Committee on Finance. - Vote 50—Industry and Commerce (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (14th Dáil) – Friday, 11 Jul 1952

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

Mr. Briscoe

On the adjournment of the House last night, I was dealing with the efforts which are now being made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce to try to make the country self-sufficient in cement. It is in that line of thought that the approach should always be made—to make the country self-sufficient, and at the same time to give good and constant employment to our people. I do not know whether it is appreciated that, as regards certain items of development, there has to be quite a different approach from that of inducing or encouraging private enterprise to go side by side in its way in doing all these things. The Minister for Industry and Commerce must, of course, realise, particularly with regard to private enterprise, that this country can from time to time be vulnerable as a result of the impact on our domestic affairs of outside causes altogether beyond our control.

There is one problem that I would ask him to consider. It is, to what extent can our native industries be helped or protected from abnormal circumstances which arise when outside conditions are such that dumping can take place and so adversely affect our own industries? This particular situation has developed rather seriously and rapidly since the end of the emergency.

Deputy Davin last night—I am sorry that he is not here this morning—dealt with this and made reference to a specific firm. It is true that, in the last year of office of the Coalition Government, certain industries were not merely encouraged, they were, in fact, requested to stockpile so that, in the event of a shortage arising, there would not be a complete close down here. Private industry recognised at that time that the cost of raw materials was at its very highest level, and it seemed impossible that it could rise to higher levels. In order to secure an amount of stock for stockpiling the purchase of these raw materials had to be financed in different ways. The people concerned were alive to the possibility that as time went on the cost of raw materials could fall considerably, and that consequently they would then be in a very uncompetitive position, first of all as against native firms who might not have been able to secure raw materials at that time and, secondly, in competing with outside suppliers.

The position has now been reached, in the case of certain industries which did, in fact, react to the request that was made to them, that they find themselves to-day with their stock at a cost far greater that what the cost of replacement would be to-day. If they were to sell these stocks at what is to-day's price and on the basis of what is the cost of replacements to-day, there would be a very serious loss. Therefore, the question arises, how is that position to be bridged? I understand that there are certain negotiations going on with the Department of Industry and Commerce. I understand that some of these firms feel that, in fact, a promise was made to them that if such a situation arose there would be some consideration given to it and means found so that they would not have to bear the complete loss arising from what was regarded as their action in meeting a national requirement as distinct from what their own action and judgment would be in the ordinary commercial sense.

Deputy Davin talked about one of these firms. He said its balance sheet showed a margin of profit and that, therefore, no consideration should be given to it. Obviously, if the particular concern that he referred to were to write down its stocks to-day to present levels—whether or not it would be permitted to do so by the Revenue Commissioners is another matter—but if it did, it would show a loss and would, in fact, be abandoning any claim it may have, if there is any foundation for it to have a claim for consideration.

Last evening, although it is not strictly within the actual air service itself, I was relating my remarks to the development of certain industries. I did make specific reference to air development and to the tragedy that further air development had, in fact, been destroyed. I have had in my home for a considerable time technical journals dealing with air services and air development, the costings of air services and of profits. I would like the House to know that, in the years from 1948 up to the present, there is no air line in the world which has a transatlantic service that has not, in fact, made the most substantial profits on its transatlantic air lines. When I referred to this in the Dáil, in 1948, from the opposite benches, Deputy McGilligan, the then Minister for Finance, disputed with me that such was the case. I have here the references. They are all top profits references—every single one of them. With regard to our own five transatlantic airplanes which were sold to B.O.A.C., the fact of the matter is that B.O.A.C. made a profit of £1,000,000 in one year out of those planes in their services to Australia. We are concerned in a variety of ways with trying to cut down the adverse trade balance. We can cut down an adverse trade balance by denying ourselves certain items and, in many cases, essential items. We can also cut down an adverse trade balance by producing such items here. We can cut down an adverse trade balance if we develop invisible exports. We can improve our tourist traffic. We could have had a very handsome profit from our air services if they had been allowed to develop in the normal way. I hope that the Minister will include for active consideration, amongst the many projects he is now considering, the re-establishment of this particular service.

There is a substantial reduction in the Estimate as a result of the removal of subsidies and there has been a great deal of discussion on that subject here. I had hoped that the removal of the subsidies had been discussed sufficiently both on the Budget and during the recent by-election and that the House would have been satisfied that the people have, in fact, given their decision. Nevertheless, the subject of the removal of the food subsidies is still brought up here and brought up from the angle that people are losing spending power, that they are losing the position they held previously of being able to have extra consumer goods because they have to pay more money now for the goods from which the subsidy has been withdrawn. At the time these subsidies were removed I remarked here that I represent a constituency which is composed mainly of working-class people. It is rather strange—and Deputy Hickey might take note of this—that out of all the constituencies in the City of Dublin, where, it is recognised, we have a vast number of industrial workers and ordinary working-class people, there is only one Labour T.D.

Mr. Hickey

They are sorry for that.

Mr. Briscoe

Deputy Hickey may be sorry for it but surely it should be sufficient evidence to satisfy even the most critical Labour Deputy that the workers of this country, and particularly the workers of the City of Dublin, regard the Fianna Fáil Government and the Tánaiste as a Government and as a Minister really concerned with the welfare of the working people.

I do not know whether we can ever reach a state of mind where a certain recognition can be accorded to the position that has been reached with regard to the employment of our people. We have talked many times about emigration. We have to put this country on a footing where there will be a gradual development and where one particular circumstance of work will beget another circumstance of work. I used to hear references to our industrial developments to the effect that they were the most abject forms of undertakings. It is recognised to-day that we have a completely new situation. We have tanneries in this country that did not exist 20 odd years ago. These tanneries supply practically all our leather requirements and give substantial employment.

We have sufficient boot manufacturing concerns to manufacture all our boot requirements and, in fact, as has been pointed out, to export boots—so much so that questions were raised in another Parliament with a view to seeing if steps could be taken to stop the importation of boots and shoes from Ireland. I remember the time when the very thought of the production of boots and shoes in this country used to give people who had corns pains in their feet. They used to think that they would be forced to wear clogs. To-day, we are able to export boots and shoes and to compete with some of the countries which had a boot manufacturing tradition many long years before we entered the industry. Surely, therefore, there should be some pride in our people and pride in the development possibilities of this country. Surely there should be pride in the satisfaction that is given by the goods which we are producing. If we are going to compare our production methods and our production costs and relate them to the possibility of market, we cannot for one moment pretend that, in everything, we would be able to compete with the major countries but, with a certain amount of protection, we are able to feel secure now that within a reasonable time all that can be done in the country will be done. We have travelled a long distance from what used to divide us in this House as between protectionist and anti-protectionist policy.

Everybody now accepts that we can do certain things which were thought impossible at one particular time.

The Opposition Deputies have criticised the removal of the food subsidies. In September, 1948, the Coalition Minister for Industry and Commerce set up a committee to examine and report on the following matters:—

(i) The production, distribution and selling costs of flour and bread in relation to their fixed prices.

(ii) If the present fixed prices are generally justified in relation to the above costs.

(iii) If, and to what extent, a subsidy is necessary, and if it is, how it should be applied.

That committee was set up by the Coalition Government. On page 8 of the Interim and Final Report of that committee we read this particular finding:—

"In view of the exceptionally low level of these prices"

—that is, bread and flour—

"as compared with the prices of other essential foodstuffs, and having regard to the substantial increases in income received by most sections of the community in recent years, we are satisfied that the present considerable expenditure on flour subsidy is not justified. We therefore strongly recommend that flour and bread prices should be increased in gradual stages towards their economic levels."

That report was signed by the present Justice Lavery, Mr. McCarron and Mr. A. T. McMahon.

Fianna Fáil depend on scares and you know it.

Mr. Briscoe

We depend on scares?

Mr. McGrath

That is why we introduced the Budget before the by-election.

Mr. Briscoe

I do not know whether Deputy Rooney will admit that we were quite serious in our approach to this matter and we did not do all this fiddling and juggling that our predecessors did for three years to escape what they thought would be the reaction of the public. I believe that if the Coalition Government had faced up to the situation and had done the same as we had done, if they had not removed what they call the beer and spirits tax that had been imposed by Fianna Fáil in 1948 they might even still be in office. I believe that.

Mr. Briscoe

I think Deputy McGilligan would hope they would not. Take, for instance, paper for newsprint. It has fallen very considerably in the last few months.

The price of wool fell.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

Mr. Sweetman

By Deputy MacEntee, the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Briscoe

This particular Party will stay in office for another 16 years.

One that is in grave danger now like all the other frozen meat industries.

Mr. Briscoe

This one is not depending upon frozen meat. It only opened last week and judging by the competent businessmen who are running it it will be a successful venture and give good employment.

Mr. Sweetman

We all hope so.

A Deputy

When was it planned?

Mr. Briscoe

The Deputy knows that, before the change of Government in 1948, the Tánaiste indicated that there was an unlimited number of plans on his desk but how many of those plans were put into operation in the 3½ years which followed? These are the plans that are now being put into operation. New plans are being put into operation also. I want to say that there is new confidence abroad. There will be new industries and additional employment. Let those engaged in private enterprise operate without criticism and let those industries which the Government have to work, because they are not suitable for private enterprise, have the blessing and goodwill of the Dáil rather than the carping criticism such as we experienced over so many years.

Mr. Blowick

Newsprint is coming down.

Mr. McGilligan

It is very hard to have to listen to Deputy Briscoe parading himself as a patron saint of Irish nationality. It is a rather distorted and objectionable appearance he presents under these circumstances. One does get the feeling of ease when the Deputy slips over to being the profiteers' pal. His whole speech is based on a series of complete fabrications and statements made in defiance of the truth. It is a complete contradiction of the facts. He said that subsidies had been brought in at a time when the standstill Order was being introduced.

The Deputy can get the chart which was produced by the Central Statistics Office and he will find there that industrial wages had risen less than 25 points from 100 base, at the end of the war; 125 is what the chart shows here with regard to wages. The cost of living had soared to the top line, well over 175. That is paraded here as indicative of Fianna Fáil's attachment to labour and to employees in businesses. There is the fact. Anybody who gets that chart and looks at it can see the low line which is the industrial earnings of the community and the top line which is the cost of living. The gap in between is the lump that was torn out of people's lives because of the fact that the cost of living was allowed to rise to such a point while wages lost purchasing power. From 1939, certainly to 1945, that was the level—125 for wages over base; cost of living running to about 175 and to 180 points at times.

It was in our time, in 1948, that these two lines crossed and that industrial earnings at least came level with the cost of living. We mended the gap. The Deputy who has gone should remember that the progress of things was that in 1939 there was a promise made here that cost of living would be stabilised and, as part of that programme and reliance on that programme being carried out, wages were to be stood still. There was a ruthless efficiency in standing still wages. There was complete disregard of the other promise with regard to cost of living; it was allowed to soar.

Then we came to 1947. It was said that controls had been relaxed in 1945. To some degree they had. We came to 1947 with the big introduction of the big subsidy programme which was paraded in this House with some pride as the effort of the Fianna Fáil Government to stabilise the cost of living. We were told in those days that employees in businesses, civil servants and all the various servants of the State would have to be content with whatever increases they had got relative to the cost of living and the present Tánaiste had a piece of legislation prepared for a new standstill Order.

The legislation was there ready and negotiations were entered into with the two trade unions to see whether they would agree because it was stated in the October Budget period of 1947 that, if the trade unions did not agree, there would be compulsion put upon them by the law.

That failed because the people effected a change of government in 1947-48 through the by-election and the General Election that succeeded. Wages did rise. We hoped they would rise. There were Labour Court agreements, agreements with the Federation of Employers, and all the time the subsidies were kept on and taxation was lowered. So, for the first time since 1948, the subsidies became a reality as, prior to that, the subsidies were being paid for in an indirect way by the taxes on beer and tobacco. But, subsidies were a reality from 1948 until the other day and then again they were dropped and we were told in the Budget speech that there is to be no question of wages rising. The theme in the Budget was that people were too well off. The phrase, often quoted in this House, was that the Government had given careful consideration to the particular matter and as personal incomes had risen more than the increases in the cost of living, therefore it was intended —and that promise has been carried out—to do away with the subsidies.

The chart that I have referred to can be got by anybody who is inquiring and he will see there what the gap in the lives of the people was by the failure of the Government to abide by one of its promises to stabilise cost of living and its ruthless implementation of the second promise, to keep at its particular point, wages.

Deputy Briscoe says that there is no profiteering going on in the country. If that be the case, why should the then Deputy, now President of this country, come as Minister for Finance twice into this House in the early stages of the war with proposals that he was introducing because he said he had knowledge that a great number of people in the country were taking advantage of the international exigencies to make vast profits? He was challenged in the Seanad by a Senator who is an industrialist that somebody said industrialists were making vast profits out of the war. He was asked did he believe that. The question was put to the then Minister. He said, "Not merely do I believe it but I have proof of it".

If there are no profits being made, why again did the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Tánaiste, prepare a piece of legislation called the Emergency Powers (Unlawful Profits) Bill, dated 1945? That we found also in cold storage. The memorandum that was attached to it said that the Minister proposed only to move where profiteering was gross and where the profits made were substantial but he was convinced that both those things were happening—profiteering was going on certainly and—he was only going to touch the fringe—where profiteering was gross and where the profits made were substantial, then, and then only, would he move under his proposed legislation.

If people want to know anything about industry—I do not say it is evidence of profiteering but certainly it is evidence of the good conditions that business people in this country enjoy—they have only to turn to the annual report of the Revenue Commissioners. The last that I have here is for the year ended 31st March, 1949. There is a later one out. One turns to table 70—the gross income. This particular table starts only with 1943-44 but I got information from the Revenue Commissioners two years ago to see what were the pre-war figures, for comparison. Under Schedule D, which is the schedule that shows profits from businesses and professions, there are certain figures set out. I asked was there any confusion to be caused in these accounts by the fact that professions, and I understand also, investment money or investment returns are in that figure. I was told they were very stable, that one could take them as being £10,000,000 for investment and £3,000,000 for professions.

The figure, pre-war, under this Schedule D was £30,000,000 gross income. These are tables prepared for income-tax purposes. There are two, one gross, the second annual income. Gross income under Schedule D. pre-war—that is the schedule that relates mainly to business and trade in this country—ran into £30,000,000. In 1945-46, that gross income had got to £46,000,000 and in 1948-49 it had got to £64,000,000. Gross income, in other words, of business people had risen from a pre-war figure of £30,000,000 to a figure of £64,000,000 in 1948-49 and my information in those days was that the tendency was still upwards.

There are other figures in the later table, table 80, which show the assessment made under corporation profits tax. Certain information I got again with regard to three pre-war years shows under a particular heading that certain profits had risen from £10,500,000 to £27,500,000.

Those profits may be properly earned. There may be nothing wrong with those profits but, when one takes the figure that is permitted, without anybody having any argument based upon it that it is unjust, one gets the startling rise from £30,000,000 to £64,000,000 and then one compares it with that table. We know now that the whole Budget argument and the whole argument of the Department of Industry and Commerce says that personal incomes have advanced too much in this country, that people have got their salaries increased by something more than what they are entitled to by the increases in the cost-of-living index figure.

Deputy Briscoe went through all the well-known clichés with regard to industrial profits. He said that if one looks at any return from any business he will see that profit is the smallest part of the returns. Of course it is. Why would it not be? I understand that what he means there is breaking up the figure given for gross returns, there is so much for raw materials, so much for wages, salaries, overhead expenses, something that goes to depreciation and reserve, and something that goes to profits.

Of course, that could turn out to be something like 1½d. or 2d. in the 1/- or 10/- in the £1. I do not mind what it is. It should not be carried on. At this point my memory turns to a commission in this country which reported certain pilfering that was done—open pilfering—with regard to a fund created by the old Pigs and Bacon Commission. The commission reported that curers, at a certain stage, divided the till between them. When I inquired from these curers as to what standard was adopted when the division was being made, I was told that they simply decided to take whatever was in the till. It was not a matter of remunerating themselves for losses they had incurred, but they simply divided amongst them everything that was in the till. A defence of an ingenious character was put up, afterwards. It was said: "What does it matter whether it was £167,000 or £337,000, because it only meant a farthing on the pound of bacon." It was made out that the loot only represented a farthing in the pound. I am using this in connection with the argument so frequently put before the House and before people outside to the effect that, because profit that is earned only amounts to something like 2½d. in the 1/-, in the £1, or in 10/-it does not matter. How many of these 2½ds. or ½ds. are being appropriated? How many people benefit from all these 2½ds. that are being gathered in?

Deputy Briscoe was very naïve with regard to the reserves which people in business set aside. I believe these reserves should be there. It is well known that business people put aside money against a possible sudden change, which may show itself either in the lowering of the price of goods or in the ascent of the price they may have to pay for raw materials. There is agreement in Great Britain and legislation in Canada so that business people will divide their reserves so as to provide money to build up special reserves. However in this country there is a big sum of money appropriated to general reserves and none is set aside for special reserves. In fact, general reserves are allowed to double themselves in order, eventually, to give bonus shares. Deputy Briscoe thinks that there is no harm in this. There-is no harm in it if the reserves are put back into the business, but what we object to is that people put, for instance, £100 towards a capital of £1,000, £1,500 or £2,000 and then find, after a number of years, that their capital has doubled itself and that they get the same dividend on the new money.

People who have bought 100 shares in the business get the same percentage of dividend on the new moneys as people who had 200 shares in the first instance. It means, of course, that it does not look as bad.

Deputy Briscoe thinks that we are all as simple as he is. There are businesses in this country which, in less than ten years, had doubled their capital and then made a public issue of less than 50 per cent. of the money they retained control of. They put three of their biggest proprietors into the business carrying the same number of salaries and made one of them a managing director with an additional salary of £500 per annum. They retained full control of all the money in their possession. They had made their capital twice what it was and, as a result of a public issue, three times what it was. That was the sort of thing Deputy Norton called attention to in this House when he said some of these people should be put behind iron bars. Of course, he was not referring to those who engaged in Irish industry as a whole, but only to the people who defamed it.

I am told that the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that they are getting a full return from business so that a full return by way of income-tax and corporation profits tax is received. That is not the case. During my term of office the Revenue Commissioners made application for increased staff on two occasions and, on both occasions, they got it. Before my last Budget they explained to me that the fact of taking certain people off the income-tax assessment level was equivalent to giving them another addition to their staffs. They said that if they had sufficient staff they would be better able to get after people who had not disclosed their true income returns. Deputy Sweetman was correct when he said that if all those people earning money were made to pay, income-tax could be reduced by 1/- or 1/6 in the £. Deputy Briscoe said that if the whole profit, whatever little it may be, were to be ploughed back into the business, it would not make any substantial change in the price of the article. That is not always so. It is held, with regard to a great many businesses, that if undisclosed reserves and hidden profits were divided up, it would mean there would be quite a substantial reduction in prices. These undisclosed reserves are eventually divided up amongst proprietors.

One thing that always struck me in association with business people and with Labour representatives was that when employees of industries looked for an increase to the Labour Court the increase was granted only after much searching as to the reasons for the increase. The fact was that the increase could be given without causing any great sacrifices on the part of the directors of the industries, without taking away a fraction of the profits made, or without making any change in the price of the goods offered for sale. There is an element of psychology in connection with this whole matter which cannot be lost sight of.

Deputy Briscoe, during the course of his speech, said that he hopes the transatlantic air service will be restored. He said there were already signs that it would be restored. I do not believe one word of this nor do I believe that transatlantic air services are making profits. I do not know of any profits that were made. The only profits that were made on this service in the last five years and the only profits that will be made in the next ten years were the profit we made as a result of the sale of the Constellations. We sold the machines at a profit and we prevented this country from incurring a loss—a substantial loss and an increasing loss. I personally regard it as a blessing and as something to be proud of that we got rid of these Constellations.

It is nauseating to hear Deputy Briscoe preaching about Irish flags and Irish crews. When I hear him in this national mood, it takes my mind back through the mists of history to search out the area behind the present Iron Curtain where that voice had its origin.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Government (Mr. Lynch)

That is a most degrading remark.

Mr. Lemass

Leave him alone. Personal abuse is his only argument.

Mr. McGilligan

If the Parliamentary Secretary has anything to say, would he please not mumble?

Mr. Lynch

I said that that was a most degrading remark, coming from the Deputy.

Mr. McGilligan

It is a remark I would make to Deputy Briscoe if he were in the House.

Mr. Lemass

I think, Sir, that personal abuse should be discouraged in this House.

Mr. McGilligan

Personal abuse, nonsense. I am entitled to say that I will accept that kind of thing from an Irishman but not from a foreigner.

I remember a time when the commonest epithet addressed from the opposite side of the House to this side was "traitor". That was not muck; that was a statement of fact, I presume, coming from outside Western Europe.

Deputy Briscoe talked about transatlantic air services. Let him get his records of where they have been a success and let him parade them here and let us see what are the conditions. I heard him say that "we made Aer Lingus a success". Who did? Not the present Government. Aer Lingus was still "in the red" when we got hold of it. It was made a business concern after that. If it is now "out of the red"—I am not sure it is entirely but it is much nearer being self-supporting than ever it was—and it is a good concern. But on the argument that, because Aer Lingus can be good, a transatlantic service can also be good, we might as well start building a ship to capture the blue riband of the Atlantic, because, if the B. and I. can be a success, clearly a transatlantic liner service can be a success, too, on that absurd argument.

Deputy Briscoe said I had been scornful of the Parliamentary Secretary's, Deputy Lynch's, office. I do not think that up to this I have ever said so. I have thought so and I now propose to say so. I have complete scorn for that office and for the Parliamentary Secretary, who allows himself to be put into a dead-end of an office where he knows he has no power and no likelihood of doing any good, and where he is being used for the purpose of bribing certain parts of the community. We know how his office came into being, since it has been introduced into this debate. Talk about the midge pest down in Cork!

This is the time for the seasonal descent on the West again and maybe the Parliamentary Secretary is going to lead a couple of more Parliamentary Secretaries down there in order to do further surveys. So far as I remember, there were 13 reports on the congested districts, as between reports by the old Congested Districts Board, the Report of the Gaeltacht Commission and so on. In all, there were 13 reports, and Parliamentary Secretary Lynch had to go on another to get up to date. I should like to know what he has in his office, apart from furniture and possibly these 13 old reports. The first time he has any record of work done will he come and let us have a full-dress debate on his achievement?

Rural electrification is another matter that Deputy Briscoe talked about. Rural electrification started at a very late point in this country. At the time when the Siemens-Schuckert plan for the Shannon was first produced, they had a section dealing with rural electrification. That was back in 1927, and they said that this country was lagging far behind most other countries in regard to rural electrification and was terribly far behind in relation to certain countries they named. When the four European experts reported on the Siemens-Schuckert plan, they drew attention to this and said that there was no doubt that the rural community in this country had been deprived of something which other rural communities had had for very many years. They said that the immediate thing to do with regard to electrification was to get ahead with the easy market, the towns and small villages, and then to bring it to the other areas.

When did we move out? The vigorous Minister sat on that whole matter of rural electrification until there was really no power at the disposal of the Electricity Supply Board for the development of the rural areas. There was no development with regard to electricity here, except the one which was forced upon the Government by the Dublin Corporation. There was nothing doing in the way of electrical development until the war started, excepting only one scheme, the Dublin scheme at Poulaphouca, which was indulged in mainly as a reservoir scheme for the provision of extra domestic supplies of water for the Dublin community, and then that half-hearted effort for the development of electricity was considered at that point. By that time, of course, expenses had gone completely beyond all reckoning. Labour charges had gone up; machinery charges had advanced fundamentally; and machinery was almost impossible to get. In these circumstances, the alert Minister decided that this was the time to have a new electrical development. In the Estimate this year, one of the things boasted of is that the annuity payment for rural electrification has been brought back to the figure of £485,000 instead of the annuity figure of £50,000 at which we had it last year. That is one of the most amazing changes that I see through the Estimates, and I should like to get some explanation of it.

Let me explain what happened. Rural electrification was based on acceptance of the position that it cannot pay its way and the result was that a scheme was adopted of charging dwellers in rural Ireland nothing really for bringing electricity to them. Whatever the cost of generation and whatever the cost of distribution sets—the poles and wires—that was, so to speak, to be regarded as a sort of capital development, not to be charged against the rural consumer.

It means that of the entire expense of bringing electricity to country areas a subvention of 50 per cent. must be given in order to make it easy for rural dwellers to get electricity. That subvention is divided half and half between the Government and the Electricity Supply Board. The Electricity Supply Board's charges are under the control of a public accountant of great repute. His report comes to this Dáil year by year under circumstances where it is open to challenge. If there is anything agitating the public it can be raised here, and it is a matter of responsibility with the Minister to raise it beforehand with the public auditor. Year by year, since rural electrification started, they have the system that whatever money they advance, they receive it on a 50-year basis, because that is their idea, backed by the public auditor who is appointed to deal with their charges. Their idea is that when lines are put up they will exist for 50 years.

Half the subvention of the Electricity Supply Board is paid by annuity spread out over 50 years. When we considered this as a Government we could not see why the Electricity Supply Board could pay the moneys over 50 years, but the Government must charge the taxpayer the whole sum in one go, and we made it a 50-year payment. Now it is back again. The taxpayer each year is landed with the full expenditure, the £500,000 advance in this respect. The Government insists on the taxpayer doing that, but it allows the Electricity Supply Board to spread it out over 50 years. What reason lies behind this division of charge I do not know. The idea of spreading it out seems to me to be the proper one, because it is based on the life of the materials. The provisioning of rural electrification, poles, wires and impedimenta carrying electricity to the countryside, is not going to be repeated year by year. Let me put this fantastic proposition to the House: suppose that we could get rid of rural electrification in one year at a cost of £10,000,000 and the State subvention was going to be £5,000,000, on the present system they would want to pay that £5,000,000 through the taxpayers' pockets in one year. One has only to put it that way to see how fundamentally absurd this matter is.

These are minor points raised by Deputy Briscoe in a parade of nationality. Although he touched on some important matters those are not the important things in a discussion on Industry and Commerce. The main thing is that the present Minister went before the people during the last couple of days talking first of all about the great loan which was going to be raised and secondly giving his views on the drapery trade. He has also —I hope that Deputies on the Fianna Fáil side take note—spoken on prices in a way which has brought a tribute in a well-phrased editorial in one of the daily papers. He has, I understand, thrown the towel into the ring regarding prices. Not only are they not going to come down but they are going up—that is apart from the prices which the Government have made go up by withdrawing the subsidies. Other prices are going up. We had a headline in the Saturday Irish Press of May 26th, 1951: “ `Coalition Aim— Hide Price Failure', says Seán Lemass”. It must be that which inspired Deputy Lynch, as Deputy Norton pointed out, to have his photograph on an address in which he promised the reduction of prices as well as the maintenance of subsidies. He should bring in some newspaper clippings as part of the furnishing of his £3,000 office in order to study them in whatever leisure he may have from the development of the West.

"Coalition Aim — Hide Prices Failure." Now we are told that apart from what the Government are going to do by withdrawing the subsidies, prices are going up. Deputy Briscoe thinks not, but the Minister tells us that it is time for the people to buy more goods in drapery shops. He thinks that there is a business recession—most people are sure of it—and that the falling off in sales was serious, and because it coincided with the accumulation of exceptionally large stocks it resulted in a sharp reduction in employment in Irish manufacturing concerns. He comes, however, to the buoyant conclusion that there is no reason for the public to hold off buying in shops with the idea that clothing goods are becoming cheaper. Having regard to future prospects, he urged the public to buy now and said that they would be likely to benefit by so doing.

He says that the shops are languishing, that manufacturers cannot get retailers and wholesalers to buy their goods and that therefore they are languishing, too. All are languishing because the customers are not in the shops. According to the Minister, people are holding off because they think that clothing will become cheaper. The Minister may know that while that is one reason the people are not in the shops it is not the whole reason or the greater part of it.

We are to have a substantial loan. A "substantial" loan is the word. We were told in the Budget that the reasons for the Budget hardships were two: we must stop buying abroad; this terrible growth in the gap in the balance of payments must be stopped. Secondly, personal incomes had advanced beyond the increase in the cost of living. That, transferred into ordinary terms which the man in the street would understand, is: "You are all living too well; you have too much money to spend and you are all spending too freely." And the screw was put on. "Food has to be bought so we will make food dearer and the less money people will have to buy drapery goods.""There is too much spending on tobacco and drink but they are going to be consumed," that was the thought. "Put more taxes on those, and the less money people will have to spend on drapery goods."

That policy, of course, had the inevitable conclusion that whatever business recession there was would be deepened and lengthened. Now the Minister tells us that there is going to be no slump in prices. Having taken so much from you in taxation, he proposes to ask you for some of your savings: "We, nevertheless, want you —where you are going to find the money is none of our business—to throw money into the drapery business and buy more goods". To do those three things would be equivalent to getting a solution for the problem of perpetual motion: reduce the people's spending power; look on some part of that reduced spending power as savings and get them to give it to the State as a loan and nevertheless get great business activity. If you can do that, you have certainly done something which borders on the miraculous.

Of course this is the result of policy. There must be a depression. There must be unemployment. There must be bankruptcy. Those are ways in which you purge out an inflated economy. These things are being done; they are in process of being done. Why should Deputies look sheepish in this House when unemployment is talked about? I know that unemployment was up by 13,000 and has now been reduced. By the ordinary statistical calculation which is made at this time of the year, it is not as bad, but is only 9,000 up. Let us get out, however, of the special order period and the figure will go back to 13,000 with a few extra thousands to it. There is extra unemployment, therefore, and there is a very big upsurge in emigration. There is underemployment which has not yet been marked. There are people running to the unemployment exchanges getting themselves registered as unemployed. There are people hanging on in firms which are not really making their wages, but which are keeping on their employees as far as they can in the hope that the slump will come to an end. People are not resorting to the shops. There is a depression all round and that cannot be denied. Yet the Minister talks of soaking up purchasing power out of the hands of the people. He says that people are really spending too freely on things which they should not spend money on. He says that they should give the State a substantial loan out of the accumulated savings the people have, although they have the same pay packet and must pay more for food, drink and tobacco. Then, when their purchasing power is reduced, on the one hand immediately and on the other hand potentially, when this appeal comes in the autumn, he asks them to swarm into the shops to buy.

For a year we have been told that the fault of the people is that they are buying too much, living too well, have too much spending power and are spending it, but now there is a move on. When you have a depression the mood has changed; there are exhortations to the people and they are told: "Do not think that there is going to be a fall in prices. Prices are stabilised, if not going up. You might as well buy now when the buying is relatively good. You might as well buy now because probably there will be worse taxation next year as we have only reduced the main part of the subsidies this year and we will take them all off next year."

I have already referred to the matter of the standstill Order, and in this context I want to refer to it again. There are these terrible contrasts. I will only refer to them with regard to industrial wages. I ask people to get the chart and look at it and remember that that big balloon in the centre represents the gap torn out of the people's lives here between 1939 and 1945. Industrial wages were raised by small subventions here and there by only 25 points over the 100 in 1939 while the cost of living was soaring to 80 points over.

So far as this chart goes it establishes that in 1948 the gap was closed inasmuch as industrial earnings then had surpassed the increased cost of living. I stress industrial earnings as in that calculation one must have regard to the fact that people secured more money by overtime wages or, when the working week was reduced from 44 to, say, 40 hours, the extra hours were paid on overtime rates. These items must be taken into any calculation based upon earnings as opposed to wage rates. In any event, the earnings crossed the line and the gap was closed at last in 1948. Now an attempt is being made to widen that gap once more because that is what the reduction in the subsidies means.

In 1939 we had the standstill Order. In 1947 we had the threat of a new standstill Order and the legislation ready for it. Then there was a realisation apparently in Fianna Fáil circles that that particular cock would not fight any longer. There had to be an indirect approach to the question of wages. There are two ways in which wages can be controlled. One is by direct control, a standstill Order which prevents any increase except in exceptional circumstances. The other is the indirect approach which is: let the pay packet be the same as before but increase the cost of the things people must buy or are going to buy. That is the same as if you secured a reduction in wages.

That chart shows industrial earnings. I asked in my time that the Civil Service associations should produce a similar chart in which they could show that the Civil Service suffered by the standstill Order. I asked them to have it produced so as to show what was torn from the lives of the people who are servants of the State. We would have to get similar charts for the Guards, the Army and the teachers. Similar charts can be made, but not with the same accuracy, with regard to pensioners of the State because they also suffered from what is shown there.

Then, in opposition to that, we got the figures I have already given to this House in regard to which, apparently, there was no standstill. There were reasons for these I am sure. But there is certainly something to be thrown into the balance and weighed against the depression shown by the chart. Schedule D showed that the profits from businesses and professions went up from a pre-war figure of £30,500,000 to a figure in 1948-49 of £64,500,000. There may be an explanation for that. I am not saying that that by any means reflects the personal profits because there had to be very heavy expenses thought of when replacements of machinery, plant and buildings came along. Therefore, extra profits had to be made to pile up the reserves for these things. But, when there is such a tremendous gap as that between £30,500,000 and £64,500,000 there is something to be considered by the people who are so keen on keeping their minds attached to that chart, and thinking of again producing that situation, but by indirect means this time.

In that connection, might I ask why 1939 is regarded as such a sacrosanct year? That chart shows not merely that people were not allowed to remain at the 1939 position which they had achieved with regard to the standard of living, but it shows the deficiencies, what was taken from them when judged by that 1939 standard. Is it thought proper that from 1939 to to-day there should not be any improvement in the conditions in which working people live? Have we not made any advance as a nation? Has the national income not gone up? Have workers not added to the productivity of the country? Apart from machinery, which I know is one of the points brought in in connection with this argument about productivity, are the workers not producing more? Are they not, as a unit, giving greater production than before? I understand they are. Why tie people to the 1939 level? That, of course, is the Budget philosophy, that personal incomes have increased more than the increase in the cost of living—a cost of living based upon 1939. There is no allowance made for any improvement when one speaks in these terms.

Of course, it is rather futile to be talking about improvement when the Government appear to say: "What you had in 1939 was good enough. You are getting a little bit better now because the gross income is bigger than the increase in the cost of living. Therefore we are going to put you back to the 1939 level." That is a wrong policy and a policy which will completely fail. It has to be put into the balance against the improvement shown in the personal incomes and the profits derived from businesses and the professions.

It was. The intention was to slide over from one to the other. There is no question that there was profiteering, gross profiteering.

Mr. Lemass

Is it not a fair comment that we twice explained the reasons to the workers for that position and they twice sent us back during that period?

You do not pay anything into the national debt. You pay interest charges, and they were a very small part, at that time, of what has since happened to be the national debt under the present Government. Taking this £3,000,000 off the figure given for the Budget deficit, one is left with £3,500,000. The table giving the Estimate of Revenue and Expenditure for this year showed that the old rates of taxation were supposed to bring in an extra £2,500,000, leaving a Budget deficit of £1,000,000. If the Government and the Minister tell Deputies that they were not responsible for the expenses of last year, then they are going beyond the bounds of untruthfulness they have already reached.

There were no debts. You were left with £24,000,000 of good money, and the good use of that money should have been attended to. If the Government had made good use of it they would have been saved any amount of trouble —if they had taken their courage in their hands and gone for a loan. If they had done that, they could have used the money that had been left to them, as Deputy Costello said, as a shelter belt against bad periods. We used to draw off a bit of money here and there, the money that we required to keep 80,000 people in productive employment. If the money that we got from a national loan was not sufficient then we drew off £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 year by year. If the money you had been left had been siphoned in that way, it could have been utilised as a reserve for five or six years. But, instead of that being done, it was scattered and thrown to the winds in seven months.

Now the Government are in a desperate position. I think they are in a desperate position unless they can get the £35,000,000 odd which is required for development purposes this year. They say they can get £10,000,000 from small savings and social security funds. They will want another £25,000,000. In any event, they must get £15,000,000. I wish them luck. If they give me charge for the next half-year of the posters they had about the pawnbroker and the three golden balls, I guarantee they will not be used by anyone against the proposals for a loan. We will guarantee that there will be no defeatism with regard to the moneys that are required.

We do think that before you start looking for money you ought to make the position clear. Let us know what is the situation with regard to the development of the country, what is the real situation with regard to the depression, whether it is likely to lift, and then we will know how the people are responding. We are told that they responded during the by-elections to a willing acceptance of the new charges for food. That will be shown, if it is true, and if people have more money than they are entitled to. There is no doubt that, as well as having to pay increased prices for food, they will have to pay more for other commodities, beer and tobacco. Are we to be told that the people will be swarming into the shops to buy goods? At the moment, the prospects are dismal, notwithstanding the heroics of the Minister at Bundoran a few weeks ago. As far as that area is concerned, I understand that tourism has been very disappointing during the past month. I do not know what the position is with regard to July, but we ought to get statistics on it. The extent to which the Government can increase employment, productivity and capital investment through the good schemes which we started is now to be measured by what they can get from the public by way of a loan. Let them keep these good schemes which we started in operation. Through them, we put people into employment and kept them in employment, and we continued that good productive work over a period. On the other side we have, of course, a mass of contradictions by the present Government.

We had two great points in the Budget. The first was that the people were living beyond their means and that they were having too much money to spend; the second was that we were buying too much from abroad and that we should preserve these sterling assets and, in fact, increase them, because of the fact that we required the interest returns to a greater height than before. I understand that the Minister, when introducing his Estimate, used the words that "sterling was hanging on by the skin of its teeth". That was reported in the newspapers. I wonder how long it is since that idea penetrated into the Cabinet?

For the past nine or ten months we have been told to bank everything on sterling. The whole idea was that we were reducing our sterling assets. It was held out as if it were one of the necessities of national life for good living in the future that we should have more and more money invested in sterling. Now, I understand, the Minister says that sterling is hanging on by the skin of its teeth. I said on a former occasion that what we do at home here does not have any effect on sterling and that the people who think that it does should be in Cloud Cuckooland. If this country set out on a deliberate course of inflation and if we succeeded in that madness it would have no effect whatever on the position of the £. What we do here has no relation to what is done in Britain. It is what is done there that makes the difference as to whether the £ is good or bad. For some years past the British have had an austerity programme with a view to improving the value of the £, but they have not been successful. There have been some crises and apparently we are due for another one this autumn. The Minister comes along now and tells us that he does not think that sterling is so safe after all. I would remind the Minister that he joined with his colleagues in stopping our developments and in building up still further reserves of sterling. Now, in the month of July, the Minister says that he is of the opinion that sterling is hanging on by the skin of its teeth.

Mr. Davin

He should read the reports of Mr. Churchill's press conference.

Mr. McGilligan

He could go back much further than that and read the speech made in 1940 by the late Mr. Ernest Bevin in which he forecast the present position. He said that the outlook for the future was black because they were bust. Now, in July of 1952, after all the nonsensical talk about the necessity for austerity in this country to keep the £ right because the £ is a great thing, we are told that sterling is hanging on by the skin of its teeth. Are we going to be told that it is still a good investment? Is it right that we should restrain ourselves from cashing-in on our sterling reserves which are held in that precarious medium? No doubt the Minister will explain these contradictions later.

I do not see any great chance for the immediate future of this country if the present mood of depression is to persist. The mood of depression may be caused, to some extent, by what is happening outside, but this is not the time to deepen the depression. This is the time when we should go out on a spending policy. The policy talked about over the past 18 months is deflationary. We warned the present Government that, before many months, as a result of the policy they were pursuing, we would have deflation and that then the people would begin to ask for increased wages to make up for the decrease in their standard of living. The autumn will see an inflationary period. There is no doubt that if wages are increased— and there is very little doubt that they are going to be increased to meet the extra cost of living—prices will rise and the Minister's prophecy will come true. It is a complete contradiction of the promise he made with regard to keeping prices down. The white flag is up as far as prices are concerned. It is the time of surrender and the country will have to accommodate itself to that immediately.

I come now to Córas Iompair Éireann. I understand that negotiations are going to take place, though I do not know what exactly they are about. I do not want to make a difficult situation worse but we are entitled to say, ahead of a conference, certain things about Córas Iompair Éireann. According to statements which I have heard, Córas Iompair Éireann have issued a lot of dismissal notices. I have no information as to now numerous they are. I do not believe they can be anything approaching the dismissals that were envisaged when we took over the situation in 1948. The only proposals then made to us for a betterment of the position were (1) a closing of branch lines, (2) the dismissal of certain people who were on the maintenance service on the main and branch lines and (3) a very serious reduction in the liberty allowed to private hauliers to compete with Córas Iompair Éireann. The tot of unemployment under the first two heads was to be somewhere in the region of 3,000 persons. It was also agreed that if the haulage proprietors were restricted to any great extent there would be unemployment amongst the people to whom they gave employment. We never got that actual calculation because the proposals were never well-formulated though they were ruthless proposals. It was agreed that to close most of the branch lines and then to let maintenance run down by removing from the maintenance side of Córas Iompair Éireann those who were on the job was a policy of deterioration because it meant that the lines would deteriorate rapidly. We stopped that.

Mr. Lemass

You were told that that was the alternative to sanctioning an increase in fares.

Mr. McGilligan

No. It was pointed out that there is a point beyond which fares cannot be increased as otherwise the railways will lose traffic. We were told that though the fares would bring in certain emoluments to the company they were likely to be off-set by demands from employees for increased pay. That was in 1948 when workers in other industries had got increases and the Córas Iompair Éireann workers did not see why they should not get them too. Nobody could see why any distinction should be made in their situation. The proposals are on record.

We refused those proposals. Now the situation is that nobody can think of this particular organisation except from the point of view of the dismissal of men. I had experience under previous legislation of what dismissals mean to people. I spoke in the House here of a particular example— it gave me a lesson for the rest of my life—in regard to redundancy and to an attempt to make up to people for good wages some small substitute by way of compensation. It does not work. It is inhuman. I make these remarks for no purpose other than to be helpful. I have a feeling that if it could be made clear to the railway employees that dismissal was the last thing to be thought of, it might then be possible to get them to sit down to consider a reorganisation. I have always understood that the organisation of the transport services in this country is ludicrous. Deputy Davin gave us an instance of that yesterday when he pointed out that the bus and the lorry services are running in competition with a similar service on the same system.

I think everybody agrees that the railway organisation is chaotic and that it should be attended to. The first man who was put in charge of Córas Iompair Éireann was given a dictatorial position. While he did good work, he failed to make the improvements which he had the power to make and another man was substituted for him. The change was good but nevertheless the people working there, in their varying circumstances, have failed to give us a good service of the type which the Minister promised. Twice in one year in referring to Córas Iompair Éireann the Tánaiste said, in his usual boastful way, that we would get a service, and the three points were mentioned: good service for the employees, cheap transport to the trading public and for the passengers, and an efficient all-round system. These were promised and we have not got any of them. I do feel, however, that if the employees in Córas Iompair Éireann could be relieved of the threat of dismissal as the only cure, you would easily get them to sit down to consider a scheme of reorganisation which would not immediately affect the employment of anyone in the line.

There is considerable wastage, I understand, in Córas Iompair Éireann by retirement, sickness, etc. There ought to be no question of dismissing people, but it ought to be a question of reducing staff, say, over a five-year period. The amount of employment given by the transport system is very heavy. It does appear to be overemployed at the moment. There are more people getting employment from the transport service than the transport service can carry. But if that is the case, naturally people who are in employment at the moment will reject any proposal that they think will lead to deprivation of money for themselves. If it could be made clear to them that whatever scheme is adopted it will be one that will taper out over a number of years and will be effected by relying upon the natural wastage, you could get the unions, I believe, into a humour in which they would discuss reorganisation. Reorganisation would then leave Córas Iompair Éireann with a sufficient staff to give us an efficient service and, at the same time, the cheap service we are all anxious to get. The situation is that we all want Córas Iompair Éireann to attain the position in which it will be able to pay its way.

The Minister here referred to fares. I understand that the Minister's main argument, which he held with his colleague, the Minister for Finance, on the diesel oil tax, which we were challenging as likely to put further expenditure on Córas Iompair Éireann, was this. Questioned whether there was going to be any increase in fares, he told us "there could not be". That was the answer. "There could not be" because the fares and the frights are at such a height that they have reached the top level. Fares and freights could not be raised any further. That was the contention made here in April. They were at the point that, if they advanced any further, there would be a loss of traffic, and the new condition would be worse than the first. Increases in fares are not the answer, apparently. Whether there is any better reorganisation that can be done on existing rates and freights with the present personnel, I doubt, but there may be an improvement for which we can get the scheme or the plan immediately. That may mean a wait of three or four years but there will be no result immediately.

I do urge that there should be no countenance given to any large-scale dismissals. If that is going to be the result of the conference then I think the second stage is going to be worse than the first. As we are already clearly in a bad period of industrial unrest it would be a shocking thing to have that industrial unrest added to by an organisation of the power and strength of the people who are on the railway system, particularly when one thinks of such a large body of men. I heard the figure of 20,000 mentioned as the number of employees. Would the Minister think of the reactions? People are in a shocking period of depression at the moment. A large number of unemployed instead of having their wages to spend in the shops have only their unemployment assistance. There is a hidden number there certainly, but there are other people who have only half their wages to spend in the shops. If a number of railway people are going to be thrown on to the scrap heap and have to depend on some sort of compensation moneys, clearly the purchasing power of the people will get to the point that will please the bankers but it will not please the rest of the country.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Government (Mr. Lynch)

Deputy McGilligan is credited by his supporting newspapers with being about the most able debater on the Opposition Benches and it is said that every time he gets up to contribute to a debate the benches fill up behind him.

Mr. S. Collins

There are not many behind you.

Mr. Lynch

No, not very many, but I came in here to hear Deputy McGilligan and in return for that tribute to him I was attacked by him in alleging that I had nothing else to do. If Deputy McGilligan could just dispel from his mind the rancour and bitterness that permeated his speech to-day I will say that it could have been a fairly objective speech and it could have represented the economic situation in so far as he saw it. However, apart from the rancour and bitterness against the Tánaiste and the Fianna Fáil Party, that permeated his speech, it was preceded by a personal attack on one of the Fianna Fáil Deputies.

Mr. Rooney

Deputy Briscoe started it. He brought it on himself.

Mr. Lynch

It was a most degrading remark from any Party or any Deputy, and the fact that it referred to that Deputy's nationality and the country of his remote origin was more degrading still. I will try so far as I can to give my impression of the general economic position and I will start where Deputy McGilligan left off in referring to Córas Iompair Éireann. There has been a lot of uninformed criticism of Córas Iompair Éireann for the past number of years. When I say uninformed, I do not suggest that all of it has not been justified. Naturally a certain amount of criticism has been justified, and, particularly, as Deputy Davin pointed out, in so far as there is, apparently, competition between different units of our transport system for traffic on some of our main arteries. Nevertheless, I think we all realise that, apart altogether from the employment it creates, Córas Iompair Éireann, as a national transport system, call it what you will, must be kept going in the general interests of the country. Therefore, it behoves us all, as far as we can, to try to find a solution for whatever problem faces the national transport company.

At the present time it is obvious that the main problem it is facing and has had to face over a considerable number of years is the ever-mounting traffic on the roads and the turning not only of private people to the use of mechanically propelled vehicles, but, in particular, of commercial firms to using, in ever-increasing numbers, the lorries, whether they be of private hauliers or their own lorries to transport their goods from place to place. Córas Iompair Éireann has the natural disadvantage and the statutory disadvantage of being a common carrier, and, therefore, must carry any goods, with certain limited exceptions, that are presented to it for carriage. In many cases carriage of these goods represents a very uneconomic proposition for Córas Iompair Éireann. I instance one particular commodity, the carriage of stout. Córas Iompair Éireann, so far as its Cork depot is concerned, made an over-all profit out of activities in carrying the product of a certain brewery.

That brewery found that, in permitting Córas Iompair Éireann to distribute their product over short runs, it was good business for them, but when Córas Iompair Éireann were carrying their product over long distances, for instance, from Cork to Dublin, they found it more economic to put their own lorries on the road. On the other hand, I understand that Córas Iompair Éireann, out of the profits they made on the long runs from Cork to Dublin, were able to cover losses they experienced on the shorter runs. The result was that the company, having withdrawn its traffic from the long runs, left the uneconomic traffic to Córas Iompair Éireann over the shorter runs. This resulted in a net loss to Córas Iompair Éireann as a common carrier, because Córas Iompair Éireann was thereby forced to accept the traffic presented to it by this firm. That is only one instance of the many difficulties with which Córas Iompair Éireann finds itself faced at the moment.

On the passenger side fares have had to be increased over a long period. Gradual increases have been put into effect and, as Deputy McGilligan said, there is a point at which fares can bear no further increases. If fares are reaching such a point, then people will inevitably find it cheaper to travel by alternative means, and many people at the present time feel that the capital outlay involved in purchasing a car for their own use is justified, having regard to what rail transport costs, particularly where their business is such as to necessitate journeys of any considerable extent.

Córas Iompair Éireann has its own internal problems. It was only the other day I came face to face with one of them. I must admit I did not appreciate the difficulties until I had occasion to approach the officials of Córas Iompair Éireann, in connection with the Leinster hurling final to be played at Limerick next Sunday. As most people know, Cork is playing Tipperary in the final. Limerick is 60 miles from Cork. A car could do the journey in two hours, or perhaps less. Owing to the complex problem of bringing so many trains into Limerick next Sunday Córas Iompair Éireann is forced to run the first train out of Cork at 6.30 in the morning. The last train will leave at 8.30. In between it is expected that at least 7—possibly more—trains will leave Cork for Limerick.

Naturally people were somewhat taken aback when they discovered that they would have to get up at 4 o'clock in the morning in order to travel to Limerick. Cork Deputies approached the traffic officials and discovered that the problem of getting so many trains into Limerick was a very complex one indeed. The accommodation for disembarking passengers at Limerick is very limited and the first and last trains have, therefore, to be spread out over a protracted period. Some area was bound to suffer inasmuch as its people would have to get up at a very early hour in order to get to Limerick.

Considerable traffic is expected from Cork and Cork happens to be one of the few places where sufficient rolling stock is available to carry all the passengers expected to travel. Considerable numbers are also expected to travel from Nenagh, Birr, Galway and other places. Sufficient rolling stock is not available in these. The carriages necessary for the transport of the people will be in use on Saturday at various other points and will have to be transported overnight from Dublin and elsewhere to these outlying venues. These trains therefore could not run earlier than a certain time in the morning and that time will be much later than 6 o'clock.

Mr. Sweetman

How many people will have to be accommodated at Limerick?

Mr. Lynch

Córas Iompair Éireann expect to run over 20 excursion trains representing probably 20,000 to 25,000 people.

Mr. Sweetman

Does it not seem an awful lot of time to handle 20 trains?

Mr. Lynch

The first train is due to arrive at 8.15 or 8.30 and the last at 2 o'clock. That will ensure everybody getting to the match. I understand that a quarter of an hour is the time necessary to allow the train to enter the station, disembark its passengers and back out again on to a siding. Giving a quarter of an hour to each train, the officials felt they could not do any better than provide that period from 8.30 until 2 o'clock to handle the 20 trains.

The only solution would be to provide more passenger landing accommodation at Limerick. That will naturally cost money. Possibly some improvement will be envisaged by Córas Iompair Éireann in the near future because Limerick is fast becoming a very important centre. Not alone hurling matches, but other important functions will be held there bringing much grist to the city.

This was the first occasion on which I myself came up against the practical difficulties that have to be faced. To give the traffic officials their due, they came some of the way with us. I hope and trust they will be able to carry out their revised programme to the satisfaction of everybody.

If it is progress to give a monopoly to the Leyland Motor Company, it is not the kind of progress I visualise.

Mr. Lynch

Deputy McGilligan singled me out for a certain measure of his attack and said I had nothing to do but sit in the office and decorate it with pictures, or else suppress certain other pictures that Fianna Fáil had issued. I often listened to Deputy Dillon.

Mr. Dillon

Do not get so tender-skinned.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

He should be let speak without interruption.

Mr. Dillon

He should not be such a sissy.

Mr. Lynch

Deputy Dillon was fond of saying that he was being paid, as Minister for Agriculture, approximately £1,500 a year. Following the same line of argument, I can say I have been paid in the neighbourhood of £900. I can assure the Deputy that I could pass my time much more usefully to myself, if I were never Parliamentary Secretary, in my other sphere of activity. I would also like to assure him that I have worked hard since I came into this particular post and I intend to continue working hard as long as the people permit me to occupy it. Gibes like those from Deputy McGilligan to-day are most unbecoming to any person who has occupied the post of Minister. I say this by way of introducing my remarks regarding An Fóras Tionscal. During the passage of my own Estimate here a couple of days ago, I refrained from any particular mention of the activities of An Fóras Tionscal. As the House should know, but some Deputies seem to forget, An Fóras Tionscal is a completely independent body in so far as its deliberations and decisions are concerned. Every proposal that comes to it will be decided on its merits and there is no question of approaching the Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary in order to bolster up one industry or one proposal or one town or location above another.

I want to make it clear that in the decentralisation of industry a lot will depend on local initiative. There is little use in Deputies putting questions down on the Order Paper to ask the Minister if he is aware that certain premises are ideal or that certain premises have recently been sold, and what the Minister proposes to do to ensure that some industry would be started there. I have often been asked by Deputies and by groups outside regarding the establishment of industries in rural areas, to get the Government to start some project and, having run it for four or five years, step out then and let some local group take over.

Everyone knows that that is a completely ludicrous suggestion. Unless there is local initiative, particularly for the type of industry that it is hoped would be established under the aegis of An Fóras Tionscal or any other group that might desire to start independently, it would be not only undesirable but I would say morally wrong if the Government stepped in and started a particular industry that might tend to restrict the activities of another or a similar industry which would be in competition with that started by the Government. I say this only by way of impressing on people that private enterprise must come to the fore in many of the rural districts.

Everyone knows that in almost every town—despite what we are told about depopulation and the impoverishment of rural towns—there is a considerable volume of money on deposit by shopkeepers and others. If those shopkeepers took their money out of their deposit receipts and helped whatever local development authorities had been started in many of these towns, by making a certain portion of their savings available, in the long run it would be good business from their point of view. Instead of earning small dividends out of the investment, whether on deposit receipts in the bank or in gilt-edged securities, not only would it help themselves in the increased business that must necessarily accrue to them but they would be helping their neighbours to a considerable extent by providing much needed industries. Many of these groups I know had very little financial backing, but they know and believe that there are certain moneys held by individuals who could readily come to their assistance if they wished to do so.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Parliamentary Secretary believe that the bulk of shopkeepers in rural Ireland have large sums of money on deposit in the banks? If that is the kind of attitude that illuminates Kildare Street, it is small wonder that the country is the way it is.

Then what are you talking about?

Mr. Carter

Provided you could sell them. Could you sell them?

Mr. Dillon

Yes.

I welcome the statement made by the Tánaiste to the effect that, during the past year, 51 new projects have reached the production stage. It is a good thing to see new industries springing up. The Tánaiste also stated that a number of new lines had been taken up by existing industries or by industries that had existed in the past. I feel the Tánaiste will agree with me that much, if not all of the credit for these 51 new projects must go to the inter-Party Government. I suggest that a good deal of planning had to go into these industries, that machinery had to be purchased and buildings erected. Therefore, they could not have reached the production stage in as short a period as 12 months. However, I am not interested in who did the work or who deserves the credit, but I do say that if the credit is to be allocated, it should, in fairness, be given where it belongs. What interests me is the fact that 51 new projects have started which will give employment to people who would otherwise be forced to emigrate. Therefore, these new projects are of the utmost importance.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that the inter-Party Government were accused during the by-elections of wasting our external assets and of causing the gap between imports and exports to become enlarged. If this resulted in equipping factories and projects and putting them into production this year thereby employing more Irishmen and women in this country, I, for one, am unrepentant. In fact, I would love to see our external assets further reduced and the gap widened still further, if it would lead to the employment at home of Irishmen and women in useful work which would benefit the country. I believe that, after a while, we will have assets built up in this country in the form of Irishmen and Irishwomen, which will compensate us for any reductions in our foreign investment, and that the gap will automatically begin to decrease; our people will be producing the goods we need and we will not have to import them in the future.

With regard to old-established firms opening up new lines, I hope it is correct. To a limited extent, certain old-established firms in my own constituency have gone into new lines, but I must say that any marked improvement in that respect has not been shown in the register of unemployed. The figures even now, during the period when the special Order is in operation, show that the increase of 13,000 has been reduced to only 9,000. The special period Order makes it clear that nobody in a rural area will be allowed to register unless he has stamps to qualify him for unemployment benefit. That means that a balance of 9,000 men and women, boys and girls, still remaining on the register, have in the past been mainly employed in industry, which means that this time 12 months ago there were 9,000 more people employed in Irish industry than are employed at present. The new lines opened up must not have a very high labour content when they have not been able to absorb any of these 9,000 people at present unemployed.

With these 9,000 unemployed, there is the fact that 4,000 young men have, during the past year, been recruited into the Army in excess of the number in the Defence Forces last year and, in addition, there was a higher emigration during the last five months of last year than at any period in the three preceding years, so that the figure of 9,000 now shown as unemployed might reasonably be given at 16,000 more unemployed now than 12 months ago. That does not appear to bear out the optimistic note struck by the Minister with regard to the unemployment content of our industrial undertakings.

He says that there was no noteworthy decline. I might say that, to my personal knowledge, in my own town, which in a small way could be considered an industrial town and where industrial workers comprise 75 per cent. of the employment, the unemployment figure has increased 100 per cent. compared with last year, and up to last week, in at least three factories, the workers were on a 40-hour week as against a 48-hour week last year and in the previous years. There may be a reason for that. I believe it is not the fault of the Government that that has happened. Foreign repercussions, the Korean war, and other happenings in Great Britain and elsewhere which affected the market are responsible, but I see no reason for being so optimistic and certainly there is no reason for taking any credit for what has happened in this year of the Fianna Fáil régime.

The Minister indicated, with regard to the Undeveloped Areas Act and its effect in the West of Ireland, that two factories had been approved in principle. I am glad to hear that and I am also glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Lynch, say that he hoped that one rather big factory would be started at a very early stage. I agree with him that it is a good Act, if it works. I can say in all sincerity, and I am quite sure I speak for every member of the Labour Party, that, no matter what Government brings in a measure, if it improves the lot of the Irish working man and woman, we will not only give credit but praise to the Government that brings it in. It is not our purpose to seize on anything that does not turn out well, but we will praise the things that do turn out well, and I hope that the operations of the board set up under the Undeveloped Areas Act will be successful and fruitful, not only for the West of Ireland but for all Ireland.

I would say, however, that the fact that only two have been approved in principle and that there has been no rush for sites or for grants by private enterprise proves the need for something which some of us in the Labour Party advocated—the inclusion in the Act of a clause which would permit the State to finance any particular scheme that gives reasonable hope of success and a reasonable prospect of decent employment for the people in these areas. There was an amendment by Deputy Desmond to which he spoke, and a number of other Labour members spoke, asking for the inclusion of such a clause. It was resisted by the Minister and put to a vote. It was voted against, not by Fianna Fáil alone, but by numbers of Deputies in other Parties. I want to make it very clear that those of us in the Labour Party who moved these amendments were actuated not by any desire to oppose or thwart, but by a desire to make provision for something of value. We were defeated on that, but I feel that the results, when they are examined 12 months from now, will show the need for such a provision.

We hope that private enterprise will avail of the grants and that the grants will compensate them for any apparent losses involved in moving away from the larger centres to the West. I trust that quite a number of industries will spring up, but I am afraid that State money will have to be included in some form other than the original grant to make sure that our people on the western seaboard and in the congested districts of the Gaeltacht will get an opportunity of continuing to live where they have lived in the past.

In that regard, the question of decentralisation of industry in general can very well be discussed. I feel that when the Minister handed over to the Industrial Development Authority a list of imports, amounting, as he said, to roughly £20,000,000, he should have —I hope he did—handed over to them a recommendation that, so far as humanly possible, the factories to produce these items should be situated in areas other than the Dublin area.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 15th July.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Friday, 11 Jul 1952

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

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 11 Jul 1952