higher price later.

I welcome the recent public speech by the Tánaiste in which he encouraged members of the drapery trade to buy stocks again. I think it is most important that the Government should show confidence in the country's capacity to recover from this recession so that the public themselves may have confidence in the ability of industry to regain its former position and have confidence in the country, too. While people who are unemployed or those who are on short time have not the money to buy, nevertheless the vast majority of the people in this country are in a position to buy these goods but they feel that prices may fall still further and they have resisted buying. We must make up our minds that until the public realise that prices have become stabilised and until they commence buying again, unemployment will possibly continue in these lines.

While the prices of certain commodities have been reduced, food prices have undoubtedly risen sharply in the past year. They have risen possibly more in the past year than in many of the preceding years. Government policy in regard to food prices has been extremely unpopular. The Fianna Fáil Party before the election had promised the maintenance of subsidies but in the recent Budget a withdrawal of a large portion of the subsidies was effected. Whether such action was justified or not in the situation remains to be seen. The financial position of the country at the end of the year will show whether the tax burden imposed by the present Government was necessary or not. I feel sure, however, that it will show that the Opposition allegations that there was a surplus of £10,000,000 before the recent Budget was introduced, were completely unjustified.

Apart from the question of subsidies, there is the other matter of price control. Again, so far as the Government are concerned, their attitude towards price control in recent months has indicated a change of opinion. While there may be some justification for the removal of price control in regard to certain lines where prices are falling and where commodities are actually being sold below the controlled price, it is difficult to see any reason for the removal of price control on food and other commodities where supplies are still inadequate to meet current demands.

There are many other factors which come under this Estimate which are of great importance. I personally would like to have heard a lot more from the Tánaiste on the question of the reopening of a transatlantic air service. It is obvious from his public speeches that he is extremely keen that this service should be reopened, but, personally, I fail to see how such a service would ever become a commercial success.

Mr. Keane

Hear, hear!

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

Aer Lingus is now making a profit and, for its size, it is certainly one of the most successful air lines in the world, but surely the success of a transatlantic air line as a commercial enterprise must depend on our going into competition with the large American lines. Those lines, at least those of them which are privately owned, have managed to make a profit by providing great frequency of service and by cutting fares. It seems to me that if we are going to start a transatlantic air service with a small number of planes and with much less frequency in flights than those companies provide, we are going to lose heavily on the undertaking and that the extension of Aer Lingus to cover transatlantic lines will mean that our whole airways undertakings will be run at a loss. These are my personal views. The Minister may have information at his disposal to show that the reopening of the transatlantic air lines is a commercial proposition, but there are many of us here in this House who would like to hear his views on the subject and who would like to see this matter being discussed before any action is taken.

References have been made to Córas Iompair Éireann and to the necessity of doing something in regard to the financial position of that undertaking. I might remind the Minister that early in the year I pointed out to him that a large number of hotels which were owned by Córas Iompair Éireann— some of the finest hotels in the country —were run at a loss. When the Minister is examining the position in regard to Córas Iompair Éireann, surely it should be asked why, when private enterprise is in a position to make a good deal of money out of hotels throughout the country, Córas Iompair Éireann hotels are run at a loss?

Mr. Davin

Where did you get the figures?

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

I have not got the figures with me but I got the figures early in the last year. Half a million pounds' worth of hotels are owned by Córas Iompair Éireann.

Mr. Davin

Give us the figures.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

In the current year I do not think there is any profit on the hotels at all.

The Minister, and other members of the House, have mentioned the question of haulage. I think that, as far as Córas Iompair Éireann is concerned, something will have to be done. Steps, one way or the other, will have to be taken, because it is becoming a very heavy burden on the taxpayer. It is also interesting to see that an extension of our shipping lines is proposed and that they are making a profit.

I think that, as far as this Estimate is concerned, the important problem that is facing us, and the most important problem for the Government, is how long it will take to recover from the present recession in trade. It is consoling at least to see that unemployment has not been increasing over the past few months. It is to be hoped that the bottom of the present recession has now been reached, and that the Government will press forward with confidence to encourage the establishment of industries: that they will encourage the people to have confidence in industry and in the country so that we may recover as far as possible from this set back.

I noticed from Deputy Cosgrave's remarks that he spoke of the confusion, gloom and uncertainty which, he said, had been created entirely by the Government side of the House. I think that is far from correct. When this Government came into power, it had to face the problems which had been left to it by its predecessors. It had to face the problem that the people had been told that everything was perfectly happy, that there was the possibility of tax reduction, that there was no necessity for increased taxes and that everything could be done by the rather mysterious method of public investment and the repatriation of our external assets. It had to face the task of getting the people of this country to understand that current expenditure has to be met out of current taxation.

The Opposition did. You had a chance of defeating the Government on the food subsidies and you ran away from it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting far away from what is before the House.

Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll

You resurrected the food subsidies for the purpose of making them an issue to win the by-elections. I shall conclude by saying that I hope, now that the financial position has been cleared up, we can all get down to work, restore full employment and expand industrial and agricultural production in the country.

Mr. Keane

We have heard many major points enunciated by previous speakers on this Estimate on the question of national economy and international economy. I propose to bring to the Minister's notice some items which concern local economy. I realise, of course, that the responsibility for starting industries rests more or less with the people of a locality. I want to refer to Fermoy in particular. The people there will not take the initiative themselves, that is those who are in a position to finance an industrial undertaking. The Electricity Supply Board, as the Minister is aware, has taken steps to educate the people in the rural areas to the value of rural electrification. I was wondering if the Minister would think it well to have some sort of an advisory body to canvass local people on the desirability of starting industries locally. The local T.D.s could point out to the members of that committee some people who should be canvassed in that regard. It could be pointed out to those people what great advantages would accrue to the country if they would put some of their frozen wealth in a local industrial undertaking instead of having it in the banks at 1½ per cent. or in foreign investments which may be giving them a yield of 2½ or 3 per cent. That is a suggestion that might apply in places other than Fermoy.

I want to refer now to some of the matters that I think call for attention so far as my constituency is concerned. I want to refer first to the Electricity Supply Board charges. It seemed to me ridiculous last year that the board should increase their charges on a rationed commodity. All of us who are consumers of electricity received notice that, unless we conserved the ration, the supply would be cut off. But, at the same time, the board increased the charges. I have an idea that the Minister himself resented that at the time. I may be wrong about that and, if so, I am subject to correction. I think the time has arrived when a halt should be put to the policy of the Electricity Supply Board in increasing their charges. It is very serious for people who are paying on a valuation basis. If a person's house or shop is revalued, the Electricity Supply Board charges go up automatically.

Then they come along and charge on the consumption of current. I do not want to criticise the Electricity Supply Board as far as their work is concerned. They supplied current to this country under very trying circumstances and at a time when it was very difficult to get the fuel, and so forth, necessary for the provision of the electricity. However, a small restraining influence in the proper quarter might have a good effect.

To judge by the speeches which we have heard during the course of this debate it would seem as if we are entering into an era of affluence. Perhaps, when we arrive at that happy state, we may be in a position to give the Electricity Supply Board the full pound of flesh which they have been looking for all the time since their board was established.

Deputy McGrath mentioned the railways and I must say that his remarks were very apposite. At meetings of local bodies and on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government I have advocated that we should take the 20-ton, 15-ton and ten-ton lorry off the road. I am agreeable to the five-ton lorry but I consider that anything over that weight should go on the permanent way. Irish industrialists ask us to support Irish industry and local industry. However, the owners of that local industry do not think it worth their while to support one of the biggest industries in this country —the railways. I think that no indusstry here is carrying as great a complement of men at the moment as the railways. The industries avail of the very large lorry and diesel oil and it is possible that their employees are not paid commensurate with the amount of work involved in running cargoes to Dublin.

I have known some of them to spare up to £70 a cargo compared with railway prices, and I consider that that is very unfair. If the matter comes within the scope of his Department, I suggest that the Minister should insist that anything over five tons should be carried on the permanent way in this country. If he does that, then he will do a good day's work for the railways in this country and, incidentally, a very good day's work for the taxpayers of this country. It is scandalous to see lorries passing through my town carrying up to 30 tons in all, between lorry and trailer. The ratepayers of the Republic of Ireland are like lambs, because it is obvious that there is no chance whatever of maintaining the roads while the weight of those large lorries is continually passing over them. The present form of economy with regard to these lorries is wrong. The loss is on both sides; the ratepayer is paying on the one hand and the taxpayer is paying on the other hand. The whole matter could be adjusted by the passage of one small Act to the effect that any lorry with a carrying capacity of over five tons will not be allowed to travel the roads. That would confine the weight of the lorries to five tons and under.

I believe that the Minister made a very serious mistake last January or February when he removed the controls on milk. That has been proved very vividly within the past few months. In a certain area in my county there was an invitation to tender for milk for the period 1st April to 30th September. No tender lower than 3/4 per gallon could be got. A sum of 3/4 per gallon equals 5d. per pint for milk. Some of us realised the reactions that would set in as a result of the Minister's Order. I may say, en passant, that some people whom I might have expected to try to benefit under that Order did not increase the prices except in exact comparison with the prices obtaining before the control was taken off. I might mention, however, that those people were in the minority. I appeal to the Minister to give the matter serious consideration and to make exhaustive inquiries as to the price of milk. If necessary, I will supply him with the name of the institution in question. As a matter of fact, I think it appeared in the public Press. I appeal to the Minister to reimpose the controls on milk.

Deputy McGrath also mentioned arrangements between combines and individual traders, retailers and wholesalers in regard to the control of prices. I think Cement Ltd. could be singled out as far as that matter is concerned. They set themselves up as a court of justice when there is a breach of their regulations. One of their rules is that two-ton lots of cement will be sold at a certain price and that there must be an extra charge for any amount less than that. The manager of a firm not far from my town supplied 2 cwts. of cement to an individual at the same rate as would apply for two tons of cement. Cement Ltd. fined him £30 and told him to pay that amount to a charitable institution. They warned him that if he did not do so they would withdraw their supplies from him and relegate him to the rank of a retailer. I will give the Minister the name of the concern in question, if he wishes it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That seems to be purely a trade matter.

Mr. Keane

I am sorry, but it is a fundamental matter and it is a thing that could spread. Look at the Minister twirling his spectacles in his hands. Nobody realises more than he how important this matter is. Other manufacturing businesses could impose the same regulations.

Mr. Keane

I would like if the Minister would look into these few points about the control of prices, particularly with regard to Fermoy. I appreciate the Minister's position. I have tried it and I have told the people the truth on several occasions. I am not trying to exploit them. Unless they spend the money, and put it up themselves, the Department can do nothing. However, I am still of the opinion that if someone was sent down with departmental status, he might be able to convince those people it would be a good investment to spend their money on home industry.

This is the first time that I have met the Minister on this side of the House. I hope that he will carry on with the same outlook as he had prior to his departure from that side to this side. I have no hesitation in saying that he has done as much as any white man could do for Irish industry and I hope he will continue on those lines in the future, that is, while he is Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Gallagher

And for the workers.

Mr. Lehane

On a point of order I have a motion down to refer back Vote 52. Could I have any indication from the Chair as to when I may be able to make my case in that respect?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair will bear that in mind and the Deputy will be called as early as possible.

Mr. Davin

I take it the discussion on the main Vote will be allowed to continue before there is any cutting across.

Mr. Blowick

I want the Minister when he is replying to tell us what the situation in this country is because of the conflicting statements which have come from himself principally inside the last six or eight months. At one time we are told that we are on the verge of bankruptcy, that we are doomed; we are eating too much, drinking too much, dressing too highly, spending too much on frivolous things and so forth. The next moment it seems we are getting along nicely and there is no need for all this caution. Where does the truth lie?

If a person who is accustomed to buying an imported article buys Irish manufacture and finds that the Irish made article does not come up to the standard required, that experience creates a bad impression. We know that cement, aluminium, asbestos and steel goods manufactured here are second to none. The products are first-class. I have been told that Irish cement is the best in Europe. Asbestos holds a very high place all over the world because of its quality. I am referring in the main to hand tools of which I have had actual experience.

I am not familiar with the inner workings of the Department of Industry and Commerce. I do not know what powers the Minister has but he should interest himself in this matter and ask the manufacturers to turn out articles equal in quality to the imported articles. I am sure we would all be willing to pay a little more for the Irish article provided we get good quality. If he wants more information on this he can get it from his colleague, the Minister for Lands. I do not want to identify any particular article. I am merely putting the Minister wise. Some of the hand tools produced could do with a better finish. Samson or Finn McCool would jib at the clumsiness of some of them.

Would it be possible to divert more ships to the western ports? Such a diversion of traffic would help to revive these areas and possibly bring about a reduction in price because of lower transport costs. I am referring now to such ports as Ballina, Westport and Galway which lost nearly all their trade about the time of the First World War. A restoration of that trade would be of immense benefit.

Many people are perturbed about the price of butter. Statements have been made that butter will be much dearer than 3/10 per lb. Will the Minister tell us when he is replying how high he anticipates the price will go?

A few by-elections would do better work.

Mr. Blowick

Some industrialists might take at their face value the Minister's promises regarding the establishment of a crop of factories in Mayo. Anybody listening to the Minister's speech at Ballina could not help but come to the conclusion that the death of a Deputy was a very useful thing.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Blowick does not have to die. All he has to do is to resign.

Mr. Blowick

Having regard to the Minister's statement in regard to the establishment of factories, some industrial fanatics might take it into their heads to start shooting. If five or six factories could be established in half an hour on a Saturday afternoon the prosperity of all the towns in the constituency where the by-election would be would be assured for all time. I think a statement of that kind is a departure from decency in public life. There is an advertisement for one factory all right and I have every hope that factory will be erected. The Minister allowed his desire in regard to the result of the by-election to get the upper hand of him when he went so far as to promise a crop of factories.

Mr. Lemass

I would not have mentioned the matter were it not for the fact that one of the candidates repeatedly stated that there was no truth in the report. Therefore, the truth had to be made known.

Mr. Blowick

The truth about one factory but not about a host of them.

Mr. Lemass

I did not commit myself in regard to a host.

Mr. Blowick

I would say that was a departure from decency in public life. It is certainly something to which neither the Taoiseach nor the Tánaiste should descend.

2d. on butter and 2d. on the gallon of petrol. These were the only things the prices of which were increased during our term of office.

Mr. J. Brennan

You committed yourselves to a 60 per cent. reduction.

Mr. Blowick

If the removal of the food subsidies had to be undertaken for the reasons expressed by Government speakers, I say that action should not have been taken without consulting the people. It will have absolutely ruinous results all over the country and will cause a flight from the land. It will completely upset the balance of the economy of every single householder. If the food subsidies had to go they should have been taken off gradually over a number of years in order to give the people a chance to adjust their family budgets.

Mr. Lehane

I move to refer back Vote 52—Aviation and Meteorological Services. I do that very deliberately because, within a very short period of time, the general taxpayers have been called on to pay millions of pounds to provide aviation and meteorological services in Shannon and Dublin. Both sides of the House are supposed to be in favour of private enterprise but private enterprise had established an airfield in Cork and that airfield was opened by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the last Government. He made a very flowery speech when opening that airfield. We have had a lot of lip sympathy from the present Minister for Industry and Commerce. The present Minister has given more lip sympathy and has been more in the air than the Lord Mayor of Cork. The present Minister and the former Parliamentary Secretary, who was acting for the former Minister, were both in the air about it and nothing has been done. The position is that Aer Lingus is adopting a dog-in-the-manger attitude. Aer Lingus will not let anybody operate from Cork because they have the right to operate from Cork but they will not themselves operate from Cork. There has been a large number of requests from people who will provide all the services and facilities that we require if they are permitted to operate a service. Aer Lingus and Aer Rianta, in a dog-in-the-manger attitude, will not let anybody move one way or the other. They say: "We will not do it and we will not let anybody else do it." Is not that a nonsensical position for Aer Rianta and Aer Lingus?

The Minister is responsible for Aer Rianta and Aer Lingus. The Minister is responsible for giving over £3,000,000 for Dublin and Limerick airports. The Minister will not give the £10,000 or the £5,000 that is required for the weather services in Cork.

If the Minister disputes any of these points, I can answer him because I have a file here that will explain the views of the present Minister and of the former Parliamentary Secretary. We are spending each year on air services over £500,000 and the people of the country as a whole are paying for that. The actual sum in the Estimate is £540,370. The general community are paying for that. Obstacles are being put in the way of the Cork airfield although Cork is the second city in this Republic.

Mr. McGrath

The first.

Mr. Lehane

The second city as far as the Minister and his predecessor were concerned. I know that we have here the first citizen of the second city but, if he likes, I will call him the first citizen of the first city. Bulletins are issued by the Irish Tourist Association boasting that there are new services from Dublin to Edinburgh and from Dublin to Cardiff. These bulletins are issued to every Deputy. Yet they are preventing in every possible way that they can a service going from Cork to Cardiff, which is the shortest and most sensible service to run.

Everybody knows that the obvious air run from Cardiff to this country is via Cork. Cork is the second city in the State, in spite of what Lord Mayor McGrath may say. It is an outrageous business that a State-sponsored company, that is being subsidised to the extent of over £500,000 a year, which has already got over £3,000,000 for capital expenditure, should prevent private enterprise in Cork from doing something.

Cork does not want anything from the State or from Aer Lingus or Aer Rianta. All it wants is permission from them to do something that they will not do themselves. If they will do it, we will give them all the help and co-operation possible in Cork. If they will not do it, we want them to stop preventing us from doing it.

A number of requests have been made and if Aer Lingus and Aer Rianta will take their finger out of the pie and give us a little bit of the freedom which we are supposed to have in a Republic, we will be able to operate air services in Cork on our own without taxing the taxpayers as we are taxing them in respect of Aer Lingus and in respect of facilities they are giving in Dublin and Shannon at the moment.

I would appeal to the Minister to use all the influence possible with Aer Lingus and Aer Rianta to get them to operate services from Cork to Britain and Cork to Dublin or, if they are not prepared to operate such services, to say that we can operate them.

I know the difficulty that the Minister is in. Aer Lingus is only a small boy as far as British European Airways are concerned and British European Airways have tied the Minister up in knots. British European Airways will allow the Minister and Aer Lingus—in spite of its gorgeous Gaelic title—to operate only as British European Airways decide they should operate. Once upon a time Cambrian Airways were very interested in running a service from Cork to Cardiff. However, the Sassenach part of Aer Lingus—British European Airways—decided that these people were getting a small bit troublesome so, in spite of their international airways, they said: "We will let you run a service to Jersey, if you will keep your mouth shut about Cork." Cambrian Airways ran a service to Jersey and there was nothing said about Cork. In spite of the inducements that British European Airways were giving to Cambrian Airways, there were a number of firms prepared to do the job if Aer Lingus would not do it. There are a number of people anxious to provide any facility required by the Department of Industry and Commerce, and they are prepared to do it now. However, they are faced with the problem that the Department of Industry and Commerce is travelling for Aer Lingus and that Aer Lingus is travelling for British European Airways, the result being that they find themselves up against a stone wall. We hope that the Minister will realise the need for having an internal air service. I hope too that he will realise the necessity for direct services between Cork, which is the southern end of this country, and Wales, which is the southern end of our neighbouring country. It would be quite a simple matter for the Minister to tell his nominees on these bodies to stop adopting the dog-in-the-manager attitude. In Cork we want nothing from the Government, from the Department of Industry and Commerce, from Aer Lingus or from Aer Rianta but freedom to give permission to people to operate scheduled flights from Cork to Cardiff and from Cork to Dublin.

Mr. Lehane

I am appealing to the Minister to try to do something to help private enterprise. Private enterprise has taken over this site, has developed it and is trying to do something about providing an airport for Cork. However, every possible obstacle is being put in its way by the Department of Industry and Commerce, by Aer Lingus, by Aer Rianta and by British European Airways. The taxpayer of this country has already contributed over £3,000,000 to capital services in Dublin and in Limerick. A very small capital expenditure would provide the scheduled services that are required in Cork but, as I stated already, Aer Lingus, being tied up with and being part and parcel of British European Airways, are just as much against Irish development as Coastlines, Limited, were against Irish development as far as shipping was concerned.

I would ask the Minister to try to break down the barrier against development in this country. Looking at the map, one will see that internal airways exist in Great Britain but they will notice that we have no internal airways in this country except a shuttle service from Shannon to Dublin. What annoys me so much in this respect is the fact that we do not appear to be our own masters. If Aer Lingus want to establish an airport in Cork, let them do it, and we will give them all the help, all the co-operation and all the facilities we possibly can. However, if Aer Lingus will not undertake the job, we should be allowed to do it ourselves and Aer Lingus should not be putting obstacles in our way. I would not mind so much if Aer Lingus were the culprit. Aer Lingus is a sheep masquerading as a wolf, because Aer Lingus is, in fact, British European Airways, which is opposed to development in this country. When we are prepared to do something, we are being prevented by a company with a nice Irish name. If British European Airways were to appear in their ordinary clothes, we would know them and be able to see them. However, when they appear in the clothes of Aer Lingus and of Aer Rianta we do not know who they are. They are trying to do something which from a patriotic point of view appears to me to be outrageous. I urge the Minister to realise that Cork is the second city—in spite of what Deputy McGrath, the Lord Mayor, has said—in the Republic and it is an outrageous thing that British European Airways——

Mr. McGrath

We are second to nobody.

Mr. Lehane

—— should prevent us from having an air service from the second city to the capital. That is the principal reason I put down this motion to refer back the Estimate. Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta and British European Airways have treated us in a most outrageous manner. The Minister told us recently that he had called for an inquiry and an inquiry, I understand, was held. Whoever held the inquiry, I do not know, but there are people who are associated with the proposed airfield in Cork and whoever was responsible for that inquiry did not contact anyone who had anything to do with that airport. Presumably, they came back with a report without contacting the people who could tell them the situation in Cork and the possibilities of development, and who could point out the 101 aspects of the position which anybody genuinely interested in the matter of an airport for Cork should have been interested in. If they came to Cork at all—I do not know whether they did or not—they did not contact anybody who had anything to do with Cork airfield and they apparently sent in a report.

I put down several questions to the Minister with regard to it. The Minister himself sat for a very long period on that report, and, after months of that, it had to be considered by the Government. After months of that, the Government's decision has not yet been made available. It looks as if the people who were sent down—whether they were the agents of British European Airways or not, I do not know— did not take the trouble of examining the position in Cork. I have not seen the report of that inquiry, but whether it is good, bad or indifferent, I am condemning it here and now, because they did not make the slightest effort to look for information with regard to conditions in Cork. I can quite appreciate the position of British European Airways in trying to bypass Cork. The same thing is done by the Cunard and the White Star lines and other British steamship lines who try to bypass Cobh as much as they possibly can, but our Aer Lingus, with its gorgeous Irish title, is doing its best to bypass Ireland as much as it can. I think the Minister should change the names of Aer Rianta and Aer Lingus to British Airways and let us know where we are. Why disguise it? Why give it an Irish title when it is absolutely anti-Irish and against the development of anything in Ireland?

That is what is happening. I have with me here the Minister's view on the development of Cork Airport and also Deputy Cosgrave's view, but I do not want to use anything against anybody. I want to make the point, however, that it is of vital importance and vitally necessary that we should have an air service from the second city to the first city and, so long as we are asking the enemies of air development for our country to give us a decision as to whether we should have that link, so long will we be told that we will not have it.

Our position in Cork is that if Aer Lingus will provide it, we will go out and welcome it, even though we know that Aer Lingus are tied to British European Airways. We will give them all the help we possibly can and we will even give them more than the millions they have already got; but if they are not prepared to do it, I appeal to them to take their finger out of the pie and say that they are not going to do it and cease to adopt this dog-in-the-manager attitude. We can develop and operate that airport without the slightest difficulty and without asking this House to expend one ½d. There are a number of companies which are prepared to expend all the money required and even all the money that will be imposed on them by this Aer Lingus-Aer Rianta company. They are prepared to fall in with any requirements which these opposition services might wish to impose. Is it a reasonable thing then to ask the Minister to see to it that the people of the country will not be called upon continually to vote millions of money for Dublin and Shannon Airports and to support air services for people outside the boundaries of this country which are of very little use to the people within the boundaries of this country?

We ask Aer Lingus either to do the job itself or let somebody else do it. Surely that is a reasonable request to make. If they do it, we will welcome them and give them all the support, all the co-operation and all the help we possibly can. If they will not do it, will they drop this dog-in-the-manger attitude and let us do it? Let them stop putting blocks in the way of very efficient private enterprise which is prepared to do something in this matter for Cork. I know that the Minister realises—because I have some letters from him here—that there is a definite opening for an air service from Cork to Cardiff.

The Minister also realises that unless helicopters come very quickly there is a very genuine reason why there could not be an air service between Cork and Dublin. I do not want to quote the Minister's letter or the Parliamentary Secretary's letters because I do not think it would be fair, but I hope that the Minister will try to get rid of this insular attitude adopted by him and his predecessor, by Aer Lingus and by Aer Rianta—whether it is something imposed on them by outside I do not know. I have a fairly big newspaper headline here saying that British consent is necessary for an air service. The Minister should realise the importance of the second city in the Republic. He should use his influence with Aer Lingus and whatever influence he may have with British European Airways—if he has any—and stop them from preventing the development of air services between this country and Britain. If the Minister wants any specific details on any of the points I have mentioned, if he is in the slightest degree interested, I can give them to him.

The Minister has complained of the great difficulty incurred in disposing of hides by butchers and dressed meat manufacturers. Is it not a fact that the price of these hides was controlled at from 8d. to 1/- here while the price of these hides across the Border was 4/6 per lb.? Does not everybody in the House know that lorry loads and lorry loads of hides were smuggled across the Border to be sold at 4/6 a lb. while the controlled price here was from 8d. to 1/-? The traffic in hides across the Border was a delightful affair for anybody who got into it. I know of one gentleman who had 14 lorry loads of hides going across the Border. He let one lorry go around and collect all the customs officials and while they were following that one lorry he ran the other 13 lorries across the Border. I have not any great sympathy with the "unfortunate" people who are able to get 4/6 a lb. What I object to is that tanners in this country were paying 8d., 10d., or 11d. per lb. for hides and were turning out leather in competition with people who were paying 4/6 a lb. and some of them even got licences to ship their leather away in competition again with the people who paid 4/6. Is the Minister quite satisfied that the tanners are playing fair with the people of the country? Do his Department study the balance sheets of the leather factories and are they satisfied that they are true balance sheets? Is he satisfied that Irish tanneries which paid 8d., 10d., 11d. or 12d. for hides cannot compete with a factory across the Border or in Britain which pays 4/6 per lb.? Has he looked into that? Leather is issued to the boot manufacturers made from hides for which the tanners paid a quarter the world price. The Minister may shake his head, but will he answer this question? Is it not a fact that for a number of years tanners were getting hides at a quarter the world price?

Mr. Lemass

It never went to 4/6. Is it not better to export boots and leather than to export hides?

Mr. Lehane

Is it not a fact that for a number of years tanners in this country were buying hides at less than a quarter the world price?

Mr. Lemass

It is not.

Mr. Lehane

All right. Is it a fact that when hides were 8d., 10d., or 11d. in this country there was wholesale smuggling across the Border where the price was 4/6?

Mr. Lemass

I do not think so. The Deputy is leaving out of account the fact that about half the hides used here were imported and imported at world prices.

Mr. Lehane

Everybody knows there is a racket in hides. The price was controlled at 8d. to 11d. while the world price was 4/- to 4/6 and there was a racket across the Border. Anybody living near the Border will tell you that. When the Minister complains about the glut of hides and the trouble he has to dispose of them he should advert to that fact.

The Minister suggested that a number of industries were available. I do not know how many he said, but I know there are plenty of towns in my area where industries could be very well established and plenty of workers. If the Minister would contact any of us who represent the area we would give him all the help he possibly could get.

I should also like to refer to another matter which I suppose will come under the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill and that is the cost of raw materials for agricultural machinery and agricultural requirements generally. It is an unusual situation that, for the raw materials required for agricultural purposes, we must pay through the nose because we have to buy in a protected market and are charged 100 per cent. or 50 per cent. higher than for the imported article. I do not want to decry Irish manufacturers, but some Irish manufacturers try to get away on the wagon. There is some Irish-manufactured stuff—I am dealing particularly with parts for agricultural machinery—that is of a very inferior quality and which enjoys a tariff of 100 per cent. or 50 per cent. The wretched stuff is more or less useless when we get it. The Minister should at least ensure, when he gives a tariff of 100 per cent. or 50 per cent. on plough points or anything else, that the quality complies with a certain standard. I suggest that the Minister should have a certain standard for all these requirements of agriculture which, after all, is the principal industry in the country. I just want to put these few points to the Minister in the hope that he will do something about them so that I will not have to raise them again on the Estimate next year.

Mr. D. Costello

The Minister, being in charge of the general trade and commerce of the country, has probably more than any other individual Minister the duty of watching over the living standards of the people of the country and on his individual decisions probably more than on those of any other individual in the Cabinet depend the general economic conditions of the State and the standard of living which the people will enjoy. It is, of course, generally understood and appreciated that in order effectively to increase the standard of living in the country it is necessary to increase the capital assets of the State and to improve, if possible, the utilisation of the available land and labour in the country.

The policy of the Minister's predecessors in relation to increasing capital formation in the State and improved utilisation of land and labour is well known throughout the country. It is not necessary to go over in any detail again the policy of the Minister's predecessors in that regard. The inter-Party Government believed that it was possible to encourage investment by the private sector of the community by reducing taxation, first of all, by increasing the effective demand of the community for goods and thereby stimulating the demand for home-produced goods. They also believed that in relation to and supplemental to investment by the private sector it was necessary to stimulate production, to endeavour to bring about conditions of full employment, and, if possible, in order to stop emigration that it was necessary for the Government themselves to undertake large-scale capital investment. That was the policy of the Minister's predecessors. It was carried out with remarkable success and the success was shown in the figures for production, the expansion in exports, and the increase generally over the period of the inter-Party Government of the standard of living of the people.

There were, however, a number of necessary adjuncts to the policy of capital investment which the Minister and his colleagues clearly do not appreciate. It was, for instance, appreciated by the Minister's predecessors that in order to undertake the large-scale capital investment programme which was, in fact, undertaken it was necessary to stimulate savings in order to finance that. It was appreciated by the inter-Party Government that if currency were not available to finance the capital investment programme it was necessary to call on past savings in the form of external assets and the inter-Party Government were prepared to disinvest some of our external assets in order to help to finance the capital investment programme which they undertook.

The second adjunct to the large-scale capital investment programme which the present Government appear not to be aware of is that, certainly in the short term at any rate, a large-scale capital investment programme will adversely affect the balance of payments. It will affect it, firstly, by an initial demand for machinery and goods; secondly, by a secondary demand for imported goods of every kind resulting from the increased demand of the State which has come about from the increased flow of incomes as the result of the investment and, thirdly, because, initially at any rate, there will be a reduction of exports because of the increased demand for consumer goods on the part of the people who have been given employment as a result of the investment undertaken by the State.

These necessary adjuncts and consequences of the capital investment programme which the Minister's predecessor undertook were accepted by the last Government and the last Government were prepared to face a large-scale deficit in the balance of payments in the belief, first of all, that it was necessary to finance capital investment projects and, secondly, because it would be of short-term duration and our external holdings were such that we could afford for a period of years to run deficits in the balance of payments without injuring irrevocably the Irish economy.

As I said, the present Government when they came into office did not fully appreciate the economic consequences of their predecessors' policy. First of all, they believed that because there were large-scale deficits in the balance of payments we were rapidly becoming a debtor country. It was pointed out time and again in this House, and it was recently revealed here again by the Minister for Finance in reply to a parliamentary question, that in fact the deficits in the balance of payments during the period of the inter-Party Government did not mean a reduction in our external assets and that when the inter-Party Government left office they left as many, if not more, external assets as they started with. The present Government also started with a misconception in regard to these external assets. They believed, and it was stated by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, that they constituted an army of occupation in England, that they were not to be touched and that it was better to leave them there.

Both these misconceptions concerning the deficit in the balance of payments and the repatriation of sterling assets meant that the Government last year initiated a policy deliberately directed towards reducing consumption in this State. Time and again we were told in this House in the last 12 months and in speeches reported in the newspapers, that the country was facing bankruptcy, that both the Government and the people were living beyond their means and that there was a vital necessity to do something about it. I believe the Government have done something about it.

They have done something about it in their Budget. Implicit and explicit in the Budget, running right through it, is the economic idea that this country and the people have got to reduce consumption. We have again heard the means by which the present Government propose to reduce consumption in this State. They propose to do it by increasing taxation, increasing prices, and reducing subsidies, thereby reducing the purchasing power in the hands of the people. By that means they hope to reduce the demand for consumer goods, to reduce the necessity for imports and to bring about a position by which we shall have no deficit in the balance of payments. I think the Government have been eminently successful in their efforts to bring about a reduction in consumption in this State. Thereby no doubt they will be enabled to reduce imports and perhaps bring about an improvement in the balance of payments. The price, though, that they are paying for their policy is to be seen in the trade recession which Deputies from all sides of the House acknowledge exists at the present time.

Some of the speeches that have been made here have endeavoured to remove responsibility from the present Government for the trade recession. It would be wrong to try to blame the Government for the world economic forces which at present are having a depressing effect on Irish economy. None the less we can say that if the Government policy of reducing consumption is the right one and if it is successful—I believe it certainly has been successful —then the necessary effect of that is to bring about a recession in trade in this country. The mopping up of pur chasing power which the Budget was designed to bring about can only have the effect of reducing consumption by ordinary men and women in this country and bringing about a falling-off in demand and in trade generally.

In discussing this Estimate we are entitled to find out from the Government what its policy is in regard to this trade recession which we all admit the country is experiencing at present. "Trade recession" is really a euphemism which means, in fact, unemployment and under-employment, which means very real misery in the household of the ordinary decent man and woman in this country. It means emigration; it means in many cases ruin and bankruptcy for many thousands of people. If these things can be avoided, it is the duty of the Government to take steps to avoid them and if the Government fails in that duty, it is unworthy of the confidence of the people of this country.

We have been searching for the last 12 months to try to ascertain what has been the approach of the present Government to the economic problems of the day. I think we have failed to find that out. We, in the inter-Party Government, were criticised very strongly by the members of the present Government when they were in opposition for our borrowing policy. In 1950, the then spokesman on financial matters of the Fianna Fáil Party, Deputy Aiken, criticised most adversely the inter-Party Government for increasing the level of the State's debt. The present Minister for Industry and Commerce last year on Deputy McGilligan's Budget again criticised the expansion in State debt that took place. Even a few months ago, the present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs again came back to criticise his predecessors for expanding the State debt. At the same time the present Government bring in Estimates which are designed to increase the State debt by £35,000,000—a much greater increase in any one year than their predecessors brought about. The present Minister for Finance criticised his predecessors for the increased interest charges which had to be paid out of the Exchequer every year but this year the provision for increased interest charges is up by £2,000,000.

The inter-Party Government was also criticised for its use of the American loan counterpart moneys but within five months the present Government spent more of these moneys than the inter-Party Government had spent in two and a half years. We were also told last year that we were living beyond our means. A couple of days ago in a public speech which was reported in the newspapers, the Minister deplored what he called "consumer resistance" and advised people to spend. We have that strange division of opinion—on the one hand statements that the Government and the people are living beyond their means and that consumption must be reduced and on the other hand the Minister telling the people that they must spend and deploring what he calls consumer resistance.

One of the greatest inconsistencies of all occurred in relation to the Government's attitude on food subsidies. I am not going into the ethics or morals of promising something in order to get Independent votes by a certain line of policy and then abandoning these promises, nor am I going to stress again, because I think it has been stressed adequately, the very real hardships which this decision of the Government is bringing on the people of the country. It may be possible for some sections of the people to buttress themselves against the full effects of the cut in the food subsidies but there are many sections of the community worthy of the greatest consideration by the Government and the Dáil who will be unable to do anything to defend themselves against the sharp upswing in living costs. These people are at present having to undergo a deterioration in their living standards as a result of the policy of the Government in cutting the food subsidies this year.

What I want to stress are the economic consequences of this policy. The Minister for Finance in proposing the cut in the food subsidies and again I think in the debate on the Supplies and Services Bill talked at very great length on the so-called economic reasons for cutting the food subsidies. He talked of the wasteful expenditure involved and actually admitted in that speech that he was always against them. Certainly it was the first time that the people could have been aware that the Minister was always against food subsidies. What the present Government have let the country in for is a deliberate rise in the living costs of the people. We in the inter-Party Government were criticised. I think, unfairly, for the small rise in the cost of living that took place in the three years while the inter-Party Government was in office. That rise in living costs was due, not to wage increases or increased costs of production in this country, but to a rise in import prices which showed itself in the cost of living.

Under the present Government living costs have again increased and, again, I think we must, in fairness, admit that for portion of their time at any rate the import prices which had affected the economy of the inter-Party Government during its three years, continued to rise. The present Government are not to blame for that.

But, here is a decision by a responsible Government of deliberately increasing living costs on the people of this country. The result of that must necessarily be the demands which we have seen in the last few months, and which are soon to become effective, for wage increases throughout the whole economy. We cannot blame any trade union for demanding a rise in basic wages at this time after the upswing in living costs if they come about as a result of this Government's decision. The Government must face, however, the consequences of the increase in wages and the increase in prices which are going to follow, and it is hard to see the logic of the Government's economic policy when, on the one hand, they are deploring the rise in the cost of living, the consumer resistance, and, on the other hand, by their own action, are setting in force a chain of circumstances which must inevitably lead to a further round of price increases.

We, I think, would be glad to know which way the Government is facing, whether, as Deputy Blowick said, we are facing bankruptcy or whether we are all right again; and, if so, what the Government proposes to do about the situation. At present, however, all we know is that the Government have brought in a Budget which, presumably, is the instrument of its economic and financial policy deliberately designed to cut consumption in the State. We said in the Budget debates, and we said throughout the country, that we do not believe in the specific designed by the present Government of reducing consumption. We believe in expanding purchasing power, so that there will be an increased demand for goods and increased economic activity in the State. That, in fact, was what was happening during the three years of the inter-Party Government, and it has been the reversal of that policy which has aggravated the present very serious trade recession which this country is now experiencing.

I believe that it is the responsibility of the Government to secure full employment in the State, a responsibility which it has failed to discharge. It is also its responsibility to see, in so far as it is capable of so doing, that emigration is reduced. This is another responsibility which it has failed to discharge.

The economic development of this country by means of large scale capital investment which was initiated by the Minister's predecessors is the sure way of maintaining the prosperity which was enjoyed during the three years of the inter-Party Government and of expanding the national economy. We have, this year, proposed expenditure, as I have said, of £35,000,000 on capital projects, but we have very little indication of how that £35,000,000 is going to be found. In fact, we have the declaration of the Minister for Finance, a strange declaration coming from a person in his responsible position, that he does not know where the money is going to come from. I think it would be a very amazing thing indeed if £35,000,000 was spent this year. It is indeed dangerous to prophesy, but it might very well easily be that not very much more than half the sum proposed to be spent this year will, in fact, be spent. We have got to see that every able-bodied man and woman in this state, who is able and willing to work, should get employment. It is the responsibility of the Government to bring about that state of affairs.

The large-scale Government investment, and the creation of capital assets, which was the policy of the inter-Party Government, must be continued. I can envisage, for many years to come, large-scale Government spending on works of a capital nature, and consequently large-scale Government borrowing to finance these projects. It is time now, I think, that proper direction and control over an investment policy should be given to a Government investment board. At present, schemes of a capital nature are prepared in a haphazard fashion in the Departments concerned, and are eventually pruned, or added to, by the Minister for Finance before he brings in his Budget proposals. I think, in order to avoid the haphazard nature of the capital investment which is being undertaken at the moment and which must be undertaken in the future in order to rationalise properly our capital investment, and in order to see that a proper return is got for that investment, a governmental agency, such as a Government investment board, should be set up whose task it would be to direct Government spending on work of a capital nature into the proper channels, and to see that there is no wasteful expenditure of Government funds on capital works.

At present there is no proper coordinating body by which over-all Government investment is controlled. The Taoiseach, some time ago in this House, referred to the fact that this matter of a Government investment board had been given consideration by him some years ago, that he had turned down the idea and that he still was against the idea. Some years ago, however, in 1939, the last normal year before the war, Government investment was on an infinitesimal scale. The total amount spent by the Fianna Fáil Government in that year, on all works of a capital nature, was a little over £1,000,000. We are now in the realms of an annual expenditure on capital works of something between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000. In these circumstances, it is advisable, I think, that this work of control and supervision should be given a separate agency in order to see that it is carried out effectively and efficiently, and so that there will be no wastage of Government funds.

Another item of Government policy which is sadly lacking is a proper savings campaign. More than 12 months ago, Deputy McGilligan announced, in his Budget speech, that it was proposed to bring in a national savings campaign. In the months that have intervened, Opposition spokesmen have advocated the need for a savings drive and have offered support in such a drive if the Government were prepared to institute it. The need for saving is very cursorily felt, I think, by the present Government, but when it comes to try and finance its works of a capital nature and when it comes to try and avoid the consequences of inflation, it will quickly realise the need for stimulating savings in the community. It may, indeed, be that it is too late now to start a savings campaign because of the deliberate policy of the Government to bring about forced savings by means of the Budget. At any rate, it is worth trying. If the public can be persuaded to save in order to help to finance the Government's investment programme I think it should be persuaded to do so. Over the past few months we have had the spectacle of the Government vacillating as to their economic policy, directing their attentions towards denigrating the efforts of their predecessors and in some instances deliberately engaging in falsehoods and, at any rate, in exaggerations when dealing with economic matters. The result of all that has been the rising unemployment, the rising stream of emigration and the trade recession which have been referred to throughout this debate.

An effort has been made to put the blame for the trade recession on the Opposition. It is a strange feat of logic, I think, to try and blame an Opposition for doing their task and to try to put the blame for the economic situation of the country on the Opposition Parties merely because they have tried to propound their policies and to point out where they believed the Government were wrong in the application of their policy. Inasmuch as the present Government have stated that they have a policy, it is the policy which was pointed out last September by the Central Bank Report. The Central Bank Report pointed out what it regarded as the gravity of our external trading position. It stated that the only means to remedy the situation was a drastic reduction in imports and it mentioned how that reduction could be brought about. The Government followed the policies set out in the Central Bank Report. Government machinery has deliberately been brought to bear in order to ensure that consumption in the State is reduced. That, we believe, is the wrong policy. That is the policy which has aggravated the present serious situation. Until the Government are prepared to throw over the wild cries in which they have been indulging for many months past and until they are prepared to adopt the policy of expanding our economy, which was introduced by their predecessors in office, we can expect and fear a continuing deterioration in the economic situation of this State.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

It was pretty obvious from the Minister's speech yesterday that he was very ill at ease, not so much about the type of speech which he had to make as about the general economic situation in which this country finds itself at the present time.

The Minister has the reputation of being energetic, enthusiastic and daring and I do not think he lacks any of these qualities which have been attributed to him. If I were to make a criticism of the Department of Industry and Commerce, my first point would be that the Department is far too big for one Minister. It must be obvious to every Deputy and surely it must be obvious to every Minister that the Department of Industry and Commerce is of such enormous proportions that it is quite impossible even for a Deputy Lemass to keep his finger on the pulse of every section of that Department. To look after industry and to think about further industrial expansion in this country is surely a one-man and a whole-time job. It seems extraordinary that though the Taoiseach, with the approval of the Dáil, nominated five Parliamentary Secretaries not one of them was appointed to the Department of Industry and Commerce. That is forcibly brought home to us when we remember that a few short years ago, under a Fianna Fáil Government, two Parliamentary Secretaries were attached to the Department of Industry and Commerce. I suggest, therefore, that Deputy Lemass, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, would be well employed in looking after the industry and the general industrial development of this country, and nothing else.

If I were to advocate anything else in respect of the general administration of the Department of Industry and Commerce I should advocate a separate Ministry for Transport and Marine and Air Services. I think that would be only fair to the Dáil and to the people of this country in general. Surely a Minister for Industry and Commerce cannot personally give decisions on the hundreds of thousands of matters on which decisions must be given in that Department from month to month. It seems to me—and I do not blame them —that the officials of the Department of Industry and Commerce must make important decisions on their own. I believe that the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, as any other Minister, will take responsibility for any decision so made but possibly in his heart and in his conscience he will not agree with all the decisions that have been come to even though he is prepared to take full responsibility for them. Therefore, I urge the Minister for Industry and Commerce to look for assistance in the administration of his Department. Inasmuch as there is a crisis as far as transport is concerned, and that the accent, to some extent, is on shipping and air services, the Taoiseach would be well advised to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Industry and Commerce. I make that suggestion despite Deputy Lemass's reputation as an energetic, enthusiastic and hardworking Minister. Even though he may have all these qualities it is impossible for one person to preside over the enormous Department of Industry and Commerce.

To a large extent the Minister's speech was a description of details of administration in his Department. He was very careful not to express many important opinions which, in his capacity of Minister for Industry and Commerce, he might have expressed. He touched lightly on unemployment. There have been questions and allegations in this House as to who is responsible for the unemployed. I believe that the unemployed of this or of any country are the responsibility of the Government of the day. I believe that the Minister for Industry and Commerce in this country has prior responsibility for the unemployed inasmuch as it is his function to stimulate and to protect industry and, as a consequence of that, to see that employment is maintained at a reasonably high level.

I will leave it at that, but I think we should have been told what the nature of the talks was.

Mr. MacCarthy

Was there not a complete statement issued, the same as for any other conference?

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

No. Nothing was issued.

Mr. MacCarthy

There was an agreed statement issued.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

They agreed to say nothing on every occasion. There was nothing issued. I do not intend to hold up the House or to particularise with regard to these discussions about the recession in trade. On the general question of unemployment I do not think that the country fully realises the serious situation in which this country finds itself at the present time. As to how serious the situation is with regard to unemployment my particular problem is this. As far as unemployment is concerned—and Wexford is an industrial town—when workers in Wexford town become unemployed they are not reflected in any figures which are issued from the Department of Social Welfare, because immediately they are sacked in Wexford town they go down to Rosslare Harbour and they are across to Great Britain inside 24 hours.

There have been comments here to-day about the major industry established in Wexford town, and that is the firm which manufactures agricultural implements. There have been many disparaging remarks both from a member of my own Party and from the leader of the Clann na Talmhan Party but in respect of that firm I want to say that if the present situation does not improve, that firm just will not be in existence much longer to manufacture the agricultural implements of which they complain.

I suggest that it is the Government's function to remedy a situation such as this. Out of a total number of 450 employees in the firm of Pierce's of Wexford, 135 have been sacked within the last fortnight. As an aside I want to say that if that had happened during the régime of the inter-Party Government every Fianna Fáil supporter from Wexford town would be kicking down my door and the fact would be plastered in two-inch headlines across the Irish Press. They do not seem to be concerned now. Neither does the organ of the Government Party appear to be concerned at all about unemployment.

I want to bring home to the Minister the fact that the situation is so serious that it is expected—and I hope it is untrue—that the balance of the employees in the firm of Pierce's of Wexford will be dismissed during this present week. That is a serious position as far as Wexford town is concerned because it is the main industry there, employing, as it does, from 450 to 500 people.

There is another firm which is adversely affected by the action of the present Government. I heard the Minister for Industry and Commerce make a quip across the floor to one of the speakers on the benches on my left, when he said we could reduce the imports into this country by £100,000,000. I would like to know what contribution he is making towards doing that. During the régime of the inter-Party Government there was an arrangement whereby a certain quota of car springs would be allowed into this country. It was fixed at about 1,000 per six months. That worked very well for the firm of Springs, Limited, in Wexford. They could maintain all their employees and they did take on additional staff. At the first opportunity of fixing the quota for the importation of springs, when Fianna Fáil came into power, the lid was off. Springs could come in ad lib. Springs can now come in ad lib. and the result is that men are being dismissed from Springs, Limited, in Wexford. There may be some answer. I would like the Minister for Industry and Commerce to give the answer. I do not know whether there are any complications. I do not know whether or not there is some ready-up with the car assemblers or the car distributors in this country, but I do know that young men in Wexford town are being dismissed; they proceed to Rosslaré Harbour and they go over to Fishguard to help in the rearmament drive in Great Britain— not so much to help in the rearmament drive in Great Britain but to get wages. It is an interesting fact for the Minister to know, and for the Minister for Social Welfare to know, that of the 135 employees who were dismissed from the foundry industry in Wexford over the last two weeks, a very small proportion of them have signed on the employment exchange, thus showing that the bulk of them have gone to Great Britain.

The joke of it is that even the Taoiseach tells this Dáil that there is no check on the number of young men or on the number of men and women of any ages who leave this country to take up employment in Great Britain. We may talk about our natural resources here; we may talk about the assets we have; we may talk, as Deputy McGrath did, about exporting certain items of machinery from a chassis factory. We know all about that and Deputy McGrath knows all about that, but the Taoiseach cannot even tell us how many people are emigrating, the most precious asset we have in this country, men and women, their ability to work in this country and to build this country. This Government is content to sit down and export them and make no appreciable effort to keep them here. As I said, the joke of it is that we have not even an idea how many of them go across to Great Britain.

I have heard Deputies here talking about the establishment of industries in different parts of the country. No matter how often it is repeated, people still do not seem to get it into their heads that this Government, or any other Government, do not build factories, do not establish industries. My one complaint about the Irish people would be—and we are inclined to regard ourselves as rebels; we are inclined to regard ourselves as people with initiative—that as far as initiative in industry or business is concerned, we are one of the most conservative people in the world. Many of us have had the experience of going to a particular town in our constituency where there were representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, representatives of this association, that association and the other association all gathered around a table trying to find out whether they will get an industry in the town, trying to find out what the Government will do to bring a particular industry to the town of X, Y, Z. The majority of the people sitting around the table would not be prepared to invest one shilling in the establishment of an industry in the particular town.

We do not seem to have a flair for investment at home. We do not seem to have a flair for putting our savings into Irish industry. Is it because we have no confidence in Irish industry? Is it because we have never got a lead from anybody in the matter of investment? I believe that the Industrial Development Authority is not a bad institution. I believe it was a good idea to set it up but I think that body is inclined to be a bit too conservative. This Government and every Irish Government will have to drive so far as Irish industry is concerned. There is no use in the Minister for Industry and Commerce—either the present Minister or any of his predecessors—standing up here and stating: "If there are bodies of people in particular towns who have the money and who want to set up industries, if they come to the Industrial Development Authority they will be advised as to the best industry they can set up."

I suggest it should be the function of the Industrial Development Authority to list the type of industries suitable for establishment here and to advertise them, so to speak, in different towns. It should be the function of that body to suggest to the people of New Ross, Fermoy, Mitchelstown or any other town that this, that or the other industry is suitable for establishment in the town. That body should find out if there are people in the town who will be prepared to invest their money in the particular industry. It is not their function to give guarantees as to the success of any industry. Their function is to give information and guarantee certain protection and certain facilities. This idea of the Industrial Development Authority sitting up in St. Stephen's Green waiting for people to knock at the door and say: "What industry have you for us to-day?" is absurd. I do not think Irish industry will be advanced so long as the Industrial Development Authority acts like that. I do not blame the authority for that. I do not blame the Minister. I suggest that inasmuch as that authority has been established the Minister should charge it now with the task of leading or driving the Irish people to invest money in Irish industry. At the moment all that body does is to invite people to come to it so that they can give them all the advice at their disposal and the matter rests there.

There is undoubtedly a great need for industrial expansion here especially in recent years. It is obvious that people are flying from the land for a variety of reasons. Some of them are flying because they cannot get a living on it. The workers will try first in the big towns, then in the smaller towns and, if they fail to get employment, they take ship to England. Another aspect of the matter is that as many people are not now required on the land as were required some years ago. That is due to the increase in mechanisation. The tractor and the other up-to-date farm equipment is now doing away with manual labour. The same number of people are not required on the land and industry will have to take up the slack.

Industry is not in a position to take up the slack and the emigration figures will continue to rise until industry is sufficiently developed to absorb the people who are flying from the land. We are not in a position to develop heavy industry to any great extent. I think it would be fatal to engage in heavy industries because, should another emergency arise, there will be a scarcity of raw materials. We will not be able to procure iron, steel and coal and heavy industry, should we be foolish enough to establish it, will come to a standstill. We must develop industries the raw materials of which can be produced out of our own resources. We must process the production from the land.

A good deal of discussion has centred round the crisis in the railways. My knowledge of railways and the railway system is very limited. It has always puzzled me—I am sure it has puzzled other Deputies—that we have never had a policy statement on transport. I do not remember any firm policy statement with regard to transport here. What Minister has said that we should use the railways for a certain type of transport and the roads for another type? Until that is done the situation as far as the railways are concerned will deteriorate very rapidly. All of us have contributed to the downfall of the railways. Up to 15 years ago I am sure 90 per cent. of the Deputies here travelled to Dublin by rail. To-day 90 per cent. travel by car. Though that may be a small contribution towards the downfall of the railways it must be obvious to everybody that the abnormal increase in the number of motor cars over the last four or five years is detrimental to the railways.

Córas Iompair Éireann has helped to kill the railways because the accent for years past has been on road transport, on buses and on heavy lorries. Deputy McGrath, Deputy Keane and Deputy Blowick touched the kernel of the situation when they suggested that an effort should be made to divert a certain type of traffic from road to rail. That can be done by legislation. That probably would be the quickest way of doing it. It can also be done by taxation. Certain transport can be taxed to such an extent that it will be forced on to the railways. As Deputy McGrath said, the railways are used by business and industry to take bulky goods and the joke of the situation is that Córas Iompair Éireann are giving that service at a relatively low cost.

The goods that might be of value to Córas Iompair Éireann are carried by the firm's own lorries or by hired lorries. The Minister must make up his mind that he cannot afford to scrap the railways. If we can develop them, they can be a tremendous asset; if the decision is to let them slide, we get nothing, as no one wants to buy a railway. We have a permanent way and rolling stock and a small country like this cannot afford to scrap a railway system.

I do not think the Government should take the initiative in establishing transatlantic air lines. I do not see what particular advantage it would be, even to a small percentage of the taxpayers. It is a good thing to have some nationalisation of the railway system or something of national importance but no one can say that a transatlantic air line would be of national importance. We would be confronted here for a number of years with voting substantial amounts for the preservation of the service in its initial stages.

Mr. MacCarthy

The same was said for many years about the mercantile marine and an island nation was left isolated.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

I am suggesting now that the people who would use a transatlantic air service would not be represented by any big proportion or even a small proportion of the taxpayers. It must be obvious that T.W.A., Pan-American Airways, Sabena, Canadian Pacific and others are engaged in cut-throat competition. While I have no doubt of the ability of Irishmen, this is not the time for us to try to compete with companies so long established and with such tremendous resources, apart from the fact that it would not be of any material advantage to the taxpayers.

I would like to make my annual plea —should I say "annual" when in opposition—for the development of harbours. It must be significant to Deputies on the east coast that we have only four harbours of importance —Drogheda, Dundalk, Dublin, and Rosslare. Wicklow could not be regarded as a major harbour and in its present condition Wexford certainly could not be regarded as a major harbour. The Minister—or the Minister for Finance, it may be—has approved of a generous grant, more generous than we expected at first. If the Minister is there in another two or three years——

Mr. McGrath

You know he will be.

Mr. Lemass

But not in this position.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

Ha, I knew he was going for the position of Taoiseach. The grant has been given to Wexford harbour, I assume, to prove itself. I want to remind the Minister that if it is shown after these improvements have been made that Wexford harbour is capable of absorbing more trade, he should consider what has been regarded as the major scheme of development of the harbour. It is a bit premature to talk about that and I am sure that as long as there are Wexford Deputies in this House any Minister for Industry and Commerce will be reminded of this. Deputy Allen and any of us from Wexford will say that we have enterprising merchants there who will develop their business and their industries if the harbour gets a chance at all. If there is any prospect of bringing extra business to the town, these enterprising businessmen will be to the forefront.

It was.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the Estimate.

Mr. Allen

I have nothing further to say.

Mr. Coburn

The Minister, in his statement introducing his Estimate, referred to many matters in connection with industry, harbours, turf and so forth. I should like at the outset to say that many of the difficulties which at the moment confront the Minister and the Government are simply difficulties which I anticipated this country would meet as far back as 20 years ago. I am surprised how innocent Ministers and even the Taoiseach seem to be thinking that this country can escape what is known as economic pressure. We imagine—and I think there is that imagination in this country—that because we are in an island nothing will happen to us here, that everything in the garden will be lovely. It is imagined that we will not meet with any opposition whatsoever. Yet, when we do meet with that opposition, we seem to fall flat on our backs as it were. That is a rather peculiar situation in view of the way in which we boast about being the finest people in the world.

Mr. Allen

And so we are.

Mr. Coburn

When we go to other countries we can hold our own. Yet, when the least ill wind blows, we seem to lose our heads and everything goes wrong. So it is now with our industry. I want to state here and now what I have stated year in and year out, that you cannot make industry prosper in this country simply by the mere passing of an Act of Parliament. There is no short road to prosperity but we have got into our heads that all we have got to do is to erect a factory and things will go well.

It is one thing to erect a factory but it is another to keep it going. Factories have been erected in this country—we are all glad to see them—with a great flourish of trumpets. As the years went on and as they faced competition, we find that these factories in many places had to go on short time.

In some cases they have been closed down absolutely. We are sorry that that is so but it is well that we should recognise that fact so far as the establishment of industries is concerned.

We should also remember that the population is less than 3,000,000 and that their capacity to buy the output of the factories is limited. Outside our few cities and principal towns—Dublin, Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Drogheda, Dundalk, Tralee, Galway, Sligo—the vast majority of our people live on the land—simple people, who look after their crops, some of whom never saw a train or a bus and do not go in for great style in wearing apparel. All these factors have to be taken into consideration when we speak of industrial output or industrial development.

I regret the position industry is in at the moment but I am not surprised. I think the Minister, who has been 16 years in office, was not very long in office when he more or less issued a warning as regards industrial production. I think he said that the time had come when the people engaged in industry were past their apprenticeship and were fully grown tradesmen and that the time had arrived when, whether they liked it or not, they would have to meet a certain amount of outside competition.

We are all in favour of home industry and that nothing should be allowed in. Let me warn the members of this House that two can play at that game. Supposing the people with whom we trade, the people to whom we export cattle, pigs, bacon, butter, eggs, powdered milk and all the other things, were to say: "We will take no more of these things from you," what position would the country be in then? We must be prepared to put the good with the bad and to do the best we can in the very trying and difficult times through which we are passing.

One of the matters referred to by the Minister affects the constituency which I represent. It is the question of harbours. If I remember aright, the Minister expressed his disappointment at the progress made in the development of our harbours. He remarked that, although the moneys had been allocated which would enable the authorities concerned to carry out the improvements, he would like to see a little more progress made within the time.

I want to refer the Minister to one of these important schemes, namely, the dredging of the harbour in Dundalk, for which the sum approximating to £100,000 was allocated by his predecessor in office as far back as 1950. There has been some delay even in starting these most essential works. I do not know who is to blame. I realise that it is not a very simple matter. The work is intricate and requires a good deal of preliminary examination but if the plans are with the Department I would ask the Minister to see to it that as little time as possible is lost in notifying the harbour authorities that they may proceed to advertise the contract. The Minister knows the position of the harbour. At the moment it is silting up at a very fast rate, so much so, that there is danger of the port losing trade, leaving out of consideration increased trade which would result from the dredging scheme being carried out. I would ask the Minister to make a special note of that so that there will be no undue delay.

The Minister informed the House that there was a surprising number of new industries being considered by his Department and that the result would undoubtedly be the establishment of new factories. We all welcome that news. As the setting up of factories may affect my constituency, may I just quote the remarks made by the Minister on May 30th, 1950, when the Estimate for Industry and Commerce was being debated here? The Minister, Deputy Lemass, as he then was, stated in the House:

"So far as the preparation of an over-all industrial plan and the vigorous application of a policy to secure the implementation of that plan are concerned, there is no evidence."

In other words, there was no evidence that the then Government or the then Minister had any industrial plan and there was a lack so far as the vigorous application of any policy to secure the implementation of an industrial plan was concerned. The then Deputy Lemass gave a few cases in point. He said:

"One of the industries which it is practicable to establish here and which considerations of national security as well as other considerations of national interest require that we should establish—an industry which we very nearly came to have before the war—is the manufacture of nitrogenous fertilisers, sulphate of ammonia. I am not going to recount what happened before the war to delay and render futile the plans which were made then, but during the war, in accordance with the general policy adopted then of setting up organisations to plan post-war developments, a company called Ceimicí Teoranta was created by an Act of the Dáil. That company was charged with the responsibility primarily of preparing industrial plans for the manufacture here of such chemical products as were practicable in our circumstances, and, I told the Dáil when bringing the Bill before it, the immediate task entrusted to them was to bring to fruition this idea of manufacturing our own nitrogenous fertilisers, the setting up and operation of a sulphate of ammonia factory."

I am just quoting that in order to relate it to a position in an area within my county. I think the Minister will recall that many of the people in the area around Greenore and Carlingford lost their employment as a result of the closing down of the Dundalk and Greenore line. The closing down of that line meant the simultaneous closing of the port of Greenore. Various Deputies came to the Minister prior to the closing down of that line.

The Minister received them very cordially and gave them a very sympathetic hearing. If I am quoting the Minister's reply properly, I think he definitely promised that he would do his best to establish a factory in that area to recoup people, so to speak, for the loss they had sustained as a result of the closing of the railway line and of the port. I suggest to the Minister that he should put these promises which he made in May, 1950, into effect. If my memory serves me right, there was a rumour prior to 1950 —in 1947—to the effect that the Minister had more or less made up his mind that this particular factory should be established in County Louth. It was discussed at a meeting of the local council which I attended some seven or eight years ago. The manager of Ceimicí Teoranta was also present at this meeting. In view of the developments which have taken place in that area and due to the fact that the Minister knows the circumstances existing there due to the closing down of the railway and the port, he should lose no time in coming to a decision and putting into effect the promise which he gave to the people of the area when he met them some few months ago. I am not going to tie the hand of the Minister by asking him to give a specific promise, nor am I going to ask him to fix a specific date for the establishment of the factory. I know all the difficulties that exist with regard to such matters. I am aware that a great many inquiries have to be gone into and I realise that an industry dealing with chemicals is one which has to be very carefully examined. Therefore, I am prepared to give the Minister as much time as possible. If he is thinking of setting up such an industry, I would like him to remember that an area in County Louth was selected for its location.

In his statement in the Dáil on 30th May, 1950, the Minister, then Deputy Lemass, dealt with turf, machinery, cotton yarn, etc. I would like to impress upon him again that, on that particular occasion, he referred to a chassis factory which was to have been established by Córas Iompair Éireann. For some reason or other, that did not materialise. At column 789, Volume 121, of the Official Reports of the 30th May, 1950, the Tánaiste—then Deputy Lemass—said:

"We have registered in this country every year 5,500 new commercial vehicles; 23,000 or 24,000 new cars of all kinds are purchased here every year, but of them some 5,500 are commercial vehicles of the kind which that factory was designed to build. It would only be capable of producing 500 or 600 of these vehicles every year out of the 5,500 to be purchased. Is it possible at this stage to retrieve the project? Will the Minister, if he does not want to entrust the direction of that enterprise to Coras Iompair Eireann, set up another organisation for it? That machinery is available. That machinery which is being purchased by British scrap merchants is being resold to British manufacturers who will use it to make new motor vehicles to ship over here."

I suggest that it would be well if the Minister would pay attention now to the question of that factory. It would enable us to manufacture here these commercial vehicles which are so extensively used by Coras Iompair Eireann. I think this is the right time to make this suggestion. Whatever need there was for this factory when the Minister for Industry and Commerce, then Deputy Lemass, referred to it in May, 1950, I think there is greater need for it now, in view of the fact that, since that period, the Great Northern Railway has been acquired and is now, more or less, under the same management as Coras Iompair Eireann. Seeing that there is such a large Coras Iompair Eireann workshop at Inchicore and such large Great Northern Railway works at Dundalk, both of which have been renowned for their workmanship and for the manner in which they have turned out machinery, I feel it would be wise if the Minister could see his way to have this factory started again so as to dovetail the employees of these two big concerns in doing this particular work. There would then be less likelihood of a reduction in the number employed either at the Coras Iompair Eireann workshop in Inchicore or at the Great Northern Railway works in Dundalk. I throw out that suggestion for what it is worth.

In olden days it used to be stated that, in order to have a fast engine, it would have to be imported from Britain. However, as years went by, it was obvious that the employees of the Great Northern Railway were just as capable of building engines which were as good, if not better than, the imported ones. I feel the same can be said of the present staff at the Inchicore workshop and at the Great Northern Railway workshop in Dundalk. With a little experience, there is no reason why these two workshops, or any other big engineering firm, in the country would not be in a position to build the diesel engines, many of which have been imported during the last year or two.

When the Minister made the statement from which I have quoted in the Dáil on the 30th May, 1950, of course, he was in opposition. Naturally, people in opposition do not say kind words to the Government in power. Therefore, I am not surprised at some of the statements made by him on that occasion. He referred to the textile industry, and he said at column 799:

"So far as cotton yarn is concerned, there has been no development beyond the mill which was commenced in Athlone in 1947."

I merely wanted to recall those remarks to show that logic and consistency do not now seem to be thought much of. They do not seem to be characteristic of the people of the present age, myself included.

The Minister yesterday said that he was personally disappointed that there were certain big corporations or businesses as well as certain public institutions which were turning from coal and turf—particularly turf—to oil. I suggest that the Minister should not be so annoyed about that, or that he should take steps to see that that could not happen, in view of what he said on 30th May, 1950, in regard to giving no subsidies to people who would not use turf. The Local Government Department gives subsidies to public institutions—to district hospitals, county hospitals, county homes and so on—and it is very strange that the Minister did not see to it that these institutions were not allowed to turn from the use of turf to oil boilers.

I am not against turf. I believe that the production of turf is very essential in the areas in which it can be procured. If it gives employment in those areas, well and good, but I want to remind the Minister that there are a number of harbours along the east coast which depend almost 100 per cent. for their existence on imports of coal. There are Dundalk, Drogheda, Dublin, to a lesser extent, with the trade of the whole country so far as ocean-going vessels are concerned, Wexford, Waterford and so on. I suggest that these should not be forgotten when the use of turf is being advocated. We must consider the country as a whole and not just a particular district, and the Minister, in his responsible position, must weigh up the pros and cons of all these matters and take everything into consideration before coming to a definite decision.

We in County Louth and people in Dublin and along the east coast could not at all support the idea of compulsion in the use of turf in preference to coal, so long as we can get coal. We are getting coal and will get it. We are getting plenty of coal now, from our old enemy, England. She is giving us plenty of coal and always will give it to us. We need not be afraid that we will not get plenty supplies from Great Britain, because we are very great with them at the moment. There are no two greater men than Churchill and the Taoiseach at present, and seeing that we have cooperated with them even in framing our Budget, I am sure they will continue to give us any little coal we want. If war comes, we will get the same supplies as we got during the last war and that is that. I want the Minister to be very careful not to do anything to curtail in any way our coal supplies. While saying that, I wish the best of luck to Leitrim, Galway, Laois, Offaly, Clare and all the other counties in which turf production is a very essential part of their economy.

I come now to the question of the high cost of living and prices. It is not easy to control prices and meet every emergency. You just cannot work life mathematically and I am still a firm believer in the old method of controlling prices, competition. At least, let us have competition here and in the end there is no better safeguard. Undoubtedly the cost of living has increased very considerably. I do not want to make much use of that point because I know it is something which is very hard to prevent. I took the same attitude when the previous Fianna Fáil Government were in power and when the inter-Party Government were in power of defending the Minister responsible so far as prices are concerned.

When the Supplies and Services Bill was being debated here—I think Deputy Liam Cosgrave was in charge— I regret to say that we saw the fiercest attacks ever made here on anything. I think I never listened to a debate more calculated to destroy the economic position of the country. I felt bound to stand up and state what I believed to be the truth, that there was no appreciable increase in the cost of living at that period. It only came a few months afterwards. It came, as Deputy Cosgrave said, with the outbreak of the Korean war. I know that the cost of living had gone up as a result of the devaluation of the pound sterling. As the Minister stated, sterling is only holding on—to use a common expression—by the skin of its teeth. We hope at least that it will deteriorate no further because if it does it will have the effect of increasing the cost of living. There again the Government is in a difficult position and the only thing we can hope is that sterling will hold its position. Then things will possibly right themselves and the cost of living will not soar too high. Undoubtedly, of course, it has increased and I think that the Minister and those on the far side must agree that up to the moment we have not made things very awkward in that regard. I hope that that very happy state of affairs will continue.

I think that the Minister mentioned E.C.A. and some help we got from America which sent missions over here to tell us all about how to do things. For some reason apparently they were financing that themselves. I would like the Minister to tell us in a little more detail the reason for its being discontinued. Suggestions were made here that America was out to force this country to do something that was not in the national interest. I think it was Deputy Peadar Cowan who stated that we could balance our Budget if we were prepared to sell the country. I wonder if such talk arose from the fact the Minister mentioned, so I would like him to explain everything connected with E.C.A.

It is my intention to refer to the matter on the Taoiseach's Estimate, because I, as a member of this House, would not take lying down the charge that I was prepared to sell the soul of this country to America or to any other country. I would like the Minister or the Taoiseach, at the first opportunity, to make it clear that there were not men on this side of the House prepared to sell their country. I speak on behalf of my Party and of those who voted for us—more than half the country. The men who brought me into the world were racy of the soil, Irish, and played a noble part in the country's history down the centuries. Although I may be a humble member of this House, I refute the charge, whether it comes from the Taoiseach or from any other man, that I would be one of those men who would sell their country, as Esau sold his birthright, for a mess of pottage.

It is not too easy to keep our industries going full speed ahead. As far as I can see, the tendency has been to erect a few factories between each election so that we may have something to brag about. I do not think that it is good policy to over-industrialise with regard to any particular article. I think that one of the greatest misfortunes that can befall a young man is to be engaged in a factory which operates for four or five years and then suddenly closes down either partially or wholly, thus throwing him on the scrap heap. Many of these men may have married while others may be too old to go to anything else. No matter how great the pressure from members of his Party or indeed from this side of the House, the Minister should ensure that too many factories manufacturing the same type of article are not erected. There is one particular industry that the Minister should know about. I always held, as many people held, that too many factories were allowed to be erected, considering the population— less than 3,000,000. You cannot compel people to buy against their will. That is one of the things which Governments cannot do, and it would be a great pity if they were in a position to do so. I do not think that the present trade recession is due to a disinclination on the part of the people to buy. People are not buying, and there must be some reason for it, but I do not think that they are waiting for lower prices. It is just a thing which could arise in any year under any Government. The Minister should not allow the erection of too many factories manufacturing articles for which there is not sufficient consumption, considering our population and the position of a great part of our people. I refer to agricultural labourers and small farmers who just cannot purchase these goods at the prices which prevail at the moment.

Mr. Davin

I listened very attentively to the Minister introducing his annual Estimate in his usual forceful and informative way, proving to all of us—as I was glad to recognise—that he is fully restored to his usual good health and vigour after his recent illness.

I cannot understand why the Minister, with his background and outlook, should even share responsibility for the drastic reduction in the food subsidies, realising, as he must as Minister for Industry and Commerce over a long period, that this will have a revolutionary effect, not alone upon the national economy but upon the standard of living of all classes who live by their labour or rely on small State allowances as their only means of sustenance. I cannot follow, especially in view of the very definite pronouncements and pledges solemnly given to the citizens of the State during the previous year, his reasons for taking any responsibility for such a reversal of the policy of the Fianna Fáil-Cowan Government. It is a rather significant thing that the Government's decision to reduce food subsidies by 75 per cent. followed the British Government's decision to do likewise, almost to the same extent but, I am sure, for different reasons.

What explanation has the Minister to give to the people for such a complete reversal of policy in view of the public pledges solemnly given on the 29th May, 1951, in the public Press by way of costly advertisements paid for by the present Government to the effect that they had no intention either to interfere with or to reduce the food subsidies? Does not the Minister know —some of his colleagues may not know as they would not have the same association with working-class people as he has through the agency of his Department—that unless some political miracle happens this will lead to industrial unrest the extent of which I cannot foresee and I am pretty certain the Minister cannot foresee?

Deputy Blowick said that if the cost of living had been going down or if the subsidies had been gradually reduced there might be, so far as he was concerned, some explanation for the adoption of a policy of this kind. I certainly cannot understand, and I am sure the people of the country, especially those who are wage earners, cannot understand why the subsidies should be reduced at a time when the cost of living is actually going up. In my opinion, this will be a very costly saving for the country and for the community, if there is any such thing as a costly saving so far as Government administration is concerned.

In his lengthy statement, the Minister made merely passing references to many matters of major importance and I can only hope that in the light of the discussion that has taken place during the last two days he will make his own position and the position of his Government a good deal more clear when he comes to reply. I suppose he holds the view that is held by other colleagues of his, that there is no such thing as restriction of credit. No Deputy who is in touch with his constituency can swallow the statement that there has been no restriction of credit. A Deputy of this House, who is a good businessman, a solvent man and an honourable man and whose family has had very extensive dealings with the same bank for two generations, showed me a scathing letter quite recently which he had received from his bank for overdrawing his account by less than £100.

If I were that Deputy, I would have taken my account from that bank right away and left the bank manager to explain to his directors why such a document should be sent to an honourable, decent and good businessman whose father and himself had been working for the bank as unpaid servants for two generations.

I am not talking from hearsay on this matter. I speak with knowledge of what has been going on with regard to restriction of credit in my own constituency. The traders in that constituency and in the adjoining constituency were forced to establish a trade organisation for the purpose of dealing with the banks in connection with this matter. That is known to the Minister, and it is certainly known to many Deputies sitting behind him on the Fianna Fáil Benches. I assert here quite definitely—I do not care who contradicts it—that the restriction of credit has caused a good deal of unemployment in this country since the mad Minister for Finance made his famous speech on the 18th July last year. I would not dream of associating the Minister for Industry and Commerce, so far as his political outlook is concerned, so far as his ability or political honesty, if there is any such thing, is concerned, with his colleague, the mad Minister for Finance. He is a mad Minister. He is the man who, at a big meeting at the O'Connell Monument in Limerick recently, said the position was so bad that we would be eating carrion crows before Christmas, and that it was possible that the £ will be only worth a shilling in the Shannon Airport. He is not fit to be in the Cabinet.

An Ceann Comhairle

That does not arise.

Mr. Davin

Statements made by Ministers on matters of economic policy should have some bearing on the Vote under discussion. I am not blaming the Minister for Industry and Commerce for everything said by his colleague.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister may be blamed for everything now because it is his Vote which is under consideration.

Mr. Davin

I do not propose to go that far. The Minister did not, except in a very passing way, deal with the question of unemployment or the extent to which unemployment has taken place or has decreased since the Government came into office. Will he do so in his reply in a more detailed way and give his reasons, at any rate, for the increased unemployment which has taken place? He referred in a passing way to the recent trade recession so far as it affected the drapery trade and the boot and shoe industry. I have weekly contacts with people who tour this country on behalf of some of the biggest drapery concerns, wholesale and retail, and I am informed by these people who, because of their daily contacts must know more than the Minister and even a little more than his advisers, that there is no improvement in the position so far as the drapery trade is concerned and very little, if any, so far as the boot and shoe industry is concerned. I was reliably informed in the precincts of Leinster House only a couple of hours ago that 50 per cent. of the boot and shoe operatives are still on short time, and the people, as far as we can see, are not going around in bare feet.

The recession in trade, according to the Minister's explanation, is due to the fact that the people are not buying, that they do not want to buy in the expectation that the price of clothes and the price of boots and shoes will go down. My experience of the wage-earning section of the community is that their wages are spent within a week from the day they are paid. That is true, at any rate, so far as the low-paid workers are concerned. The wages of a married man, minus probably 10 per cent., are handed to his wife or housekeeper and that money goes into circulation for the benefit of the community within a week from the day she gets it. With the reduction of the food subsidies the position will be changed in the most revolutionary way. That will be fully realised, as I have pointed out at public meetings in my constituency and elsewhere, when the women have to pay a higher price for these foodstuffs.

Let us take one of the wage-earning class who is in receipt of £6 a week. He probably gave £5 10s. 0d. of that to his wife or housekeeper before the subsidies were reduced to buy the essential foodstuffs and clothing and to pay other housekeeping bills and kept 10/- for himself for cigarettes, for beer, to put a bob on a horse, or to pay a shilling to go into a football or a hurling match on a Sunday.

I invite Deputy McGrath to ask his women constituents who are responsible for keeping the home what they think of the alleged compensation they will receive during the month of July, as against the increased amount they will be paying for foodstuffs as a result of the removal of the subsidies and increased taxation.

Mr. Corry

That is why you rushed the by-elections, lest they would find out what they would have to pay!

Mr. Davin

I did not know Deputy Corry was listening. I thought he came into the House only when the price of barley was being considered.

An Ceann Comhairle

Cork Deputies might allow Deputy Davin to proceed without interruption.

Mr. Davin

The Minister in the course of his speech made the extraordinary statement, based upon some kind of information he has received from 15 manufacturers or traders, that there is no such thing as excessive profit and no justification for the statements of those who allege that manufacturers or a certain type of traders get excessive profits. He went on to explain, that so far as some traders are concerned they get only 4¾ per cent. to 5½ per cent. nett profit. I am not a certified or chartered accountant but I worked in the accounts department of a certain undertaking and had responsibility for making out balance sheets and explaining these balance sheets to auditors and for a certain period I endeavoured to train other people in that kind of work.

I know that every manufacturer and trader sets aside in his balance sheet a certain amount for reserves. One of the most amazing things I discovered from some of the balance sheets of some manufacturers was the big amount they allocated as reserves. I found in the case of one manufacturing concern with a very big nominal capital but with a comparatively small paid-up capital, that by putting so much to reserve year after year for ten years they would have a higher figure as reserve than the paid-up capital of the company. I believe that is not an unusual thing. Is that not a way of hiding profits? If the firms the Minister referred to were carrying on their operations with the goodwill and consent of the Minister in that way, they were hiding their profits.

I see Deputy Briscoe listening to me. We all recognise him as an expert financial adviser to this Government. May I sk Deputy Briscoe is it not a fact that some firms in the City of Dublin, some well-known to himself, have issued bonus shares inside the last couple of years—out of what? Out of the hidden profits they were allowed to put into their balance sheets. Of course, the hidden profits would not be included in the 4¾ per cent. or the 5½ per cent. but they were issued as bonus shares. There are several ways of hiding the profits of firms. I think we would be entitled to know from the Minister, when he comes to reply, the names of the firms concerned so that those of us who are Deputies with the responsibility of criticising, even in a constructive way, the statements of the Minister in a matter of this kind, might have the right to look at the balance sheet of the firm or firms he had in mind to support his argument in this House. In any case he asserted that there was no justification for the allegations made here and outside this House in regard to the excessive profits of certain types of manufacturers and traders. I wonder what was the purpose of making that statement? Was it for the purpose of answering those who assert that, if you have to find increased taxation, some of that should be found by way of re-imposition of the Excess Profits Tax? I do not know why he brought it before the House. He related it to the question of price control and to my amazement proceeded to make a case in favour of the removal of price control. I hope the Minister will not be so silly as to proceed with a proposal of that kind, especially at a time when the food subsidies have been reduced in the drastic manner in which they have been reduced in the recent Budget.

He also referred to the question of the necessity—but he did not emphasise this too fully—for maintaining the policy of his predecessor in regard to reserve stocks. We heard a lot of criticism in this House during the first few months of office of the Fianna FáilCowan Government about using Marshall Aid money for the purpose of building up reserve stocks, at a time when the Minister and everybody sitting behind him, as well as everybody over here, were led to believe that we were on the verge of a third world war. Now, although he did not put it in very enthusiastic or clear language, he is in effect paying tribute to the foresight of his predecessor in this matter. He went on to talk about the position of one or two firms—I suspect I know one of them at any rate—that had according to him, incurred heavy losses by carrying out the wishes of his predecessor in regard to the stockpiling of raw materials. One of the firms which he asserts, or re-asserts, lost money as a result of stockpiling during the past two years, in the last balance sheet published shows an increased dividend to its shareholders and an increased allocation to the reserve fund of the company. That is one of the companies that, I know, will be able to show at the end of ten years' working a reserve fund equal to the paid up capital of the company. How can that company go to the Minister's Department and assert that it lost money, due, as is alleged, to the Minister's predecessor urging it to stockpile and build up reserves? How can it assert or reassert, if its balance sheet shows that it paid an increased dividend to its shareholders at the last annual meeting, that it lost money? I want to warn the Minister to be a little bit more careful before he commits the taxpayers to any compensation in the case of a firm of that kind.

The Minister also referred to the Industrial Development Authority, and more or less paid them a left-handed kind of compliment for the work they have been doing since he became Minister. We know what he said about that particular body when it was established by his predecessor under the previous Government. I was glad, however, to hear him go on record paying a tribute to the work carried out by this authority since it was established. He did say, of course, that its main function was neglected. I take it that when he referred to its main function he meant that from the beginning its work should have been devoted to the discovery of new industries. He suggested that too much of the members' time had been taken up on the administrative side. I am not sure that that is correct, but, at any rate, it is a good thing to learn from a present Minister that time has proved to him that the decision of his predecessor and of the inter-Party Government was justified by the establishment of this Industrial Development Authority.

I should like the Minister, and those who are his advisers in matters of this kind, to go a little bit further. The case was made in the House by Deputies from all sides in the past that the Industrial Development Authority should be closely associated with, if not merged with, the Industrial Credit Company. The recent appointment of the Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority to the position of Chairman of the Industrial Credit Company is a pointer in that direction. I welcome the policy that is behind that. I think there must be a certain amount of waste in members of the Industrial Development Authority devoting a considerable portion of their time to the framing or formulating of proposals for the establishment of new industries and then finding, at the end of their labours, that the necessary capital is not forthcoming for the very desirable purposes in view. I would encourage the Minister and everybody concerned to go ahead with the proposals for bringing about a merger between the Industrial Development Authority and the Industrial Credit Company. If that were done, it would, I think, serve a very useful purpose. It would avoid duplication and a waste of time so far as time is devoted by well-paid officers to the formulation of proposals for the establishment of new industries.

I was glad to hear from the Minister that the Industrial Development Authority had, since he became Minister, succeeded so far as to secure sanction for the establishment of five new industries. The Minister indicated that there were eleven schemes under active consideration for the establishment, I presume, of eleven more new industries. I hope that, when these new industries come to be placed, the Minister will remember the many statements which he made, going back over a long number of years, in connection with the necessity for the decentralization of industry, and that we are not going to have these five new industries which have been sanctioned, and the other eleven which I hope will come along later, situated in the principal city of the country. I hope they will find their way down to the centre of the country or to some places as far away from Dublin as possible.

The Minister said that he had advised the members of the Industrial Development Authority when formulating proposals for new industries, to provide for, or at least help in due time, to find industries in the country that will manufacture the £21,000,000 worth of the various commodities which we have been importing over a long period. I dare say that very big job will take some considerable time.

I do not want to delay the House unnecessarily in connection with this discussion. I want to bring to the Minister's notice a very serious complaint which could, I believe, be put right by the intervention of his Department. It is in connection with the conditions of employment in a certain firm that recently secured a big contract from the Post Office Department. Tenders were invited some short time ago for supply of 20,000 pairs of boots by the Stores Department of the Post Office. One of the firms that was lucky enough to secure a contract for half the quantity is situated at Emyvale in Co. Monaghan. I am reliably informed, and I want the Minister to have the matter put right without delay, that the firm which secured the contract for the supply of 10,000 pairs of boots is not paying trade union rates to its employees and has refused to do so.

I want the Minister to remember that there is such a thing as a Fair Wages Clause in Government contracts, and to insist, without delay, that the firm which was lucky enough to secure half the contract in this case will do what every other firm in the boot and shoe manufacturing industry is doing, namely, recognise the Fair Wages Clause and pay proper rates of wages to its workers. Otherwise, I think, the contract should be withdrawn from that particular firm. I think the request is a reasonable one. I trust the Minister and his advisers will look into the matter and have it put right within a reasonable time.

Deputy Coburn, Deputy Corish and other Deputies referred to the big amounts which are being allocated for the develpoment of harbours. I would like the Minister to ensure that the harbour authorities which are going to get the benefit of these big grants will give proper rates of wages and fair conditions of service to all their employees. I hope he will make it a condition that the members of those harbour authorities will do that. There are only a couple of them concerned— Drogheda and Dundalk. I made representations, on a couple of occasions recently, to the Minister's Department in connection with the conditions of a small section of the employees of the Dundalk Harbour Board—the members of the pilot service. They are engaged in a very dangerous occupation. I am sure the Minister has read the file and the nature of the complaint which has been verified, and that he would not, too willingly at any rate, approve of these conditions. I would ask him to make the necessary representations to the Dundalk Harbour Board to ensure that the pilots employed on that kind of dangerous work in the service of that harbour board are given reasonable Christian rates of wages and conditions of service. I leave the matter at that in the hope that the Minister will get his advisers to put the screw upon the people concerned. I listened to some of these people during the course of an interview in the Department of Industry and Commerce over a year ago. From their attitude on that particular occasion, they appeared to me the type of people whose outlook on the wages and conditions of those employed in the service of their board was the old Victorian outlook. If the members of the harbour board are not changed by the decent people of Dundalk, and whoever appoints them, then I hope that their attitude towards their workers and servants will be changed by the intervention of the Minister. I am sure he will agree to do so if he reads some of the complaints that have been sent to his Department in that matter.

Mr. Byrne

The Minister's officials were very friendly.

Mr. Davin

I am glad that Deputy Byrne, who was with me at that interview in the Department, reminds me of that. On the few occasions on which I had reason, with others, to approach the Minister's officials, I always found them very helpful on matters of that kind.

The Minister, naturally, referred to the position of Córas Iompair Éireann. He said that it continues to deteriorate. The history of Córas Iompair Eireann and of its predecessors since this State was established is not a very happy one. Previous to my coming into this House there was a railway dispute. The late Mr. Justice O'Connor, with others, was appointed by Mr. Joseph McGrath, when he was head of the Department of Industry and Commerce, to inquire into and report on the position of Irish Railways, as they were known then, and their future, and to make recommendations in connection with these matters. As the Minister is aware, the report favoured the nationalisation of the railways. That recommendation had been made by previous commissions appointed by the British House of Commons, going back over a very long period. The next step was the amalgamation of these railways by the Government of which Deputy McGilligan was then a Minister. Deputy McGilligan and his colleagues refused to accept the report and recommendations of the O'Connor Commission. There was an amalgamation scheme under private ownership and with as little State interference as could possibly be justified under the circumstances of the time. That amalgamation scheme had a fairly long lease of life. Then we come along to 1932-33 when we had the unification under private ownership. That also was a failure from a financial point of view and from the point of view of providing an efficient service for the trading and travelling public. Before the time that the Fianna Fáil Party induced myself and six fellow-sinners, as we were then called, to put Fianna Fáil into office, they promised that they would nationalise the transport services of this country. The Minister completely forgot all about that matter and a year after his appointment as Minister for Industry and Commerce he brought in the unification scheme. The next step was taken in 1943-44. From a financial point of view, in particular, the position was very precarious at that time. The Minister will remember the vote in this House which led to a general election on the matter. Some of us survived that general election and came back to this House. We cannot forget the cause of that general election, the issues that were fought during it and what happened after it. When the final stages of the 1944 Bill were going through this House I remember the Minister standing up and sticking out his chest in his usual forceful way and saying—I take it that he will take my word for this, that he will not ask me to quote exactly what he said on that occasion and that he will not deny what I am going to say now—that he was certain that he was giving to the trading and the travelling public, and to the community as a whole, an efficient and cheaper railway and transport system with better conditions for the workers employed therein. That was the gist of what the Minister said on that occasion. After all the trouble which we had in this House and in the country following a general election which was caused as a result——

Mr. Lemass

I am quite certain that I did not say that in 1944.

Mr. Davin

The Minister said it on the final stages.

Mr. McGilligan

He said that it would be an efficient service with better conditions for the employees and that it would be cheap to the public.

Mr. Lemass

In 1944? We could hardly keep them going in 1944. There was only one train a week.

Mr. McGilligan

That did not prevent the Minister from saying what he knew to be nonsense.

Mr. Lemass

I invite the Deputy to quote what I said.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Davin.

Mr. Davin

I did not think the Minister would deny it. I assure him that I will take advantage of another opportunity to read every word of what he said on that occasion. I am giving a fair and honest-to-God summary of what I believe he said.

Mr. McGilligan

What he said then was even more exaggerated, too.

Mr. Davin

Take the bus service in the city of Dublin. It is a public scandal. Deputy Briscoe will know something about this and he can say whether he does or not if he speaks afterwards. We have the public complaining in the Evening Mail and in other daily papers about the shortage of essential bus services in certain routes in the city area. On the other hand, we have an excess of bus services running parallel to the railway company's permanent way from Dalkey to Dublin. We had a costly kind of advertisement issued recently. I cannot tell you what the cost of it was but it looks lovely anyway. At the bus depots in Dalkey, Dún Laoghaire and Blackrock what do you think they were advertising? They were advertising an hourly service to and from these points for the railway and they have a two and three minute bus service. That is pinching the passengers from the railway in that railway company's premises.

The chief accountant of the railway writes up to the stationmaster periodically in very excited language and he asks him to furnish particulars and information as to what is the cause of the catastrophic drop in revenue by the railway on the Dalkey, Dún Laoghaire, Blackrock to Dublin route. Of course, he knows perfectly well. He should not be wasting time writing these letters. He knows perfectly well it is the intensive competition carried on by the bus service owned by the same company and for which a subsidy has to be paid by the taxpayer. Is there anybody in this House who will get up and defend that? The Minister or his predecesor should have given a policy instruction on this. They were afraid, for political reasons, to do it. If the Minister is not afraid to do it let him do it now and he will stop the rot. He will save the men.

The company did not get one penny additional capital under the 1950 Act.

Mr. Davin

Does the Minister know anything about the decrepit engines in the service of the company at the present time? If he does not, would he look for a return of the number of breakdowns in main line trains on recent occasions? Does he not know the cause of that? If he does not, will he now inquire into it?

The railway side has been deliberately allowed to fall into this chaotic condition. The workers will be expected to make a contribution to its recovery. That contribution should not be made by the dismissal of hundreds or thousands of railway and transport workers. I assert that not one man should be paid off from the service of the company until a genuine effort is made to co-ordinate rail and road services. That was the policy of the Minister's predecessor and that was the reason why he gave an undertaking there would be no dismissals as a result of the coming into operation of the scheme of nationalisation, and he honoured that undertaking.

The Minister will consult everyone. Has he consulted the Board of Córas Iompair Éireann? I believe he must have done so because he said here and at a social function in the city prior to that that he had told the directors of this company that the company would have to pay its way. There is only one way in which it can pay its way in the state in which it now is, and that is by the dismissal of hundreds of its workers.

Is there any truth in the statement that some thousands of workers will be affected by the Minister's policy in this matter? The Minister may deny that when he is replying. I hope he will be frank with the railway trade union leaders when he meets them to-morrow. I hope he will not place all the burden upon the railway trade union leaders who are now being consulted when the company is at the point of death and who were not consulted years ago, as they should have been, in connection with the contribution they could make.

Has the Minister received any proposals from the Board of Córas Iompair Éireann? If he has I think he should take the House and the country into his confidence. If policy decisions have to be taken by the Government those decisions will eventually have to be either confirmed or rejected by a majority of this House when they come before us for consideration and decision. If the Government has a policy for the safeguarding of the interests of this huge undertaking, in which so much of the taxpayers' money is invested, let the Minister tell the House and the country what that policy is when he comes to reply to this debate.

Do not go to the railway trade union leaders to-morrow and ask them to make a sacrifice without first putting the company's house in order. If the Minister can provide a better, more efficient, and ultimately cheaper transport system it is desirable and essential that a policy of co-ordination should be put into operation without further delay and a reasonable time given to see whether that policy of co-ordination will result in greater efficiency and a cheaper and better service for the community. I think we could have a better and more efficient system than the one we have now. My idea of a nationalised transport service is not to have bus services running parallel to and in competition with the railways. I believe we should have bus services connecting up with the junctions—Mallow, Limerick Junction, Ballybrophy and all the rest of them— with an inclusive fare by rail and by road. The railway cannot survive as it is carried on at present. The only way in which the position can be improved and a cheaper, more efficient and better service provided, while at the same time maintaining useful employment for 20,000 people, is by having a properly co-ordinated rail and road transport service under the aegis of Córas Iompair Éireann. I hope the Minister will take the House and the country into his confidence by stating what the true position is and the Government's policy in relation to such a very vital matter.

Mr. Briscoe

I was glad that Deputy Davin said at 8.45 p.m. that he would be brief and would not detain the House. Towards the end of his speech I got the impression that he was talking his way into becoming the adviser both to Córas Iompair Éireann and to the Government as to how to save and run the railways. I have debated with Deputy Davin for a number of years on this matter from two angles, and it was rather a pity that, on the eve of this meeting, Deputy Davin should have made this statement in the manner in which he made it and should not have left the matter to the meeting to see whether some formula could not be reached by agreement to bring about an improvement in the affairs of Córas Iompair Éireann.

I want to remind Deputy Davin and the House that before the 1932 election, to my knowledge and to Deputy Davin's knowledge, the vast bulk of railway workers, particularly at Inchicore, were on part-time and that the present Minister for Industry and Commerce gave an undertaking that one of the first things he would do as Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Fianna Fáil Government, if it came into office, would be to take in hands the putting in order, as far as possible, of the affairs of the company, so that, in the first instance, full and regular employment would be given to the workers on the railways. I challenge Deputy Davin or any of his colleagues to deny that from the moment of the change of Government in 1932 the building up and the improvement of the railways, as far as the employment of the workers was concerned, took a steady upward curve. That curve remained in that position, with the result that for many years not only did the workers have full employment but a great number of them had overtime as well. That position was held until the outbreak of war, and it was maintained as far as possible, notwithstanding even the post-war situation, the shortage of fuel and so forth.

I think Deputy Davin and the Labour Party ought to be convinced that the workers of the railways are the first persons to recognise that the present Minister for Industry and Commerce has always meant well for the workers in the railway system of Ireland—and they have always shown their appreciation of it. Does Deputy Davin not realise that there is no Labour representative in this Dáil from the Inchicore area, where there are thousands of railway workers? Is it not conclusive proof that the workers concerned place their faith in the present Minister and in the Fianna Fáil Government and they have not changed from that faith? What more do these gentlemen want? What more evidence is needed? Whether it is the Dublin Corporation or this Dáil, the railway workers have shown their support for Fianna Fáil and their faith in Deputy Lemass as Minister for Industry and Commerce.

——and force the people back on the railways, require them to walk from whatever stations they reach, get other forms of transport and to do that at certain regulated times. Deputy Davin was one of those who stood and supported the annihilation of the transatlantic air development service.

Mr. Davin

I make no apology for it either.

Mr. Briscoe

I know you do not.

Mr. Rooney

He had no personal interest in it.

Mr. Briscoe

I hope the Minister will be successful in giving back that service to the nation. I hope we will soon again see our own planes travelling under our own flag to other parts of the world piloted by Irishmen who are second to none in any part of the world. This service will bring a profit to the nation. It will bring it hard currency. It will help tourism. It will also bring to the nation that added prestige which was lost when the service was not put into operation.

Mr. Davin

Millionaires.

Mr. Rooney

Maximoe.

Mr. Briscoe

It is very hard to talk reasonably or sensibly to people with a certain type of mentality. The very idea that this country should aspire to being on a par with other countries and to have the same facilities as other countries arouses the spectre of millionaires in Deputy Davin's mind and Maximoes in the mind of the Deputy of the dual purpose hen. That is the mentality that seems to be predominant in this House.

Mr. Hughes

And the Rothschilds.

Mr. Briscoe

Surely it is not for me to appeal to Irishmen to regard themselves as being without doubt equal to any other people in any other part of the world.

Deputies

Another suggestion was made. I heard Deputy Davin refer to it in passing. He hoped that all the proposed new industries would not be mainly centred in Dublin.

Mr. Davin

In your constituency.

Mr. Briscoe

In my constituency or any other constituency. I think Deputy Davin has a holy horror of me. In his dreams he finds that every new industry is started in my constituency. In fact, there are very few industries in it. Perhaps, if the Deputy, when he goes to bed, lay on a different side he might see some other horrible person who might frighten him just as much.

Mr. Lemass

The left side.

Mr. Briscoe

Yes, the left side. We recently established a new Department. Of course, it was ridiculed when it was set up. Deputy McGilligan was the first to pour ridicule on it. That Department was established for a serious purpose. A special Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy J. Lynch, was assigned to it. The purpose of the Department was to establish industries in what were described as the undeveloped areas or in what I would call, under normal commercial standards, undevelopable areas. That particular section of the Department is operating. Any new industry set up in the undeveloped areas or in an undeveloped area will also get financial assistance in addition to encouragement and any other form of assistance it may require. Surely that should be sufficient evidence even to the most innocent-minded person in the House that the Government is serious in its attempt to decentralise industry and to bring industries to rural and urban Ireland.

I think it was in 1947—I am not quite sure—but shortly before the change of Government in 1948, the Fianna Fáil Government, through the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, introduced a new development for rural electrification. Apart from the amenities that would bring to the ordinary people in all parts of the country it would make electric power available, and that would no longer be a difficulty to be overcome by potential industrialists in establishing new factories.

All these things, of course, are forgotten. The approach to this Estimate is being made by minds still fresh from the recent by-elections. We are not to-night on the eve of an election, general or otherwise, and we are not trying to get votes.

Mr. Rooney

You would not face it.

Mr. Briscoe

The great man of courage. I believe that we should try to consider this Estimate with a view to seeing to what extent corrective measures can be brought to bear on things which may not be as good as they should be, to what extent improvements can be made or new suggestions put forward in the hope, as Deputy Davin rightly says, that the people as a whole will benefit irrespective of the political Party they belong to.

The Government must govern in the interests of the whole country. Therefore we should try, particularly with regard to this Estimate, to see that what is being done and what is contemplated shall have as far-reaching effects as possible for the benefit of all.

Mr. Coburn

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Blowick, an ex-Minister of State, wants us to believe by his almost crude interjection that it is possible for any industry or any firm to have hidden profits from the Revenue Commissioners and that by having them they are able to give a subscription to some political Party fund unknown to anybody. The Deputy, as an ex-Minister, knows that to be impossible even more than I know it, and I am convinced that it could not happen.

I thoroughly agree.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Davin does not thoroughly agree. He wants those who invest their money in an industry and build it up to say: "If we lose a bit the first year, we will put a bit more money into it. If we make a bit the second year, we must not keep it for ourselves, but we must give it out to some other firm."

The person who engages in private enterprise is as entitled to profit as the workman is to his hire or the professional man to his fee, and the sooner Deputy Davin and some of the people to whom he talks get that into their heads the sooner we will get rid of the fear that still attaches to the investment of money in industry in this country.

Mr. Davin

Can I claim your protection, Sir, against this misrepresentation?

Mr. Briscoe

I am quite willing to give way to Deputy Davin so that he will explain to me how, and to what extent, I misrepresented him.

Mr. Davin

That is your elastic imagination.

Mr. Briscoe

I was just trying to point out, as a result of listening to Deputy Davin's harangue, what the other side of the picture is. We are desirous of establishing industries in this country. A certain number of Deputies in this House have been hammering very hard on the phrase: "Repatriation of capital for investment at home." The only way Irish-owned capital will be gradually and ultimately fully repatriated for investment at home is when the owners of that capital can feel that they will always be able to get the same return for it as they did when it was invested abroad.

You have only got 12 minutes left in which to give your instructions.

Mr. Briscoe

That is a pity, because I had a lot more to say.

I do not know that it is reasonable that interjections of such an ignorant nature should be made, interjections which seek to ignore the facts, one after the other. It is true that, when the war ended and during the war, we had not sufficient materials to build houses for our people. It is true that we had a surplus of cement. I suppose the Deputy would have regarded it as good economics because we could not build houses, due to a shortage of other materials, to close down the cement factories and discard all the people employed there until such time as materials became available again. That is the mentality of the Deputy from County Dublin and I can understand it, coming from the man who invented the dual purpose hen. The State has made very extensive moves for the purpose of creating either State-aided or State-owned industries in a variety of ways.

It has been suggested that there should be a fusion of the Industrial Development Authority and the Industrial Credit Corporation. Deputy Davin thought that, if these two bodies were fused, we would have industry established and financed automatically. I do not think that even Deputy Morrissey, from his own experience of the situation, would subscribe to that proposal. It is far better to have the Industrial Development Authority as it is, limited to certain types of activities, putting propositions up to the Government for acceptance or rejection. When acceptance does take place, it becomes the responsibility of the Government to see how best the particular proposition can be financed and where the industry should be situated.

One of these bodies is supposed to be expert in financing certain types of commercial undertakings — private enterprise undertakings and not State industries—and the other is concerned solely with ascertaining whether a particular industry could be started here. The matter of the financing of the industry is a different problem which must be examined by those competent to do so as distinct from the other approach, the need for the industry. It must be obvious to anybody in the House that if we allowed the Industrial Credit Corporation or any other such financial institution to be the sole judge of the establishment of an industry, a great many industries would not be established because that body would see in advance that they would never be economic and would always have to have some form of subsidy. The Government in the past has subscribed to the idea and has pursued the policy that where something is of national importance, even if it does require a State subsidy, it shall be established. It may be a matter of labour content or a matter of the national economy, or a combination of both, but the fact is that there must be a different approach, in coming to a decision, from the approach to the purely financial aspect.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 10 Jul 1952

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

Mr. Brennan

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 10 Jul 1952