Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Nov 1953

Vol. 142 No. 9

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

Debate resumed on motion:—

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.—(Deputy Cosgrave.)

Dr. Esmonde

When I moved to report progress last night I was dealing with C.I.E. and the statement of the Minister that C.I.E. proposed to raise some £10,500,000 for the purpose of capital expenditure. The Minister did not indicate very clearly in his statement opening this debate where exactly the £10,500,000 was coming from. Is it possibly considered that this money is to be put into C.I.E. as a part of capital investment? Are we going to have some of the money which was subscribed in the recent loan used, as it is supposed to be used for the purpose of capital investment, for the purpose of rehabilitation of C.I.E.? I certainly do not feel myself that there would be justification for using that sum that way. I would like the Minister when he is replying to this debate to give us some indication as to where it is proposed to get that money from.

He stated also that the purpose of getting this money was to rehabilitate C.I.E. and that by replacements and capital expenditure it was hoped to cut the annual loss. I do not know. Thatmay be so. I am sure I hope, and so do all other Deputies, that it will be so, but there does not seem to be any real indication on the part of C.I.E. that they have altered their scheme of organisation or that they have any really new suggestions to put forward other than cutting fuel costs. I still note, anyway, in my part of the country, that the buses and the trains are running in opposition to each other, and so long as they are doing that I do not see how they are going to stop losing money.

I said last year, when we were discussing this, that I thought it would be more in the interests of the whole economy of the C.I.E. if they would run buses where trains do not ply; in other words, if they would feed the trains by buses from outlying districts. We have to accept the fact that the railways have to be kept in existence. In a time of national emergency, even though times are changing, we cannot do without the railways. They are still essential to the economy of any country. I do not think they can be expected to survive as long as they are put into opposition with the buses. It does not make common sense to me. If the people of this country are going to be asked to give £10,500,000 to C.I.E., they ought to be given a guarantee anyway that C.I.E. is going to be reorganised in its own house before it comes to look for the money.

I understand that the bus services in Dublin are just the one part of this organisation that really pays a fairly substantial dividend. It seems to me quite unnecessary that the citizens of Dublin—and not only the citizens of Dublin but those who come up from the country—should have to stand in queues at the rush hours waiting for buses. Why cannot they run more buses? After all, it is the one thing that is giving them a remunerative return. As far as I can see, the timetable provides an extra one or two buses in the rush periods, and there is nothing like sufficient to meet the requirements of the citizens of Dublin. They are entitled to a better bus service, and it would be in the interest of C.I.E. to give them that. The Minister, who as Minister for Industry andCommerce is the authority responsible in this House for the administration of C.I.E., such as it is, should put that up to them.

Regarding An Bord Fáilte, we on this side of the House did not agree to have the two organisations to run the tourist trade. It is not necessary and it has not proved a very satisfactory arrangement—one organisation for the purpose of administering the tourist traffic here, and another organisation for the purpose of dealing with the advertising and the external relations of the tourist trade here. The board itself has probably done fairly good work and its scheme of grading hotels is satisfactory. A great many more people are coming to rely on the board's hotel grading than heretofore —people coming into this country. I would suggest to the Minister that he would put it up to the board that as well as producing a booklet which enables tourists here to find where they are to stay and to work out the hotels, they should also produce a combined booklet in which they would have small carefully drawn maps of different parts of the country, so that the tourists might have to hand in one individual booklet a guide which would give them the hotels and also a look at the country where they are going to. It would also be a good idea if it were drawn up on a mileage scheme. People touring, even ourselves who live here in Ireland, if we are going to a certain hotel or district would find it convenient if there was a map on which we could see where we are turning up and know the mileage of what we have to cover from one place to another. The board are pretty well up to date in their grading of hotels and I find them satisfactory myself in my own constituency.

With regard to An Tóstal, I do not think that An Tóstal was a success last year. Of course any festival, such as An Tóstal is, is probably not a success in the first year. Rome was not built in a day. Everything takes a certain amount of time, but at the same time I do not see how it could be a success at the time of the year at which it was brought about. I take it that the idea of An Tóstal was to endeavour to extendthe tourist season, but surely if it was intended to do that the time for An Tóstal was either at the beginning or at the end of the tourist season. Everybody knows that the tourist season in this country does not begin, in any strength anyway, until in or about the latter part of May or the beginning of June. The strong part of the tourist season here ends in the latter part of August and the beginning of September. One would think that ordinary intelligence would convey to those who are associated with it that that is the time to establish An Tóstal if they want to extend the season here. I have spoken to hoteliers in my constituency and to hoteliers in other parts of the country as well. They have been unanimous in their opinion that the period in which An Tóstal is held is the wrong period. I think the results last year do not justify the holding of the festival at that period of the year. That is the opinion, also, of the various hoteliers with whom I have spoken. Furthermore, a lot of them have told me that they have not been consulted in the matter, one way or the other. I do not know whether or not it is too late now to change the date of the festival for next year. Having listened to the greater part of this debate and having read the speeches, I think that it is practically the unanimous opinion in this House that An Tóstal is held at the wrong time. I do not know whether or not the Minister has some specific reason for holding it at that time of the year and, if he has, perhaps he would inform the House of it when he is replying to this debate.

I come now to the question of trade with countries behind the Iron Curtain. Some years ago we bought 5,000 tons of barley from behind the Iron Curtain. It was shipped into this country and sold to the Irish people. What they paid for it was far in excess of what native Irish barley was sold for. That transaction seems to have been the beginning of trade in recent years with countries behind the Iron Curtain. I fail to see why we should deal with these countries if we can buy the same goods in countries in any other part of the world. Every lawthat obtains and every attitude of those who govern behind the Iron Curtain is inimical to the feelings and sentiments of every Deputy of this House, whether he sits on the Government Benches or on the Opposition Benches. Our trade is not extensive with the countries behind the Iron Curtain, although I understand that we are importing fairly considerable quantities of cheap jewellery and things of that nature from Czechoslovakia. I asked a parliamentary question here some time ago in regard to this matter and I was informed that we have a fair amount of trade with the Iron Curtain countries. What do they buy from us in return?

Mr. O'Leary

Nothing.

Dr. Esmonde

What can they offer us in return? Nothing. Our nation is a Christian nation and we have a very old Christian tradition here. What is the sense in our buying from these countries? The Minister has been travelling around the world a good deal lately. Doubtless, he will have found everywhere, as I found, evidence of the significance of our tradition. We are an old and loyal Christian nation. We have always been that and, by the grace of God, we always will be. Such of our trade as we have with Iron Curtain countries is, in my opinion, entirely and absolutely wrong. These are my personal sentiments. They may not be held by everybody else here, but I hold them to the last degree. I believe that we should not send one farthing of Irish money behind the Iron Curtain. It is a known fact that any trade that is done with those countries does not benefit the ordinary man or woman there.

In those countries the men and women are not free. They are held in slavery and bondage. The profits do not go to the ordinary citizen in those countries because the ordinary citizen there does not get even a decent standard of living or a decent wage. Any money which is made by people in Iron Curtain countries is handed over to the Government. These profits are taken by a grasping, avariciousGovernment for the purpose of laying the money on one side to build up the greatest autocracy that we have ever known to enslave the world. There is something wrong when the Irish nation, with its Christian tradition, fosters and aids and abets trade with those countries. I say this as a private Deputy. One of the greatest outrages ever perpetrated on this historic nation was when, quite recently, a Russian ship flaunting the red flag bearing the hammer and the sickle-the greatest problem of imperialistic autocracy and unchristianity since the days of the crusades—sailed up the Liffey in all its vaunted glory to deliver timber to this country. I believe it is possible that the present Government did not know that the ship was coming into port here but I should like to say this to them: Let it be the last time, so long as Ireland is a free nation, that a Russian ship bearing that flag comes, with the consent of the Irish people, to take £85,000 worth of money out of this country. Let it be the last time that that happens. Let it be the last time that a Russian ship flying the red flag with the hammer and sickle on it will have an opportunity of entering a port in this Christian country with its age-old tradition of Christianity. Let it be the last time that a ship flying that flag will have an opportunity of sailing into the port of the capital city of Ireland so long as we are a free nation.

Mr. Hickey

I had expected to hear a different statement by the Minister from the one which he made to this House when introducing this Estimate. I thought it would be much more vigorous because the circumstances and the times are demanding a different and vigorous approach to our economic problems. In the first place, I consider that too much economic power is concentrated in the hands of too few people in this country to-day. That economic power in the hands of a few people can influence Government policy and can also determine our standard of living and our employment. I must say that I would expect that this Minister for Industry and Commercewould take everybody into his confidence and tell us the actual position of this country to-day. I claim that that position is not very satisfactory. We have a very large number of unemployed and we have the further problem that combines which are operating outside this country, and which have their head offices outside this country, are now coming in and establishing sub-offices over here. Recently I had occasion to make inquiries about the operations of certain companies. When I started to look for the information in Government Buildings I discovered that these companies are not registered here at all. When I made inquiries in regard to another company which, to my knowledge, is financially dug in fairly well in this country, I was told that I could not be given the information which I sought because the company was a private firm whose head office was outside this country. For these reasons I expected that the Minister would have taken this House into his confidence and told us what he intends to do in the future instead of trying to carry on with the operation of a system that has kept us where we are.

It is rather extraordinary that, after 30 years of native government, our population is static. There has been no increase in our population. I am satisfied that that is mainly due to the fact that we are trying to operate a system under which we are not masters in our own house. It would be very interesting to every Irish person to learn who really owns this country at the moment. In that respect, I can do no better than refer to a report which was written by Stacy May and which was prepared by Ibec Technical Services Corporation under contract with the Government of Ireland. The report was completed in June, 1952. It is very interesting to read what other people think of the conditions prevailing in this country. For some time past, we on the Labour Benches have been asking the Government questions about our shipping. We are anxious that this country shall have a shipping fleet of its own to carry goods in and out of the country. What do we find? This is what the report states:—

"Among the many paradoxes that may be found in Ireland is the circumstance that it is progressing best in the field where it carries the greatest handicaps, and least in the one in which it has, seemingly, the greatest natural advantages."

I am sure nobody will dispute that fact.

It goes on to state:—

"At least 60 per cent. of incoming and outgoing cargoes in Ireland's international trade is carried in British ships and something approaching half of all the insurance business transacted in Ireland appears to be in the hands of British companies."

I look upon the insurance companies which operate outside this country as being nearly as powerful to-day as the banking system. I find that, during the past eight years, insurance companies which operate outside this country collected in premiums £49,141,077 up to 1951. If we could get the returns for 1952, I am sure we would find that they were at least as high as, if not a good deal higher than, the figure for 1951 and, in 1951, a sum of £8,432,000 was collected, which means that in nine years they collected £57,000,000 in premiums from this country. That does not include premiums in respect of marine, aviation and other classes of business. Does the Minister not agree that the time is ripe for dealing with that situation?

Let us come now to the question of shipping. I took the trouble recently of finding out what we are paying in respect of freight in and out of the country and I find that, in the period 1947-50, we imported £557,468,052 worth of goods and exported £221,786,606—a total of £779,254,658. The basis of the freight on that value of cargo is reckoned at 6 per cent., which would mean that in three or four years, freight represented £46.8 million. Irish Shipping, Limited, earned £6.4 million, so that we paid foreign steamship owners an annual sum of over £10,000,000. Look at the number of ships we could have purchased for that money.

I looked up Lloyds' List recently and found some most interesting informationin it. In the issue of 31st last month, it stated that 41,357 tons of shipping were handed over to German ship owners, consisting of nine cargo ships, two tankers and four motor coastal vessels. They have under construction as well 73 cargo ships of 232,200 tons, four tankers of 9,100 tons, and nine motor vessels of 2,600 tons. I was informed by a Cork man who was recently in Germany that over 88 per cent. of their docks, cranes and other harbour equipment had been shattered during the war. Yet here we are, a country which should have a really strong merchant fleet, with about 47,000 tons of shipping. What do we find in Switzerland, where there is not a port within 100 miles? They have 230,000 net tonnage of shipping. I read in the Swedish Newslast May that the net income from the Swedish foreign shipping was £66,000,000. Is it not time for us to think seriously of setting about getting a number of ships in a big way? I understand that we will not get the six or seven ships we have ordered until 1956 or 1957. The Germans are buying up second-hand ships at £43 a ton, and until such time as we deal seriously with the matter of having ships of our own, we will never make the progress we are anxious to make.

I listened to Deputy Vivion de Valera last night making a great plea for the people engaged in industry. He taunted the Labour Party with standing for what he called nebulous uncontrolled socialism and indiscriminate nationalisation. I suggest that that is not a fair comment on the speech delivered by Deputy Larkin, because Deputy Larkin, any more than any member of the Labour Party, does not stand for nebulous uncontrolled socialism and indiscriminate nationalisation. We do believe in having our basic industries under public control because it is in the interests of the community that it should be so.

Deputy de Valera made the case that nationalisation was a failure and he quoted the position of C.I.E., but I submit that C.I.E. was put in the position in which it was when we took it over by private enterprise. We hadto take our share in the taking over of the Great Northern Railway because private enterprise failed. He quoted the Sugar Company and the E.S.B. as successful undertakings because they were run very much on the lines of private enterprise, but I suggest that it is scarcely fair to make that comparison. While the E.S.B. is doing a good job—and we give it every support —we feel that it would be working much more in the interests of the community if it were more under public control. We had to pay £1,700,000 last year and £1,125,000 the year before in interest on money borrowed and that is an unfair tax on the users of electricity.

The Deputy talked about the payment of income-tax but the ordinary worker is paying income-tax in the same way as the people whom Deputy de Valera spoke about as being important factors in the payment of income-tax. He said that over-all profits had not been excessive in the sense in which they were represented as excessive and added that he had a list of profits from 1938 to 1948. I took the trouble to look up the figures for profits and for surtax payers from 1938 and I found that in 1938 the number of persons chargeable to surtax was 2,550, whose incomes totalled £10,558,872, an increase of 180 persons over the previous year. In 1944-45 the number was 3,689, an increase of 1,139; that is, in seven years we created 1,139 new rich. In 1949-50 the number of persons chargeable to surtax was 6,138, whose incomes totalled £20,250,249, an increase of 3,638 over 1938.

The Deputy also spoke about the people engaged in industry not receiving extraordinary or excessive profits. Let us see what the position is with regard to taxable profits. In 1946-47, taxable profits amounted to £15,000,000. In 1948 they were £18,000,000, in 1949 £22,000,000, in 1950, £21,000,000, in 1951 £24,000,000 and in 1952 £27,000,000, an increase, on the average, of £2,365,476 profit per year over the five years.

In 1947, the Government, now again in office, abolished the excess profits tax. We did not find any reduction inthe cost of living as a result of making a present of £3,000,000 odd to the investors. What do we find? In 1947 the net tax payable on excess profits was £5,488,749, while in 1952 the net tax payable was only £2,729,732, on taxable profits of £27,360,091. I think that is sufficient evidence to indicate to Deputy de Valera that there is no reason to feel uncomfortable that the industrialists are not pulling a good deal out of the people's pockets in excessive profits.

He went on to talk about the restrictive practices of trade unions. I do not think that if Deputy Dillon, who referred to this question, were here now he would disagree with me in the statement that the economic system which we have been trying to operate all our lives is essentially one of strife and contention. It is easy to criticise workers for actions which they take when they see their means of livelihood being taken from them. I am not responsible for the conduct of bakers, but Deputy Dillon spoke in general terms about the restrictive practices of trade unions. Neither I nor those associated with me object to the introduction of modern methods in industry. Personally I believe that the weight should be put on the back of iron rather than on the backs of human beings, but we have to bear in mind that the workers engaged in industry to-day have not the status to which they are entitled. They have no share in the wealth of the nation which they are helping to create. They are here to-day and to-morrow they may be told that they are no longer wanted. The result is that they are without means; the only thing they possess is their labour. The only property they have at their disposal is the clothes they stand in.

I think it would be well if Deputy Dillon and every other Deputy would bear in mind that there are very few working-class people who have sufficient of the things they need for the fuller life. There are very few householders amongst them who have sufficient furniture, linen, pots and pans, not to mention modern appliances which can reduce drudgery in the household. Yet Deputies stand up and talk aboutthe shortcomings of workers. These people are expected to possess all the virtues, even under low wages and bad conditions, to maintain their selfrespect and independence. When we talk about public welfare, private enterprise and public ownership we believe that the day has arrived when the working people engaged in these industries should be integrated in the industries and given the status they deserve. I feel very strongly the need for that because the workers in these industries are not getting the status to which they are entitled.

We hear a lot of talk about private enterprise and the virtues of private enterprise. I want to put this point before Deputy Dillon, who said that he did not mind what profits people made so long as they were serving the country. Who will deny that there are a good many socially-minded people who are satisfied that the system that we are trying to operate at present is in need of a change? Who will deny that it is private enterprise and capitalism that have given us slums and hovels and that from the public purse comes the money to provide hospitals and sanatoria for the victims of this system? Private enterprise controls our food supply and it is from the public rates the money comes to pay inspectors to save us from being poisoned. Industries operated under the present system pay small wages and prevent people from having the security to which they are entitled.

We hear all this talk about the virtues of private enterprise and all this criticism directed against us because we want the basic industries of the country under public control. We do not advocate any extreme measures for running this country but we do believe that our basic industries such as transport, the Sugar Company, the E.S.B., gas works and the flour industry are industries which the community are entitled to own. The real test of the value of any industry is the service it gives to the nation and if companies under public control are not being operated in an efficient manner it is the duty of the Government and the people to see that they are. When we talk about maintaining the system atpresent operating in this country I am afraid we are living in the past and are oblivious of the changes that are taking place around us every day. I am very disappointed at the fact that the Minister does not seem now to have the views he expressed not so many years ago about how this country should be run. I expected him to come out and tell us what he was going to do to bring about an improvement rather than keep on trying to operate a system that is not delivering the goods to the people.

I should also like to ask the Minister whether anything has been done in regard to a change in company law. I understand a committee was set up some years ago to deal with company law. I think if anything more than another is needed immediately, it is this change in company law. I am satisfied that very great exploitation is taking place in this country because of the existing company law which is more or less based on the Act of 1908. I was looking for some information recently about some companies that were exploiting the people in that particular industry. I could get no information whatever. I was told that it was a private company, and of course you will not get any information from anybody else if it is a private company. Therefore I say to the Minister that if anything is needed immediately it is a changing of company law, because there are people exploiting this country that should be dealt with immediately. I hope the Minister will not have any fear as to where the Labour Party stands as regards supporting legislation of that kind or dealing with anything which will develop the resources of the country.

I am also satisfied that you are not taking into your confidence the people who want to see resources of the country properly developed and exploited. There are vested interests in this country who are in it merely for what they can get out of it. There are people in semi-State and semi-State controlled organisations who do not deserve to be where they are in the affairs of this country. I give them every credit as far as they are playingtheir part in these vital and basic industries, but we should be very careful that people will not be selected because of their big bank balances rather than their interest in seeing the country developed. Having an appreciation of what the Minister has done and what he is anxious to do, I appeal to him to get down to these problems and take into his confidence the people that count in the country.

For years I have had a terrible feeling about our shipping. I am inclined to think that no serious effort is being made to develop our shipping. When we remember that we have only 47,000 tons of shipping after all these years we should be ashamed of ourselves. With the millions of money that we have handed out for the last 20 years, or even the last five or six years, we could have a good many ships of our own. At the moment there are ships for sale which the Germans are buying up at £43 per ton. There is no reason why, if we had people sufficiently interested in developing our shipping, we should not have purchased a number of ships in that way.

That brings me to the question of the airport for Cork. I happened to be present on the day the airport was opened and the Minister's Department was represented there. Every praise was given to the field and its surroundings. I understand it has a red sandstone foundation and that the drainage is good. I hope that the Minister will give us the airport at Farmer's Cross.

I hope that the Minister has a good idea of what I have in mind, because things are not as good as anybody who is interested in the country would wish them to be. The unemployment position is not good and, even with all the innovations and the scientific and modern methods in industry, I have still little hope that our unemployed will be absorbed owing to the way things are at the moment. The Minister will have to take much more drastic measures to bring about the necessary changes which the situation at present demands.

Mr. Crotty

I listened very attentively to the Minister's opening statement the other day and I was verydisappointed, as I am sure a lot of people down the country were disappointed, that we heard practically nothing in relation to the decentralisation of industry. Everybody down the country is anxious that these districts would get a fair share of the industries which are being established but, as far as we can gather from the Minister's statement, the only places he has an eye for at present are west of the Shannon, the undeveloped areas. We do not begrudge the undeveloped areas the industries which may be established over there, but we do feel that the small cities and towns of this country deserve some consideration at the hands of the Government and the Minister.

The larger cities, such as Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford, are able to look after themselves, because they have the advantage of having large ports. The Government should step out and help the smaller towns. Naturally, industrialists, when starting an industry, will go to the larger places where there is more of a population and where, if they have to import raw materials, it will be easy for them to import them. The only people who can hold the balance between the large cities and the smaller cities and towns are the Government. They should have what I might call a country bias towards industry, because practically the whole wealth of the country is centred in Dublin, with the result that the population of the country is streaming up to Dublin. Whatever part of the population is crossing the water to England the greater number of those who are left are coming to Dublin. I, therefore, ask the Minister to look into this matter.

I would remind the Minister that people down the country are not slow about looking for industries. In the small city which I come from we have been rapping at the door of the Minister's Department for several years past with very little result. Since the establishment of the State, 30 years ago, the population of my city has decreased rather than increased. It is a sad state of affairs that the population of the principal inland city hasdecreased or remained static all the time. The census has shown that there is no real change and that people are leaving the area every year. That should be a warning light to the Government or any Government which comes into power.

The chamber of commerce have been holding meetings month after month and sent deputations to the Department and also the Industrial Development Authority. I have no faith in that body. I do not believe it is any use whatever as regards developing industry in this country. With other businessmen, I was on one deputation to that authority and the only time they would receive us was on a Saturday morning when businessmen down the country are trying to earn an honest shilling. We would have been much better off if we had stayed at home. The position in Kilkenny is such that the divisional Labour Party had to see if they could, in combination with other organisations in the city and county, do anything with regard to bringing the Government's attention to the necessity for establishing an industry in Kilkenny.

I attended a meeting last Sunday of all the organisations in the county that have the interests of the country and the county at heart, which was called for the purpose of drawing the attention of the Government and the promoters of industry to the smaller towns. The small towns in the country are in a worse state even than Kilkenny itself. Within the last 30 years, since the establishment of the State, two industries have been started in Kilkenny, one a reasonably big one and the other a small one. That is the extent of the industrialisation we have enjoyed. That is a sorry state of affairs if we want to progress and if we do not want to have just four or five big cities and the rest bush country.

It is not a question of shortage of capital. If any reasonable proposal were put up, the people of my city would provide sufficient capital at least to start any normal industry. The factories which are in Kilkenny are turning out first-quality articles. The result is that they are working at full time and have been working full time for agood while past. Every Kilkennyman, including myself, is glad to see that. That is the position in regard to practically every industry with the exception of the building industry, which would be working better had it got more encouragement on the change of Government.

In spite of our factories working full time and in spite of the agricultural industry being reasonably well off, there is a great depression in business. It is very hard to reconcile that. I thought the Minister for Industry and Commerce was very lax when, in the course of his opening speech, he made no reference to the one matter which affects business very much and that is the cost of living. He did not devote even five minutes to discussing the cost of living from the time he commenced his opening speech until he finished it. Although people are working full time and the farmers are doing reasonably well, the cost of living is very high. There is not enough money floating around to give normal business employment.

In fact, licensed premises at the present time are going for the asking. It never happened in my memory that a licensed premises put up for auction did not attract a bid. Two shops in the principal streets in Kilkenny have closed down during the past 12 months. That would not be serious if these shops were opened again. The fact, however, is that these shops were closed down and the people left them. That shows the depression in business. The closing down of the shops is due to the high cost of living. The people have not got the money to spend. I am surprised that the Minister did not hold out some hope of some reduction in the cost of living. His attitude seemed to me: "Let us leave the cost of living alone. I suppose the other side will not touch on it either."

At the present time people are finding it very hard to carry on and that includes not only people in full employment but pensioners and those unemployed. Those latter people must be in a terrible predicament at the present time. I think the Minister, inhis reply to the debate this evening, should deal with the efforts the Government intend to make to reduce the cost of living and so give people an opportunity of being able to enjoy a shade higher standard of living and increase business in general in the country.

I was very pleased to hear the Minister refer to the exports of anthracite coal. That affects a very large industry in my county which is able to put anthracite coal on the market and export it to foreign countries. It is able to keep our men in full-time employment. On Sunday last I heard from one of the men engaged in this business that our mines at Castlecomer were working full time. I was told that the Government are all out for Bord na Móna and power stations driven on turf. In this area we have the raw material for a power station in the heart of Kilkenny but yet we have not heard one word about starting a power station there. Even if our mines at Castlecomer are working at full pressure at the present moment, there are mines five or ten miles away that are not working full time and there are hundreds of tons of coal at the pit head which cannot be disposed of. The company produce a low quality coal called duff which is sent to Carlow where it is used very economically in the Carlow sugar factory. If we in Kilkenny had an anthracite power station—we are in the heart of the coalfields; there is no doubt about that—it would help to give much-needed employment.

Mr. Lemass

There is not very much sense in putting up a power station to use anthracite coal and then importing anthracite.

Mr. Crotty

There is no necessity to import anthracite coal. We still have ample supplies of anthracite.

Mr. Lemass

We are not producing enough for our own needs.

Mr. Crotty

If the people showed a demand for it, there would be increased production. As I have said, just outside the Castlecomer Collieries there is another colliery with 100 tonsof coal at the pit head. That cannot be disposed of. People in that colliery may not be as up to date in their methods of handling the coal as they are in the other colliery but you cannot expect a company to invest a huge amount of capital in the beginning.

We heard of the Avoca mineral survey. We have always heard that where there is coal there is also iron. I am sure iron would be of great benefit to this country. Of course, a survey for iron is a matter which no normal or ordinary people could finance. The Government would have to undertake that. They should carry out a mineral survey in that particular area of Kilkenny to which I have referred. They have done so in other places. If there was iron in that particular area of Kilkenny it would be of great advantage to the nation. The Minister said that we are importing anthracite, but I think there is no necessity to import it. If the Minister is thinking about establishing any other power station, I suggest he should establish one on the borders of Kilkenny and Laois. If he started a power station there, it would give much-needed employment as there is a very big population in that area.

The last matter I want to refer to is rural electrification. I think that the rural electrification scheme is doing wonderful work at the present time. Only a couple of weeks ago I was present at the opening of a rural electrification scheme with a network of about 40 square miles. That was a very big undertaking. I congratulate the officials of the E.S.B. who are in charge of the rural electrification scheme on their wonderful work and on the manner in which they are spreading the use of electricity throughout the country in such a short time.

I brought several cases to the notice of the officials in charge of the rural electrification scheme. In this connection I must say that I have always got a very courteous reception. If they could help me out they did so. I had one case of a young man who had a farm on one side of a road, but because he happened to be on that particular side of the road he could not get theelectricity. This man deserved special consideration. He takes conacre, grows beet and employs eight men constantly all the year round. He has a wife and a reasonably big family. In addition, he has about 160 to 170 acres under tillage, of which about 20 to 25 acres are beet. You might say that he conducts a small industry, and if any facility were to be given in regard to rural electrification, I think that man deserves such. According to the rules and regulations, however, he would have to pay extra. He was prepared to do so if he got the benefit of the rural electrification charges, but he did not get that. I think that is a very hard case, and I would ask the Minister to investigate it. I would further suggest that the men who deal with rural electrification should not be too strict in regard to regulations. I would ask the Minister to extend the regulations so as to bring in people in the category I have just mentioned.

Mr. Lehane

A number of Deputies, when speaking on this Estimate, seem to have been up in the clouds, particularly the East Cork Deputies. But they appeared to have been asleep until the Government made the announcement that they had decided to have an airport in Cork. There was a meeting in East Cork at which it was decided to do everything possible to get an airport for East Cork. They were to use all the propaganda possible, and they were to get all their T.D.s to work as hard as possible for it, but the one thing they were not prepared to do was to put up any money for the project.

There is, as Deputy Hickey has mentioned, an airfield in Cork. There has been an offer made to the Minister by the owners of it to provide all the facilities necessary on the condition that they are permitted to run the service. The Department and Aer Lingus have put this on the long finger and nothing has been done so far. I think that it is more or less a waste of time for the Deputies from East Cork, for Deputy Hickey or for myself to be asking the Minister to put the airport in any particular location, because from my information neither the Minister nor Aer Lingus, nor Aer Linte, nor the bosses of Aer Lingus, who areB.E.A., will have any say as to where the airport will be put. If we are to have a military airport in Cork it will be put there at the dictation of the Americans. The farther down East Cork they put it the better, because then it will be nearer to Youghal bridge, and the first bomb that comes will probably hit Youghal bridge and end a lot of the troubles associated with it.

We know that Mr. Talbot, the Secretary of the United States Forces, is travelling around Europe at the present time. He is in Spain at the moment dictating to the Spaniards as to where their airport will be put. I think it is a great misfortune for us that the functions of this Parliament would appear to be taken over by the American Congress. We cannot decide where we will have our airport. We cannot decide matters relating to agriculture, and we cannot decide what teaching our doctors are to get in our universities, because we have transferred from this Parliament to the American Congress the power to make rules and regulations for the people of this country.

But, in spite of what the Americans may dictate, and in spite of the fact that they may establish a large military aerodrome in East Cork, we hope that there is still room for a small civil airport at Cork. If Deputy V. de Valera was sincere when he was advocating private enterprise, he should use his influence with the Government to allow that private company in Cork to develop its airport and to run services from Cork. We know that Aer Lingus has a monopoly. We know that it has a tremendous number of staff for each plane it owns, and while Aer Lingus cannot possibly run an economic service it will not allow anybody to compete with it who could run an economic service.

I want to put it to the Minister that, irrespective of what the Yanks may dictate, at the moment we want near Cork a small civil airport. We do not want a great deal of money spent on it. The people promoting the enterprise will put up the required amount of money and it will serve a very usefulpurpose. As the Minister is aware airports, as such, will probably be outdated within a few years when the helicopter is developed to a greater degree than at present. If the Minister decides to fall in with, or if he has to fall in with, dictation from an outside country as regards the location of this military airport, I think that this House should say that this country should not be charged for any work that is done here at the dictation of an outside body.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of a military airport does not arise on this Estimate.

Mr. Lehane

The point is that the Government have decided to establish an airport in Cork, the location of which has not yet been decided on because of various factors that are influencing the Government. I suggest that I have mentioned the main factor.

Deputy Dillon yesterday referred to the racket that is going on following the ban on the export of hides. There can be no doubt but that there is a definite tax being put on the cattle of this country to bolster up the tanning industry. We see that the people who got an embargo put on the export of hides to prevent the ordinary person in this country from exporting hides, are getting the hides themselves and are exporting them. The manufacturers of leather in this country are buying the hides at an artificially depressed price and are selling that leather in competition with leather that is produced from hides for which an economic price had been paid. I think that the Minister should put a stop to the racket that is going on.

On the general question of tariffs, I suppose there is no possibility of getting any Government in this country to go easy on tariffs because of the fact that tariffs are very useful to any Government. Governments can stand up and be very patriotic and say that, in doing so, they are protecting industry, whereas, in fact, the principal purpose of these tariffs is to enable them to get a good deal of hidden taxation from the people on the assumption that they are protecting something. A number of the tariffs that have been imposedare absolutely ridiculous. There is a tariff, for example, on razor blades, the manufacture of which is giving employment to just a handful of people. The fact, however, is that there are more people employed in smuggling razor blades across the Border than there are in their manufacture here.

The Minister wants cheap food and he wants the cost of living reduced, but he is not going to get cheap food and he is not going to reduce the cost of living if he increases the price of the raw materials to agriculture. Recently, there was a heavy tax put on a roll of wire. There is a tax on superphosphates while, as we know, the land of the country is being starved for phosphates. There is a tax on practically every raw material that is required in agriculture, so that the Minister expects the farmers of this country to buy their raw materials at a much higher price than their competitors across the Border have to pay for them, and at the same time to sell their produce at a cheaper price. If the Minister goes ahead with his daft policy of putting outrageous tariffs on the essential requirements of the principal industry in this country, he is going to cause trouble for himself and trouble for the people in the towns.

There is another matter that I should like to mention. Recently, the Minister imposed a heavy duty on fishermen's oilskins. These are not manufactured in this country. There is a substitute, a plastic material, which is quite useless for fishermen. At the moment, the smuggling in oilskins has been given a great fillip by the heavy duty which the Minister has put on these very necessary articles of clothing for fishermen. I agree with the Minister that the plastic overalls are quite useful for people such as road workers, corporation workers, and people like them, but they are not suitable for fishermen going out to fish in rough seas. I would ask the Minister to look into that matter again and satisfy himself in regard to it. I actually gave the Minister a sample of what was available in this country in the way of oilskin suits. Anybody looking at them would see that the substitute was quite useless to the fishermen. It cracks, itbreaks, it is badly cut and it leaks at the seams.

The Minister, when speaking at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis, took the delegates into his confidence and said he intended to introduce a Bill dealing with road transport. I do not think the Minister has confided to the House what form that legislation is going to take, but I would appeal to him to have due regard to the rights and the usefulness of the private lorry owner. The private lorry owner is one very great asset in a country area. He can do work and he can do things that cannot be done satisfactorily by a large nationalised State body. In addition to that, it gives an opportunity to people in the country, where there is no room for them on the land, to do a little private business on their own and to live in the country and on the countryside. The private lorry owner is a big economic asset, and I would ask the Minister when drafting this Bill regarding road transport to have due regard to his economic usefulness to the country and also to the social benefit of having a number of small employers resident and scattered throughout the country.

The Minister in introducing what we may call the depressed areas Bill has drawn a line along the map and you must be along the seaboard to be in a depressed area. In my constituency I would say there are two towns that are the most depressed, not alone in Ireland but in Europe; one is Kinsale and the other is Passage West. Anyone going into them would get a fit of depression. If there are any depressed areas in this country, Kinsale and Passage West would take a very high place amongst them. If anything could be done to relieve the situation in these areas it should be done and, if necessary, having regard to the appalling conditions in these towns, the Minister should extend the definition of the present area in the Bill and include Kinsale and Passage West and any other area in the State that might be in an equally bad position.

Deputy McQuillan referred yesterday to the lack of exports of whiskey. That is one industry for which we have the raw materials at home. Itis an industry for which we have the craftsmen available to manufacture it and it should be developed. What I cannot understand in connection with the distilling industry is this. The pot distillers, I think, circulated every Deputy in this House—I know I was circulated by the pot distillers in my own constituency—complaining that because of high taxation they could not sell their product. The distilleries in my area not alone have little for export but they cannot supply the ordinary publican or the ordinary hotelier who requires their product. I agree with Deputy McQuillan that there is something wrong on the part of the distillers and they have a great piece of impertinence in circulating members of this House telling them they cannot sell their product when a number of publichouse owners and a number of hoteliers will tell you they cannot obtain their products even though they have applied repeatedly for them.

Mr. Hickey

It is a great shame for them.

Mr. Lehane

I hope the Minister will look into the few points I have mentioned, particularly in connection with the hides and the tariffs and that something will be done so that we will not need the same rigmarole next year.

Mrs. Crowley

As I represent a tourist county, I would like to say a few words on tourism. I think that An Tóstal this year was a success, and if it did nothing else it proved to places outside the specifically tourist areas that the tourist industry is very important from the country's point of view, and that the Department is going all out to make it a national business. It also brought to light a lot of hidden organisational talent and entertainment talent that probably was not in evidence before. It proved that we are not dependent for our entertainment on outside sources completely, that we can entertain ourselves and the various organisations can go around to different towns and different counties and show what they can do.I am certain that when An Tóstal gets into its stride after a few years it will be the great success we all hope it will be.

With regard to tourist literature, I would like to congratulate Fógra Fáilte on their bulletin, "Ireland of the Welcomes". This is an excellent publication and could be distributed with advantage in any country. It is well produced and printed on good paper; there are plenty of illustrations and drawings and not too much reading matter. That is a good idea, because nowadays people have not got the time to wade through long articles; they do like to see pictures and illustrations and get a quick idea of what the country is like. Afterwards they are quite willing to read about it. You must attract them first. People are used to films and television now, and they are used to having things brought before them in a pictorial fashion.

While I am on the subject of literature for tourists, let me say that the maps of the country and of the country roads could be improved a lot. The maps the tourists get now are very much out of date. We have spent a great deal of money in recent years on improving county and main roads and some of the tourist maps do not show these roads although they have been there for years and years. I presume the old blocks are still in existence and that somebody does not want to spend the money on making new blocks. It is a great pity that these new tourist roads are not advertised more for the sake of the tourist, because when he gets down to a county and sees that according to the map all the roads are very bad, he is not inclined to travel further around the countryside.

We must realise that the British tourist, at any rate, is a methodical person. I would say that most of them would plan their summer holidays at Christmas. If they are thinking of going outside their own country they will get all the literature of the different countries during the Christmas holidays and try to make up their minds where they intend to go. By the end of the Christmas holidaysthey have decided where they intend to go and practically the train they will catch and have done everything but buy the ticket. Therefore, we should get all the publicity material we want very early in the year—before Christmas, if possible.

I would like to congratulate the Department on the new office in London. The older office was in a very good centre but the new one is even better. The Minister should try to do something for the Killarney office, now that the London one is so good. There is only one room available for tourists to come in and discuss their problems. It needs painting and chairs and it needs to be made attractive. I would ask the Minister to see that it is made as attractive as possible.

Mr. Everett

This discussion during the past few days has ranged over various subjects, some of them very important; but I notice that the Minister and the Government supporters were very silent on two most important matters that concern the people at present. I admit that the Minister is not very shy or bashful when it comes to painting a rosy picture over various things accomplished by himself or his Government. I was surprised at his silence when he omitted from his speech—as also did his supporters, though we had a two-hour lecture on extreme socialism, that no member of the House had advocated—everything about the real problem facing the people of Ireland and facing the Government, that is, the condition of the 60,000 unwanted people who are now unemployed.

It is not a question of where they will go on their holidays; it is a question only of which country will take them. It seems that Ireland does not require them any more. We have no work for them and no further use for them. What is the cause? The Minister was one who recognised that these things would happen over the Budgets of 1952 and 1953, when through the removal of subsidies from the essential foodstuffs even the men who were in constant employment had to purchase less. They had not sufficient money,even out of their constant wages, to buy the food normally procured for their houses. We should measure the problem of unemployment and the hardship and misery in the country and try to remove it and eliminate it. We should be more concerned with that than with reconciling our balances in our books. Which is more important —providing employment and stability for our people or obeying the money lords who dictate policy at present? I believe these are the two important subjects that affect the country, yet we are quite indifferent to the whole serious position. It is all very well to talk about greater productivity, but what is the incentive, even for the workers who are in employment? You must give an incentive. Are they going to have greater production and then greater unemployment? Does it mean they will get a higher wage or a part share in the profits they are going to make?

These problems will have to be faced by some committee or by the Government and the representatives of all Parties, those engaged in trade, those investing capital and the workers concerned. They will have to decide and regulate workers' wages, profits and shares and try to get greater productivity in the various industries, if we are to get out of the position we are in. I consider, coming from a rural area, that even during the emergency we were not faced with as serious a problem as we are faced with now.

It is all very well to talk about erecting houses. At the present time it is the old schemes initiated in 1946, 1947 and 1948 that are being completed. In the cities there is good employment and good rates of wages, but the rural areas are not in that position. The public bodies find that it costs over £1,100 to build a labourer's cottage. The man in the rural area with £4 per week cannot pay an economic rent. With the high rate of interest, as a result of Government policy, there is a slowing-down on the erection of houses. Dublin is in a different position from the rural areas—it has factories and good wages and a large number of workers are prepared to pay an economic rent. In towns with apopulation of 4,000 or 5,000 where you have not constant employment in factories, the men who are in condemned houses and who need better accommodation cannot pay an economic rent of 15/- or £1 per week.

An Ceann Comhairle

The question of housing and economic rents will arise on the Estimate for the Department of Local Government.

Mr. Everett

I thought it was the Minister's policy to consider all the questions we are faced with in creating employment. Admittedly, the Minister for Local Government has a lot to do with housing, but the Minister for Industry and Commerce must be aware that a large number of skilled men are now unemployed in Dublin, while we have a demand from another section of the community for the erection of houses. However, I do not want to dwell upon it.

The Minister is anxious for an export drive. I want to be fair to him, and I would ask him to take special notice of the position of Wicklow Harbour. We had a controversy in the local paper with members of the harbour board that the Minister must be aware of. Even the harbour board, and even the engineer before that, as far back as April, did not agree to the scheme sanctioned by the committee in the Department of Industry and Commerce. The reason was that there was a factory there giving a large amount of employment and there were always two berths, previous to the demolition of the quay wall, for boats of 1,000 tons. The scheme sent down by the Minister would deprive the harbour board of the berth they had prior to the demolition of the wall. You had boats off the quay coming out into the river, but no berth for a boat of 300 or 400 tons. With the factory there, two boats would often come in at the one time and there was only one berth, so there was a moorage claim—and many a time the factory gave the Minister the returns—over unnecessary delay in the discharging of the boat, which was due to the fact that the other boat had not discharged in time. The harbour commissionersappealed to the Minister's Department as far back as last April to give them the No. 2 scheme submitted by the engineers of the Board of Works. Three schemes were submitted. If that No. 2 scheme is sanctioned by the Minister, it will meet a problem that the union has asked the Minister to meet, in providing berths beside the factory where boats of 1,500 or 2,000 tons can come in. The factory is willing to bring in material to grind in the slack period and send out again to South America for dollars. The Minister is giving wealthier harbours twice the amount he has offered to Wicklow. Wealthier harbours have been offered £60,000 and £70,000, with £7,000 from the rates. I do not see why Wicklow should not be treated in the same way. I cannot understand why Wicklow should be asked for £35,000 for the same amount of money that others are getting with £7,000 from the rates. The members of the Wicklow Harbour Board are supporters of the Minister's own Party. I do not say that politics enter into this matter. They are only laymen acting on the advice available to them. If a second berth were provided more employment would be given in the factory. I appeal to the Minister to consider that point because the present scheme is useless from the point of view of the harbour board and the factory.

I appeal to the Government to give more attention to the problems I have raised than has been given to them in the past 12 months. Unemployment is rife all over the country. All our young men are leaving to find work elsewhere. I think we should restore the subsidies on essential foodstuffs to give the unemployed some chance of living on the meagre sum that is allotted to them at the present time. The country is badly in need of some restoration of confidence. Unfortunate people have no employment through no fault of their own. I hope a change for the better will take place very soon.

General Mulcahy

I would ask the Minister to report a little more fully on the position with regard to the Slievardagh coalfield. During the year there was an announcement that theMinister had sold the Ballingarry mine as a going concern, and the Slievardagh coalfield, as a whole. A considerable amount of anxiety exists at the moment among local people who are dependent on the activity of those mines for a livelihood. Something like 200 families are dependent on the coal-fields being maintained and developed in a satisfactory way. Considerable anxiety exists at the moment and there are some factors in the situation that we find it difficult to understand.

The Minister has at all times been anxious to get a buyer for the Slievardagh coalfield. Before the Fianna Fáil Government left office in 1947 they had advertised for someone to lease that coalfield from them but I do not think any offer was forthcoming at that particular time. During the years 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951 a certain amount of development took place, supported by State grants, and not until 1952 did it appear that a quite satisfactory and substantial development of the working of the mine there could be secured.

The Minister was not very long back in office when the itch to sell the coalfield developed again. I am not quarrelling with the desire on the part of any Minister for Industry and Commerce to get someone to lease the Slievardagh, or any other coalfield, but I feel a certain amount of responsibility rests on him to explain to the House that what is being done is being done satisfactorily and equitably and that it is not simply a case of the Minister washing his hands of the coalfield and its resources by getting someone to pay something just at the moment.

Now in 1945, 1946 and 1947 the coal production in the Ballynonty and Lickfinn areas, which were the only areas worked, ran 17,153, 14,362 and 14,764. At the end of that period the Minister was apparently making up his mind, in consultation with Mianraí Teoranta, that the Ballynonty and Lickfinn areas were worked out. Work was not actually stopped in that area and one of the things that requires explanation and sympathetic consideration at the moment arises in connection with the case of Mr. Michael Ivers, a miner of the traditional type in the Slievardagharea, who entered with the consent and approval of Mianraí Teoranta on the Ballynonty mines at the time that body left them and, borrowing, buying and renting some of the rails from Mianraí Teoranta, continued development of the Ballynonty mine where they left off, removed thousands of tons of débris, released thousands of tons of water and satisfactorily opened a mine that had been discarded by the mining authorities, and maintained there throughout the period a substantial amount of employment and is employing at the present moment from 30 to 39 men continually, apart from carters and others who are working in connection with the mine. My information is that the number of persons employed by Mr. Ivers, between adults and children, is about 200.

One of the elements in the position in the general coalfield area is the fact that this man has been working the Ballynonty mine from the time Mianraí Teoranta gave up operations there; that he has been developing it, and the position is that a mine that was left there to be worked no further has been so developed that it offers very promising possibilities.

The Minister last year authorised Mianraí Teoranta to enter into an arrangement to sell the mine. The following is a quotation from the report of the directors:—

"During the year Ballingarry Colliery was advertised for sale as a going concern, together with a lease of the Slievardagh coalfield. Negotiations resulted in an ecceptable offer of £50,000, plus royalties, being received. An agreement to sell was signed on the 24th January, 1953, whereby the prospective purchaser was given control of the colliery as from the 2nd February, 1953, on payment of £25,000 deposit, the balance to be secured by an insurance bond and to be paid by four equal annual instalments, with interest."

The Minister for External Affairs, perhaps speaking for the Minister for Finance, has been referring us to-day to balance sheets that are deposited in the Library as mines of information. I have been looking at the balance sheets for Mianraí Teoranta for a fewyears, including the balance sheet of 31st March, 1953. I do not know whether the sale has been legally effected or not but I understand that it has not been legally completed yet. In view of the position with regard to the sale and the position of Mr. Ivers in relation to Mianraí Teoranta and the working of the Ballynonty mine, there are some things that I should like to point out. After 1947 the Ballynonty mine, except in so far as it was worked by Mr. Ivers, was practically given up and a new mine was opened in the copper area. The inter-Party Government decided that development to the extent of about £50,000 would be carried out in that area. While difficulties were met, increased equipment was provided and greater facilities made available for the men, we find that by 1950 the total amount of coal produced was 11,910 tons. The balance sheet for that period shows a profit for the Ballingarry mine of £4,105. In the year 1951 the total production was 14,856 tons, the production in the first six months being good, the production in the second six months being rather disappointing and there was a loss of £6,732.

In 1952 production was 20,939 tons, but the balance sheet for the 31st March, 1953, shows that the Ballingarry production losses for ten months to the 1st February, 1953, were £11,303. I feel that that loss of £11,303 as outlined in the balance sheet would require a certain amount of explanation in view of the increase to 20,939 tons production that year and the fact that the output of 500 tons a week had been reached by October, 1952, and that from October, 1952, to the end of the year production had been greater. The implication in the balance sheet of 31st March, 1953, that there has been a substantial loss in the Ballingarry area on the working of the year 1952, requires a certain amount of explanation.

On the question of the sale, the balance sheet of 31st March, 1953, shows that the land, buildings, plant and machinery in the Ballingarry area were valued as carried over from last year at £25,612 and additions made, no doubt by way of plant and machinery,during the year were £19,920, giving a total of £45,533, off which certain depreciation was allowed, making a total of £43,644. Of that £43,644, £19,920 was new plant and machinery added during the 1952 year and £11,594 was new plant and machinery added the year before. So that, allowing for depreciation, the £43,644 shown in the balance sheet as land, buildings, plant and machinery on the 31st March, 1953, included nearly £32,000 of plant and machinery that was two years old or less. That is in addition to motor vehicles and furniture and fittings to the extent of £1,886.

I should like to ask the Minister how the sale price of £50,000 was arrived at or, in accepting the offer of £50,000, how it related to the value of the coalfield plus the value of the plant and machinery and the furniture and fittings that were there. The Minister is aware, and the reports for the last three years show, that a very considerable amount of additional plant and amenities had been added during the year 1950-51. There was washing and grading machinery, coal-cutting machinery, diesel oil generating plant, so that, in the first place, the cutting of the coal would be better done, the washing and grading would be better and they would be independent of any breakdown of electric light.

It seems difficult to understand why the Minister should have rushed so much to get the place sold. Immediately he got in, in November, 1951, the Minister proceeded to offer the north-east part of the coalfield with an approximate 2,500 acres and the estimate was that there were four million tons of coal possibilities there. He offered that for sale but there was no answer to it. The report into the national mineral resources made about 1920 or 1921 suggested that the total coal deposits in that coalfield were about 40 million tons.

Further, what I want to get is how the Minister is satisfied to accept £50,000 in the way in which it has been accepted as the value of the coalfield and the working mines that are there at the moment, and what it is intended to include in the agreementin the way of royalties or what has been included in that way. Again I want to ask with regard to the position of Mr. Michael Ivers there, who from the time that the Ballynonty and Loughfin fields were working and work was ceased by Mianraí Teoranta went in there and, as I say, not only cleared a lot of débris and a lot of water that had been left there or accumulated after the previous working, but who developed the mine, and developed it in a way in which it is satisfactorily working at the present day. I understand that Mianraí Teoranta had prepared or were preparing a lease for him for the Ballynonty mine in the same way as the Minister, no doubt, intended to prepare a lease for the north-eastern part of the mine when he advertised it in November, 1952, but that the proposals to make that lease were cut across by the over-all leasing of the coalfield to the present lessee. I understand that an arrangement was intended to be come to with Mr. Ivers to give him either a sub-lease or some kind of a lease in relation to the place he was working.

I understand that he was left there for a number of months to carry on uninterrupted, and he has now been served with notice to abandon the mine that he has been working there. It means a very considerable injustice to a man taking over what was left as a derelict mine, and in co-operation with and the approval of Mianraí Teoranta working it and developing it. There is an injustice to him in his pecuniary point of view, and there is a disturbance very much to the people who have been given employment by him all those years since 1948, and there is a general air of fear among those who are dependent on the product of the coalfield, that the Government has just in a handy kind of way washed its hands of the situation there.

Mr. Lemass

I am afraid that I will not be able to deal with that, because where public property is involved the question of what is justice will, I am afraid, have to be settled by the courts.

General Mulcahy

Pardon?

Mr. Lemass

I would not be able to deal with that because the question of the merits of this man's claim will, I am afraid, have to be settled by the courts. The courts will presumably determine what is justice in the matter.

General Mulcahy

You are referring to Mr. Ivers?

Mr. Lemass

To the person who is claiming a sub-lease.

General Mulcahy

At any rate, I think it is hardly a reasonable approach. I can understand the Minister, say, holding his tongue here on the coalfield position or saying that he was not clear whether he could usefully discuss the merits of that matter here as it was Mianraí Teoranta who had been dealing with it. But we are concerned with the conservation and the proper use of our national resources; we are concerned also with the well-being of the people who have for a large part of their lives been dependent on the working of the mines in this area and the production of coal there. The people have voted in Parliament a certain substantial amount of money during the past few years to see that there is a systematic and proper approach to the development of these mines.

We can hardly be regardless of the fact that, the normal Mianraí Teoranta machinery having failed to progress in Ballynonty and Loughfin beyond a particular point, with the native instinct and native persistence there a traditionally Ballingarry mining leader took up where Mianraí Teoranta left off, and with their blessing and with a certain amount of assistance from them, developed the mines and produced a substantial amount of coal in the meantime.

Mr. Lemass

I would not like to agree that he was invited to come on the property. Whether he has established any rights by reason of the fact that he was allowed to remain there is another question, but certainly he was not invited there.

General Mulcahy

At any rate, from my point of view, it is only part of an overriding business. There is a feelingthere, and it is enhanced by the way in which it would appear that Mr. Ivers is being treated, that somebody is taking the line that the Minister is getting rid of something he had been anxious to get rid of all along, that he may say there is nothing in it but expense, trouble and difficulties of one kind or another to be hemmed and hawed about over the next few years until it is seen whether the development of this mine can be completely satisfactory. Therefore, the Minister should try to get rid of trouble at the moment and get somebody who is going to go in and scoop off the surplus coal and then when there is nothing more to be got out of it in an economic way is going to leave the mine there and let the Government go back to the beginning all over again. Further, the property, apart altogether from any wealth of mineral resources, is seen to be a substantial property. Twenty-five thousand pounds have been received for it, and an arrangement is contemplated that another £25,000 will be taken over four years. The allegation in the balance sheet that there was £11,000 of a loss in the last working year there I find it very hard to understand.

Mr. Lemass

The money had run out and I had to come to the Dáil and ask it to vote money in excess of that provided under the Act under a promise that I would rectify the position through special legislation. That fact will make it clear.

General Mulcahy

I hope that the Minister will be able to be a little more explicit than the balance sheets are, because there was a profit of £4,102 in 1950 on the 11,900 tons of coal produced.

Mr. Lemass

They must have sold that at fantastic prices, because I understand that 25,000 tons of coal per year would be required to cover expenses.

General Mulcahy

I do not know what the difference is between the prices at which Mianraí Teoranta sold the coal and the present lessee is selling at the moment.

Mr. Lemass

He is selling in a competitive market.

General Mulcahy

I do not know that there were fantastic prices paid for the coal in 1950.

Mr. Lemass

Otherwise they could have not made a profit there in Ballingarry.

General Mulcahy

At any rate, it does require some explanation, with production going up in October, 1950, and maintained at the higher point, and with sales being completely recovered, because the last report says, with regard to improvements that have taken place there: "Work on the erection of a modern coal-washing and grading plant proceeded during the year and was completed in December. The fuel from the washery was enthusiastically received by the trade and sales had commenced to revive towards the end of the year. Assembly and housing of the machinery and equipment was carried out with local labour under the supervision of the company's technical staff."

It was after that that, according to the report: "Acting on instructions from the Minister, an advertisement was inserted in September offering Ballingarry Colliery for sale as a going concern, together with a lease of the Slievardagh coalfield. Geological, statistical and financial details were sent to a number of individuals and concerns who showed an interest in the sale, but only one offer was received. Towards the end of December the Minister authorised the company to negotiate a sale on the basis of this offer. Negotiations were proceeding at the end of the year." I understand that the agreement has not actually been concluded as some legal matters require to be settled.

I understand that the ejectment of Mr. Michael Ivers from the Ballynonty coalfield seems to be part of that. Anybody closely associated with the history of that field would know that there are equities to be decided as far as Mr. Ivers is concerned. I think we are entitled to some account from the Minister as to how the sale could be considered a worthwhile sale from hispoint of view and what terms in the agreement guarantee that the coalfield will not just be stripped in a surface kind of way without any attempt being made to develop it properly.

Mr. Cogan

I would not have intervened at all in this debate were it not for the fact that Deputy Dr. Esmonde requested the Minister to withdraw or divert the money which was set aside to be expended on the development of the Avoca mines. I think that that request is in accordance with the request which was made by a local chairman of a Fine Gael organisation when the previous Government were in office. There are valuable deposits in Avoca and the request of Deputy Dr. Esmonde is altogether unjustifiable. The mines have been developed over a considerable number of years. Money has been expended on their development and it is only right that the work should be pushed forward and completed. Everybody in the area and, I suppose, everybody throughout Ireland will welcome the day when these mines start to yield a valuable return. The sooner we begin to have an output from these mines, the better. The general expectation is that the work will be pushed forward with all expedition with a view to bringing the matter to a successful conclusion. It has cost a considerable amount of money already and it is only right that the work should be completed.

In the course of his speech, Deputy Everett said that a considerable amount of time has been wasted during this debate in a discussion on extreme socialism versus private enterprise. Deputy Everett was inclined to think that there is no need whatever for such strong expressions of opposition to extreme socialism as he considers that there is no likelihood of such a thing showing its face in this State. Yet, only a few short years ago, Deputy Everett was scaring the lives out of all of us by telling us that the Labour Party was dominated not by extreme socialists but by communists. In the course of a very able address, Deputy Major de Valera dealt with this matter. I think he made it clear that, no matter what Government is in power, private enterpriseshould be assisted to the maximum and that, where private enterprise cannot perform the work which requires to be done, State enterprise should step in and fill the need.

Very valuable work in the way of industrial development has been done in this country by private enterprise over the past 20 years. That work was done by individual citizens, businessmen and other persons who had very little or no experience of the manufacturing business and who, in many instances, made a success of it. It is no reflection whatever on these men that they made a success of their work. It has been suggested by a leading spokesman of the Opposition Party that any man who makes a success of the manufacturing business or of industrial production in this country, or who makes some profit out of it, is a criminal who ought to be hounded down and driven out of business. That has been the theme of practically every speech delivered in this House by Deputy Dillon over the past 20 years. Yesterday, Deputy Dillon described Irish manufacturers as a gang of chancers and a group of parasites. He used a number of other adjectives which I will not repeat now.

Since it is necessary and desirable to promote industrial development, it is right that those who engage in it as a class should not be defamed, held up to ridicule and condemned before the eyes of the people. Like agriculture. industry depends for its advancement and success on the energy, ambition and enthusiasm of the young men who are willing to enter it. If young men are to be encouraged to enter into the manufacturing industry, and to devote their best energies to it, then they ought not to be told in advance that they are entering a criminal occupation or that they are joining a criminal class. It is the duty of the members of this House to make it clear to the people generally that to engage in the manufacture of goods for the use of our people is a noble and an honourable occupation and that it is not one that should be held up to the ridicule and condemnation of public men. It is all right to say, as some people complacently say, that there are good andbad industrialists. There is a certain amount of good and bad in every profession and in every occupation. Because there may be some inefficient or worthless member in the medical profession, one does not condemn the entire medical profession. Because there may be some inefficient or worthless farmer in the country one does not condemn the entire farming community. That should be the attitude in regard to industry also.

I must say, in passing, that the attitude of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in regard to Industry is in striking contrast to that of Deputy Dillon. The Minister assumes that everybody who enters the manufacturing business is a responsible and respectable citizen until he is proved to be otherwise. Deputy Dillon's attitude is that every man who undertakes the manufacture of goods in this country is a criminal until, after long years, he has proved himself innocent. That illustrates the different attitudes adopted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and Deputy Dillon in regard to this important matter.

Mr. Hughes

The Deputy will never be able to forget Deputy Dillon.

Mr. Cogan

I am not allowed to forget him. Deputy Dillon intervened in this debate yesterday and constituted himself as one of the leading spokesmen of Deputy Hughes's Party. Apparently Deputy Dillon and Deputy Flanagan are now running neck and neck for the leadership of that Party. Which will succeed will depend on the quality of the neck.

Deputy Flanagan, if we may change the subject, made a violent attack upon the importation of timber from Russia and constituted himself the noble spokesman of Christianity in this respect. When Deputy Flanagan shows a little more respect for the great Christian virtues of truth, charity and justice, he will be qualified——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Flanagan's reference to the Minister's administration is relevant, but the Deputy's personal qualities may not be discussed here.

Mr. Cogan

I am referring to a statement by Deputy Flanagan and suggesting that, when he qualifies in that way, he will be qualified to speak on behalf of Christianity. Deputy Flanagan, however, did not refer—neither did Deputy Giles, who spoke about the blood-soaked timber imported from Russia—to the blood-soaked coal which was imported from beyond the Iron Curtain during the period of office of the inter-Party Government. It is right that we should all condemn the injustices and atrocities committed by a tyrannical régime, and it is right that we should consider ways and means of making a national protest, although perhaps not on this Estimate. It is, however, a matter for responsible Ministers and Deputies to consider it from all angles, with a view to deciding on what is the best form of protest that should be made. Retaliation of the type suggested by Deputy Flanagan is not always very effective and particularly when it is of such a minor nature and when it would have so little effect, as we know, on the general policy of these Governments.

Deputy Flanagan was simply trying to make capital against the Government and his speech was in rather striking contrast with that of Deputy Cosgrave, who referred to the matter briefly and admitted that his Government had also imported goods from beyond the Iron Curtain. That, I think, was meeting the matter in a fair and reasonable way. He suggested that we should endeavour to avoid trading with these countries and I think, on general principles, that we should avoid trading not only with these countries but with all States which do not provide us with a market for our goods. In developing our export trade, we should be mainly concerned to buy from those who buy from us and, as this is a matter in which private enterprise is engaged to a considerable extent, it is not always possible for a Government to intervene fully and effectively.

I have no doubt that the firms which imported the timber from Russia are firms of repute who did so in good faith. Some of them may be as closely identified with the Fine Gael Party as with the Government, and perhapseven more so, but they were, I think, acting in good faith. The approach of Deputy Cosgrave to the matter is much more reasonable than that of his would-be leader, Deputy Flanagan, in his suggestion that we should try to avoid, or to discourage so far as we can, trading with these countries. I go further and say that we should try to avoid and to discourage imports from any country which does not freely accept our exports and pay a fair price for them.

I mentioned that, in addition to the extensive work that can be and is being done by private enterprise in the industrial field, we have also to develop these public or State-owned companies which are contributing very largely to the economic security of the State. There is no doubt that Bord na Móna, in the production of machine-won turf, has made a remarkable contribution to the well-being of our people and the provision of employment for our people. It is well known in this connection that, during the régime of the inter-Party Government, Deputy Flanagan conducted a rather vicious campaign to remove the managing director and other prominent people in Bord na Móna who were doing their best to promote this branch of Irish industry and it is to the credit of the inter-Party Government that they resisted that campaign.

It is essential for the preservation of national development of this kind undertaken by public companies that no political interference or victimisation shall take place with regard to the people who are managing these State-owned industries. So long as they are doing their duty well and efficiently, they deserve the support of all Parties, regardless of what Government happens to be in power or what Government was responsible for appointing them.

Again, in regard to the Irish Sugar Company, we find that, through the energy and vigour of its directors, a remarkable expansion of that industry has been carried through. The industry is now on a very sound footing. The directors of the company have met the farmers in a reasonable way, agreeing to base the price they pay to thefarmer on his cost of production, without any question, hesitation, dispute or quibble about it. In that way, they have established a certain measure of security for those who supply them with their raw materials and have put the industry on a sound foundation, because no industry can be sound, unless its raw materials are secured.

In addition—and credit for this is due to the managing director—there have been developments of an industrial nature which are of far-reaching consequence. We have, for example, the fact that the managing director of the Irish Sugar Company undertook to investigate the possibility of providing a machine capable of lifting and crowning beet under Irish climatic conditions, and, after considerable experiment, has succeeded in producing a machine which is, I think, superior to anything produced in any part of the world.

That is an achievement in the industrial field of which we should be proud. We have been told over the years by the Deputy Dillons, the Deputy Flanagans and such people that the Irish people have not the industrial brains or the inventive genius possessed by other nations, and that they are unable to concentrate on the perfection of engineering work. Yet we have seen—and this is only one of the many examples that can be produced—that a machine has been produced by the Irish Sugar Company which, as I say, is superior to anything else that has been produced elsewhere. There is a possibility that other countries will be looking for this machine and that it may be possible to export it, but whether we do or not it is certainly a very valuable asset to the agricultural industry. I think it is time that we shed our inferiority complex in regard to manufacture and in regard to engineering and inventive genius. It is time that we recognised that there are people like Major-General Costello who, if given a chance, are capable of producing goods that are in demand and that are essential.

I mention that because I think it is one of the good features of public enterprisein this country. I do not think anyone could quarrel with the statement made by Deputy Larkin in this respect when he said that where private enterprise is not capable of doing certain work that requires to be done, it is desirable to turn back on public enterprise, not to supplant private enterprise but to supplement it. Here we have industries such as Bord na Móna and the Irish Sugar Company, which are supplying needs that could not be supplied by private enterprise, and at the same time they are venturing forth into a field of invention and the production of machinery that has not yet been explored. I think it is true also to say of Bord na Móna that they have produced machines of a design superior to those of other countries. The fact that we have these large public companies in a position to undertake this work is a national advantage. I think it is one of the things upon which we can congratulate ourselves as having made some progress.

It is all right for people like Deputy Everett to talk about the number of people who are unemployed but the only way to fight unemployment and to overcome it is to stimulate the development of industry in every one of its branches, beginning with the fundamental industry of agriculture and going right down through all the industries which are capable of being developed. Industries which supply basic materials such as fuel are of supreme importance. I think it is true to say that Bord na Móna provides a fuel in the form of machine-won turf that does compare favourably, in quality and in price, with imported fuel for general purposes. That is the answer to those who for years have been denouncing public expenditure on bog and turf development. That is a complete answer and a complete vindication of the enthusiasm, the courage and the foresight of those who undertook this work in the thick of very great criticism and opposition.

I have no intention of entering into the dispute with regard to the airfield at Cork because that would be far outside my province, except as a farmerto support the demand of Deputy Corry that it should be provided at Farmers' Cross.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

You are backing the wrong horse. Deputy Corry is opposed to Farmers' Cross.

Mr. Cogan

I had better keep out of it then because I understand from Deputy Lehane that they are now engaged in a cold war with the United States and when the Corkmen and the Yanks cross swords it is better for us to stand back and await developments.

There is one other matter to which I would like to refer which is concerned with my own constituency. After the matter had been under consideration for a considerable time, the Government has made available in the present year a substantial grant for the development of Wicklow Harbour. I know that the harbour commissioners in Wicklow are not quite satisfied with the existing scheme but I am confident that the matter will be adjusted. I understand that the engineering section of the Minister's Department are investigating the request that has been made for an extension of the scheme so as to make it completely satisfactory from all points of view. I think it is desirable that when work of this nature is undertaken it should be completed in such a way as would make the harbour satisfactory from the point of view of the unloading of all types of vessels. I think the existing scheme does not make adequate provision for the unloading of two vessels at a time and it is only right that the matter should be re-examined as speedily as possible and a decision arrived at.

I hope the decision of the Minister's Department will be to meet the request of the harbour commissioners and to extend the scheme to the distance required. I hope the work will be undertaken as soon as possible; it is certainly long overdue. I think every Deputy for Wicklow, and local representatives as well, have been on deputations to the Minister's Department and other Departments in regard to this harbour and also in regard to Arklow Harbour for quite a number of years. I am glad that work is also being undertaken in Arklow. There isneed for an extension of the existing scheme and I hope that also will be undertaken.

I understand the matter is being examined, and I trust that the work will be completed in a manner satisfactory to those who have to use the harbours. Both Wicklow and Arklow Harbours have always been problems inasmuch as they have never been fully developed, and they are subject to extreme silting up from the tides. If the work is completed in a satisfactory way now I think the Government can look forward to a long period during which they will not be troubled with requests for the improvement of these two important harbours.

The Minister, and also, of course, C.I.E., should be congratulated upon the change-over to a considerable extent to diesel traction on our railways. It is a step in the right direction. If it were carried still further, I wonder would it enable branch lines, some of which are running uneconomically, and some of which have been closed, to be reopened or continued economically? Nobody wants C.I.E. or any other public company to run services which are uneconomic. With dieselisation, it may be possible that the branch lines which serve considerable areas of the country can become economic.

I hope, however, that serious consideration will be given to the claim that has frequently been made by Deputies that there ought to be a reconsideration of the whole policy with regard to the transport of goods in this country. Here, again, private enterprise would probably fill the need, in many areas at any rate, more satisfactorily than can be done by a public company. We all know that C.I.E. are giving a fairly good service, and in some cases delivering goods at a comparatively cheap rate. But it would be interesting to know whether the road transport service is paying its way or not. I have a strong belief, and I think most people who have experience in regard to the operation of this branch of C.I.E. have a strong belief, that it is not profitable and could not be profitable in its work.

It is a matter which requires closeinvestigation. It may not be necessary to take the complete drastic step which was taken in Great Britain of denationalising or handing back to private enterprise the entire road fleet. But I think that, at any rate, a considerable amount of transport which is being carried on the roads by C.I.E. could very profitably be transferred to private enterprise.

I want to say something about the Industrial Development Authority which was set up some years ago. I never could be sure as to what they were intended to do. It is very easy to set up some kind of a body like that and tell them to go ahead and develop industries. But, when it comes down actually to developing them, it is very hard to see much progress being made. I remember having to pick up the hat of one of the members of that authority, and I found written inside that it was made in London. I wonder are men who wear hats which are made in London so wildly enthusiastic about Irish industry that they are going to overcome all the difficulties, and there are difficulties, operating against the development of Irish industry. While the members and staff of the Industrial Development Authority may endeavour to carry out their objectives to the best of their ability, I have a feeling that they cannot make very much progress. I think it would be far better, if we are to have such an authority at all, to give them a certain amount of money and tell them to go ahead and produce something. It is very easy to sit down at a desk and advise and encourage ordinary people to establish industries and produce goods, but it would be much more effective if this authority were something like Bord na Móna or the Irish Sugar Company and were given a certain amount of capital and certain productive work to do. For example, they could be told to undertake some line of production which is not being undertaken at the present time and get on with that work and produce goods, rather than merely to give advice and encouragement to individual industrialists. It is about time that something in that line should be done.

It might be very desirable to have,in addition to existing companies, one body which would do a little bit of investigation and experimentation just like the Irish Sugar Company and produce some type of machinery. They might produce, for example, a cheaper motor-car than Fords, if that were possible, and put it on the market, because I think that in an agricultural country it would be a good thing even for the small farmers and the agricultural workers to have some mode of conveyance which would bring them into line with the standard of living of our people in the towns and cities. Some people might think that overidealistic, but only a few years ago people were laughing at the idea of having a water supply and electric light in rural dwelling-houses. These things have come to pass, and it is only right that they should come to pass.

In the last few years the pace of development in rural electrification has been intensive, and we can look forward to a time in the very near future when there will be hardly an area throughout the length and breadth of the State which will not enjoy the amenity of electrification. I have sympathy with the case put up by Deputy Crotty of one man who had been left out of the existing scheme. That, of course, should not happen, but it is probable that he may be allocated to another area which will be developed later. However the matter is dealt with, no citizen living in a rural area should be left without this amenity which is being provided for his neighbours.

I think that, generally speaking, while we can ignore the ranting of the extremists who have always been against industrial development in this country, we can compliment the Minister on the progress that is being made. The industrialist is not the enemy of the Irish farmer; he is his younger brother, if you like. I do not think that anybody would put industry on an equal footing with agriculture, but at least they are doing complementary work. One is providing the essential food for our people and the essentialagricultural exports, and the other is providing the essential manufactured materials which our people require and also goods which can be exported.

In that connection, I should like to say a word about the tourist industry, which is an important one. It has made considerable progress. There is always a certain amount of criticism of those who are called upon to administer a compulsory scheme of inspection. It is always a difficult task, I suppose, to undertake the inspection of a business carried on by individuals for their own benefit and which is absolutely owned by the individual citizens concerned. But in regard to the tourist industry, the Tourist Board has the duty and the right to inspect hotels and see that they are up to standard. Most hoteliers accept that as being desirable not only in the interests of the individual hoteliers but in the general interests of the tourist industry.

It is not only essential that the person who carries out that work should be efficient but it is also essential that he or she should be diplomatic and endeavour not by any threats or coercion but by persuasion and encouragement to get people to improve the hotel facilities which they give. It is always a delicate matter but a person of tact and experience can carry it out efficiently without giving offence.

I think there were in the early days complaints regarding the grading of hotels—complaints that the grading was on a somewhat unfair basis generally but I do not think that those complaints are as general to-day. The work of the board is appreciated and with a little more tact and diplomacy on the part of the inspectors who visit the hotels, I think the work can be advanced to the satisfaction of both the Tourist Board and the hoteliers.

Mr. A. Byrne

Emigration, unemployment and the very high cost of living are the big problems about which we are worrying in Dublin city, unemployment especially. I was rather surprised when the Minister, on the 28th October, 1953, introducing his Estimate, said:—

"Then I proceeded to say that there had been a general improvement in the conditions as compared with last year, that the temporary trade recession which was experienced internationally in 1952 because of the liquidation of stocks which had been accumulated on the outbreak of the Korean was had ended..."

I do not know why the Minister was so optimistic as to say that conditions had improved because unemployment figures so far as Dublin city is concerned continue to increase. Emigration is a thing that we all look forward to with dread. What is going to happen if the tide of emigration is not stopped?

One has only to go down to the ports and to Westland Row railway station every week to see some of the finest young men and women leave the country in their hundreds. They all get on the boats for England. In a few cases whole families are leaving for Canada.

Mr. McGrath

From Belfast.

Mr. A. Byrne

I know of two families who left Dublin recently for Canada. The families consisted of the father. mother and six or seven children. I was hopeful that a native Government would be able to do something that would produce work for our people and give them decent wages. I have often thought and wondered, looking at this emigration continuing in such great numbers, whether we were shutting our eyes to it for any purpose and whether we were getting them off the dole and saving money. I often wondered were those some of the reasons why they were being allowed to emigrate.

Mr. Briscoe

That is why we increased the dole.

Mr. A. Byrne

The dole is very poor at the present moment and it is only six months ago that the Minister refused to increase the dole.

Mr. Briscoe

If we had that mentality we would have abolished it.

Mr. A. Byrne

If Deputy Briscoe feels that 38/- per week for a man, his wife and four children is something to boast about I will make him a present of it.

Mr. McGrath

They got nothing until Fianna Fáil got in.

Mr. Briscoe

That is true.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Byrne should be allowed to speak without interruption. It is the duty of the Chair to see that he has that opportunity.

Mr. A. Byrne

These are the first interruptions to-day, Sir. However, if I have trod on their corns it cannot be helped, but I will continue to tread on their corns if by so doing I can do something for the unemployed of Dublin City.

Mr. Briscoe

You are walking on your bunions.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

The Deputy is at it again.

Mr. A. Byrne

I am stopped every evening of the week by groups of fine young men who ask me what we are going to do for them. I was in Deputy Briscoe's constituency yesterday and met a group of young men who asked me what was going to be done for them. They wanted to know if they would have to go down to the boats, emigrate and never be seen again. Unfortunately, that applies particularly to the building trade.

Building trade workers are going away as fast as they can. They are getting offers of jobs. I do not blame them. I say they have a right to select places to go to where they will get a living if we cannot give them a living at home. It is a sad sight to see these fine young country boys who should be producing food for export and making money emigrate. We were told in this House that we have a market for our agricultural produce. I had hoped that, as well as giving our people a decent living on the land in order to keep the boys and girls at home, let them get married, have their own home——

Mr. Davern

A shilling a gallon for our milk.

Mr. A. Byrne

——the same thing would apply to the City of Dublin and that we would be able to improve conditions here industrially to keep our young men from going away. These young men were most anxious to stay at home and do what their fathers did, get a cottage, a decent job and rear a family. The young people are deserting Dublin. It is not their fault. It is most regrettable that they are going away in such numbers but it is still more regrettable that so many of our fine young girls have to leave this country to get a living in another. It is a pity. I am not blaming anybody, Deputy Briscoe. I do not know why you should jump on me.

Mr. Briscoe

Surely you are not afraid because I look at you?

An Ceann Comhairle

I suggest that Deputy Byrne address me and not Deputy Briscoe.

Mr. A. Byrne

He is continually interrupting me and why he does it I do not know. I am not blaming anybody for the position that exists. I am only stating the facts. We have too many unemployed in our midst and something ought to be done. What that something is I do not know. I am not in power. I have not the benefit of the experience of the officials that the Minister has behind him to suggest things for these people.

The fact remains that men are unemployed and are seeking work. Their wives are complaining of the high cost of living and say that it prevents them from giving sufficient nourishment to their families. I often wonder if the Government have dropped the idea altogether of prices control. The high cost of foodstuffs in Dublin is appalling. I am just wondering whether Deputy Dr. Browne and Deputy Dr. ffrench-O'Carroll would now suggest what I heard them suggest here once before. I remember these two eminent gentlemen saying that the withdrawal of the subsidies on bread had raised the price of the loaf from 6d. to 9d. They did not agree with it, and from the tone of their speeches I was led to believe that these medical gentlemen also objected to the highprices that are being charged for foodstuffs in the city.

Mr. Briscoe

Is the Deputy now referring to private conversations or to public statements?

Mr. A. Byrne

To what was said from the benches here. There were no private conversations. These two gentlemen are not in my book——

Mr. Briscoe

That is not the Deputy's fault.

Mr. A. Byrne

——to have private conversations with them. My belief is that the depression we have had set in following the publication of the Central Bank Report in 1951. The banks then withdrew credit. They did not allow small builders or industrialists to get the credit they required on fair terms. That caused unemployment, and I think we are all agreed on that. I remember that in July, 1951, the Minister for Finance, Deputy MacEntee, said that there was too much money being spent both on current expenditure and on capital development, and in the following month, in speech after speech, the statement was made that we were living beyond our means.

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely that is the responsibility of the Minister for Finance and not of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. A. Byrne

I am not quoting the Minister for Finance, but I did hear him use the words that there was too much money being spent both on current expenditure and on capital development. I say that from that date the rot set in, and people, as it were, tightened their belts, including business people and shopkeepers. The shopkeepers started to let assistants go. They were waiting for the new trade to come along.

The Minister was optimistic in his opening statement on this Estimate when he said that the temporary trade recession, which was experienced internationally in 1952 because of the liquidation of stocks which had been accumulated on the outbreak of the Korean war, was ended. I wonderwhen it ended, and when the unemployed are going to reap the benefits. As I say, shop assistants, storesmen and others were let go at that time. The Dublin Corporation started works of an emergency kind. There is no use in saying to people, such as I refer to, that we can give them a couple of months' employment on work of that type. I say that because shop assistants are loking forward to getting back to a decent job with employers who can pay them a decent wage at the business to which they served their time, whether it be grocery, tailoring or drapery. They want to get work at their own trade.

I have already drawn attention to the fact that the withdrawal of the subsidies on flour has left the working-class people in this city in the position that they now have to pay 9d. for a loaf which formerly was 6d. I am hopeful that the Minister will be able to do something to enable the loaf to be sold again at 6d., or at a more reasonable price than it is at the moment. We have this continuous unemployment amongst married men as well as amongst boys and girls. It is regrettable that married men should have to emigrate. It means the breaking up of the home. Their lodging expenses are heavy at the other side, and at the same time they have to try and send home half their wages. Most of them are struggling hard to see that their families are kept in a fair way.

I believe that it was the curtailment of credit by the banks which was largely responsible for disrupting business to such an extent. In industry and in business houses staffs were reduced. I suggest that we should try and get bigger export markets so that we will be able to give employment to more food producers at home. These men should be given a decent living. They should be put in a position to enable them to get married and settle down. A development in exports of agricultural produce is something that all of us desire. An expansion of industrial exports would also enable more of our industrial workers to get employment in this city.

The Minister has responsibility for C.I.E. I was in Dún Laoghaire somemonths ago to welcome some passengers home. While I was very proud of the changes that have taken place at the landing stage there, I was horrified at the condition of the carriages provided for the transport of our visitors to Dublin. Some of the carriages seemed to me to be 80, 90 or 100 years old. I was glad to see that traffic is increasing, and I hope that, so far as tourists are concerned, it will continue to increase. It is a way of bringing more money to the city and should help in the revival of business, following the depression which started, as I said, when the report of the Central Bank was published in 1951. My principal reason for standing up was to draw the attention of the Government to the continuous unemployment we have in the City of Dublin.

Mr. Fanning

When they are all employed where will you get votes?

Mr. A. Byrne

The people that I meet are from all over the city. They are not in any one constituency. The Deputy can go down to the North Wall and see for himself the conditions there. He will find there able-bodied men—dockers—who used to earn good wages, now drawing 38/- a week for themselves, their wives and four children. If they have six children or eight children they still draw only 38/-so far as unemployment benefit is concerned. Six months ago, I asked the Minister for Social Welfare to increase the benefits for them.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a matter for the Minister for Social Welfare, not for the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. A. Byrne

Further, the Minister said he would not increase those benefits. No matter what part of Dublin you go to, to the dockyards, to the North Wall or the South Wall, you will meet these groups of men appealing, not to me especially but to Deputy Briscoe, Deputy Breathnach, Deputy McCann and all the other members of the House who are known to represent the City of Dublin. All of us have had appeals from them, letters asking for employment——

Mr. Briscoe

And telegrams inspired by the Deputy.

Mr. A. Byrne

——and letters from wives and mothers saying they do not wish members of their family to go away. In every second house in Deputy Briscoe's constituency, for instance, there is some member of the family unemployed. From 500 to 600, if not 1,000, boys and girls, having left school this year, have nowhere to go and their mothers are afraid they will lose them to other countries. There is no use in getting vexed with me because I put facts before you.

Mr. Davern

Nobody takes the Deputy seriously.

Mr. A. Byrne

I would not withhold these remarks no matter what Government was in power. It is the duty of the Government to give employment to the people, keep them at home and not force them to seek their living abroad.

Mr. Briscoe

It is a pity the Deputy would not start a small industry himself and give employment to a few people.

Mr. A. Byrne

I did not hear you. I have a deaf side, which is just as well sometimes.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should address the Chair and not another Deputy.

Mr. A. Byrne

I know the Minister is interested in the City of Dublin as well as in the rest of the country and that he would be anxious to see everyone employed. I am only endeavouring to put on a little extra pressure so that the Minister will get his officials to devise some schemes which will give employment, afford decent wages and keep our workers in their own country.

Mr. Desmond

So many speakers have taken part in the discussion on this Estimate that it is quite obvious that we all realise its great importance and particularly its bearing on the everyday activities of the Department of Industry and Commerce in connection with employment and unemployment.Perhaps even Deputy Briscoe will realise that. Whatever we may have to say here it is essential that we should make our approach from the one angle and that is the angle which will be of ultimate benefit to the people. Any remarks I may have to make on this Estimate are to the best of my ability connected with some of these problems that are facing us. I hope to draw attention, also, to the necessity of endeavouring to remedy, through the activities of the Minister and his Department, certain unsatisfactory aspects of the present situation.

Deputy Briscoe was undoubtedly an able exponent in the House last night. He drew special attention to the importance of industrialisation. Perhaps I may have taken him up wrongly but listening to him from the Gallery— where perhaps we may get a better view of all beneath us—I got the impression that Deputy Briscoe tried to believe himself that none of the Opposition in this House are in favour of industrial activity in Ireland. Let him disabuse himself of this silly notion should he be inclined to believe in it. I will go further and through you, Sir, direct the Minister's attention to the fact that the views expressed by Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Major de Valera are such that if their suggestions were agreed and put into operation, our unemployment problems would be dangling before us for years to come should the present Government still be in office—to which I am not saying "Yes" or "No" at the present time.

Last night Deputy Briscoe referred to the right of the individual in connection with a 10 per cent. profit plus new bonus shares. While we are all in favour of industrialisation, according to my notes from the Census of Industrial Production, for the month of October, 1951, out of a total of 202,000 or 203,000 employed in all industrial concerns, one-fifth of them earned less than £2 per week. Is it correct that over half of the total so employed in industry earned on the average less than £5 per week? Is it correct to say that a total of roughly 79,100 persons, two-fifths of those employed in industry, are earning less than £4 per week?

Mr. McGrath

The trade unions must not be doing their job.

Mr. Desmond

Now, Lord Mayor, we can discuss angles below in Cork, too. The present Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has expressed views with which we all agree, as to the depreciation of the £. We have members in this House who say they are pleased with our industrial activities and that an industrialist is entitled to 10 per cent. plus his bonus shares; while at the same time apparently these members are satisfied that so many people employed in industry have been earning such an insufficient wage when we take into consideration the relative value of money at the present time.

Take, again, Deputy Briscoe's ideal in regard to industry in Ireland. We have employed here a total of 12,200 girls under the age of 18 in industry. Are Deputy Briscoe and Deputy Major de Valera, the advocates of private enterprise, satisfied that only one out of every eight girls earns over £2 10s. per week? Are they satisfied that only one out of every 50 girls around the age of 18 years earns over £3 per week? We all realise industry is essential here.

Mr. Briscoe

What figures are the Deputy quoting?

Mr. Desmond

I also say to the Minister for Industry and Commerce through you, Sir, that any individual or group of individuals protected by tariffs, protected by a confined market, must realise that the protection so given comes out of the pockets of the earning classes as well as of other classes.

Mr. Briscoe

What year's figures are the Deputy quoting?

Mr. Desmond

Deputy Briscoe is not dealing with Deputy Byrne. Deputy Briscoe will have to take his medicine, if he wishes to wait for it. If Deputy Briscoe wants to advocate complete independence to the individual to indulge in a system here of private enterprise in industry, and if he so wishes to inform the present Ministerof that, he may be sure that where we are concerned we are not going to stand for that. At all times we have made it quite clear that private enterprise in itself can do good for this country, that private enterprise in itself will get from us the co-operation essential, provided that the fair game is going to be played.

Deputy de Valera last night went into the realms of a very high discussion of socialism versus private enterprise, ably backed by his colleague, who is here in the benches now. But I would say to both of them, as I would say to Deputy Cogan, who has just concluded, that I have no intention of following either a vindictive or a vicious line of talk. However, it is childish for Deputy Cogan to come out openly with the idea—or for Deputy Vivion de Valera to throw it out at another angle—that the danger of socialism is the danger of communism.

We believe—and it is well known to those who may wish to twist it otherwise—that the difference in our creed is Christian socialism, and we say to everyone in this country that, if they are genuine in their desire to see industry prosper here, it can only prosper provided all sections are going to gain by it. If that happens, we have true Christian philosophy coupled with Christian socialism in industry.

There has been much talk of exports of various industrial products. Exports in themselves, of course, are of great importance to any State. We realise that our main exports always have been, and probably will be in the future, connected with another Department of State which I have no intention of discussing now. I believe that the policy on exports, which may have originated in other countries, in itself has not been ultimately of great benefit to the people of that country. Are we prepared to export industrial products from this country at a subsidised rate? Are we doing it at present, for instance? And if any commodities from this country are being exported but are being subsidised in order to meet the international market, who is paying that? Are we satisfied to continue that policy?

Apparently the present Government, with the power of Deputy Briscoe, were satisfied not only to go to the mere limit agreed for the subsidisation of essential foodstuffs in our country but they now tell us: "Export, and we will offer as much subsidy as is necessary in order to capture a world market." While we are a small country here and while we have our own problems, it is much more important for us to put our own house in order first. If we can put on the market for home consumption industrial products that it will be within the reach of the working people to buy, then we are doing something of much greater importance than by trying to fly our kite so high as to be found amongst the nations of the earth showing our products in some place, while at the same time we are denying the advantage to our own people of being able to buy at a fair competitive price here in our own country.

The question of interest on capital was discussed last night. Perhaps, of course, we should leave it to some members alone to discuss this very intricate problem—some of us knowing so very little about it. Even so, it must be admitted that, as shown by records, industrial production per manpower, per earner, has increased within the last few years compared to 1939. I wonder if the ideals of some Deputies are the ideals of the Minister—they seem to fit in with the case for the worker increasing his output. We know that is essential to the State, but the more he increases the more is allowed in shares, even if they are supposed to be 1½d. in the £. Take, for instance, transportable goods, for which Deputy Briscoe may look up his figures, based on the year 1951. If we take the net output of transportable goods and break them up between salaries, earnings, overheads, depreciation and profits, what do we find? Nothing less than salaries, 2/5 in the £; earnings roughly 8/4 in the £; depreciation with overheads, about 3/- in the £; leaving to the poor person that we are told is getting the 1½d. in the £, approximately 6/3 in the £.

Mr. Briscoe

What are transportable goods? Give us an instance of one of them.

Mr. Desmond

If Deputy Briscoe was sincere, he could go down and study his figures, instead of acting the little leprechaun here. He would do far better than trying to hide this from the ordinary people. Deputy Briscoe may show some proof and may like to draw the Minister's attention to it; he may prefer to quote some publication that conveniently shows ultimate profits of 1½d. in the £. These figures, however, can be arranged so conveniently that salaries and wages are combined. How often is it done? Will Deputy Briscoe—coupled with the Minister, of course—deny the fact that in some of these industries, by conveniently coupling salaries and earnings we are getting a false figure?

I heard on one occasion from the lips of an industrialist in this country that he had his own son employed, giving him what he termed pin-money—but the pin-money amounted to £500 a year. He also gave him, to keep him on the road, as he said, with his pin-money a motor-car. Conveniently enough, the accounts of the firm, admitted by the industrialist, showed the figure of 1½d. in the £ profit, but before those figures were made up the pin-money had been taken into consideration, and the motor-car. It may hurt Deputy Briscoe, but the truth is that we want industry to progress, but in order that it may progress properly we must have a system whereby fair profits are allowed and certainly nothing more than that.

There are just a few other points upon which I wish to touch very briefly. The Minister is aware of the increases which took place some time ago in connection with motor and lorry insurance. After negotiations there was a reduction in the premiums payable upon these insurance policies. Now a number of people are involved in this. I admit it does not affect everyone in the country. I put down a question in connection with this matter on one occasion. I received identical answers from both the Minister for Industry and Commerce and a colleague of his in another Department.Strange as it may seem, that colleague of the Minister's introduced a system which has the effect of reducing the horse-power of motor-cars; yet, the Minister for Industry and Commerce was apparently quite satisfied when the insurance companies refused to make a reduction in premiums although the horse-power was reduced. I presume the Minister's answer at the time was the answer of the companies: they did not increase the premiums where the horse-power was increased. We all know that the percentage of cases in which the horse-power was increased was negligible. I believe the Minister now realises that the rake-off the insurance companies have at the expense of lorry owners and motorists generally is both unfair and unjust. It is only right that the attention of these people should be drawn to this matter with a view to having the position rectified.

I think all meetings of the Prices Advisory Council should be held in public. In that way, the people could satisfy themselves as to whether increases or decreases are justified. Until such time as these meetings are held in public, the people will not be satisfied.

Deputy Cogan raised one matter, but I am afraid he was suffering from an attack of air sickness at the time. Being a new recruit, I am wondering if the Minister tipped him off. The Minister tipped Deputy Corry off in telling him not to put any bets on Midleton. Deputy Cogan said this evening that he was delighted to hoe in with Deputy Corry in the claim for Farmers' Cross. We have heard a good deal about Farmers' Cross and Midleton. Are there any claims for Passage West? Is it possible the Minister may slip a fast one over on Deputy Corry, Deputy Cogan and Deputy Lehane and establish an air base at Passage West? I know tremendous activity has gone on in that area; reports have been sent to the Minister demonstrating the importance of that locality as an air base. I think the best thing the Minister can do now is to establish an air base in Passage West. That should help Deputy Coganout in his mistake and Deputy Corry in relation to his bets.

There is no doubt that the conversion of the railways to the diesel system is a tremendous boon. The life of certain branch lines may at the moment be hanging in the balance. Has the Minister any information as to what the intentions are in relation to these branch lines? Conversion to the diesel system on these lines would be a tremendous benefit, and the sooner that is done the better it will be. Deputy de Valera referred to his abhorrence of socialisation or nationalisation. He pointed to C.I.E. as an example. We all know that that system was not nationalised until the individuals running it found themselves stuck in the mud and, for that reason, I do not believe we can take C.I.E. as an example of failure where State enterprise is concerned.

From an examination of the balance sheets, while losses are significant on the railways, a profit is shown on the running of the buses. I do not think the policy of C.I.E. has been fair to those using the bus services. The rates charged per mile in the country areas are prohibitive as compared with the rates charged in Dublin. I think the company is taking an unfair advantage of those who are compelled to use the buses, particularly the workers living 18 or 20 miles outside Cork City. They are being fleeced. If the present policy continues, the people now using the buses will cease to use them and losses will be even heavier next year.

Many Deputies referred to the importance of rural electrification. I certainly appreciate the immense benefits which have resulted from rural electrification.

We all know the problem of unemployment and the difficulties it can create in every area. It is strange that for some time past a system has been creeping in of not replacing men who are employed locally to check meters and to help people who have minor trouble with electric fittings. For instance, in Crosshaven there was a man employed for many years as an account collector. He was a help to many people. He could supply themwith an electric light switch and, if necessary, install it. When he retired, the E.S.B. refused to replace him. The position now is that the nearest man available to do this work is nine miles away. My information is that that is happening in every case where such E.S.B. employees retire.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has no responsibility for day-to-day administration of the E.S.B.

Mr. Desmond

Quite so. The Minister and I may have had hard words but he is courteous enough to consider the problems we put to him and to help where he can. If the Minister were to approach the E.S.B. in regard to this matter, the situation would very probably be remedied.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

During the course of the debate, we had a large number of speeches and, may I say, a variety of types of speeches. Some Deputies thought that this was a suitable occasion to make observations, profound or otherwise, upon wide questions of general policy. Others, more sensibly I think, decided to confine their remarks to specific questions of immediate national or local importance. We had the usual few speeches inspired solely by political motives, of no great importance except perhaps to those who made them, and a couple of typically irresponsible productions from Deputies who always amuse the Dáil upon occasions like this.

Deputy Cosgrave, who opened for the Opposition, made a point which many others repeated during the course of the debate. He said that the increased employment which has resulted from the development of manufacturing industries in this country has done little more than compensate for the decrease in employment over the same period on the land. I think that is a very misleading picture of what has happened here during the past 20 years or so.

When I became Minister for Industry and Commerce first, the number of persons registered as unemployed atthe labour exchanges was in or around 20,000, although at that time this country was affected, as other countries were, by the greatest economic siump in the world's history. Everybody knew that the number of registered unemployed was a very false reflection of the economic situation in the country and that any plan for dealing with unemployment through the expansion of industry had necessarily to provide for a much larger number than the total then registered at the employment exchanges. We took steps, shortly after we came into office, to make the unemployment register more realistic and within a very short time the number on it increased to something like 125,000, which was probably not a very complete picture but certainly a far more accurate picture of the unemployment situation than existed previously.

We knew that part of the problem of the country was to provide alternative employment for farmers' sons and others who were returned at the census as being engaged in agriculture but who were in fact unemployed or underemployed upon the land. It was a tremendous advantage to this country to have these people taken out of these unremunerated occupations in which they were described as being engaged and put into permanent and much better-paid employment in manufacturing industry.

The probability is that if the new jobs for 120 odd thousand had not been created in this country by the development of that industry, that additional number would have emigrated over the period.

I will admit that that in itself is not a complete answer to the point which Deputies were trying to make. If they are just condemning the whole idea of industrial development as useless, as merely meaning a switching of employment from one activity to another, then they are completely wrong. If they mean that the all-over economic advance of the country has not been sufficient to give us a normal population increase, then I would agree with them. In fact the whole aim of economic policy is now and must continue to be to get such an expansionin employment-giving activities, both in agriculture and manufacturing industry, that emigration will be checked and the normal growth in population which our marriage and birth rate statistics would lead us to expect will appear.

The development of industry did a great deal more as, I think, Deputy Cosgrave admitted. It gave this country a much stronger and better balanced economy, a much better foundation upon which to build our future progress. It is the realisation of the fact that the foundations of future progress have been well and truly laid that enables us to face the future with confidence that we can get still better results in the years ahead.

Deputy Larkin drew, from the same statistics as Deputy Cosgrave quoted, the conclusion that private enterprise would not do the job which this nation requires to have done. I am not sure that the statistics justify that conclusion—in fact I am certain that they do not. Whatever has been done or can be done in the future was not possible and will not be possible without private enterprise. The aim and the policy of the present Government at any rate, is to endeavour to create in the country the conditions in which private enterprise can operate successfully. We recognise that private enterprise responds to the profit motive, that it cannot work without the profit motive, and that it will not work vigorously enough unless its right to profits is recognised, unless, in fact, we get a new situation in the Dáil in which the successful firm which makes profits is generally congratulated instead of being abused and condemned. It would be a far more serious situation for this country if the manufacturing firms in it were making losses instead of profits. I agree that in our special circumstances, with a limited home market protected by tariffs, we have to ensure that that situation is not improperly exploited to the public detriment, particularly where the number of firms engaged in any particular line is small.

How to handle that problem has been a matter that we have considered on a number of occasions. Before thewar we passed various enactments giving us power to investigate prices and to make Orders regulating the prices charged by protected industries. I came to the conclusion that that system of control was ineffective or at any rate incomplete in so far as it operated only to supervise and limit profits and often the biggest profits were made by the firms which charged the lowest prices and firms which charged the highest prices were making only losses.

Subsequent to the war I thought of tackling that problem in a new way. The Industrial Prices and Efficiency Bill introduced in 1947 represented the ideas that I entertained then. It proved to be, when it was brought to the House, unexpectedly controversial. I had thought that that Bill with some modification would have secured general acceptance. It was supported by the Labour Party. It was very strongly opposed by the Fine Gael Party, and although it secured a Second Reading it had not become law before the change of Government took place in 1948. It was not proceeded with by the new Government.

I have already told the Dáil that we have got to face that problem again next year. At present we exercise control over prices under the authority of the Supplies and Services Act, a temporary Act which the Government has decided will be renewed now for a further period of 15 months and then expire permanently. I have been charged by the Government with the duty of producing to the Dáil proposals for permanent legislation for the control of prices in normal circumstances before the end of 1954, and the same issues will arise when those proposals, whatever they may be, are submitted to the Dáil. Are we going to deal with prices solely in relation to profits, or are we going to tackle the more fundamental issue of costs which are far more important in determining the level of prices than are profits?

I will not disagree with Deputy Larkin in his assertion that there are many industrial projects which in our circumstances cannot be entrusted to private enterprise, because private enterprise will not either produce thefinancial resources to make them possible or organise itself on a sufficiently comprehensive scale for that purpose. In fact, I hope to have proposals of a very definite kind for some large-scale industrial developments of that character before the Dáil in the near future. I would have preferred from many points of view if those projects could have been initiated by private enterprise, but in our conditions that is not likely to be possible, and the fact that they will have to operate on a more or less monopolistic basis justifies the intervention of the State in these undertakings, because the State would have to exercise, in any event, a considerable measure of control over them.

Even in relation to the extent that we are relying on private enterprise in the development of industry, Deputy Larkin said that we were not doing our work efficiently, that the Department of Industry and Commerce is not properly organised and that the Department is not giving sufficient assistance to private firms sponsoring new industrial proposals. I personally can find no justification for Deputy Larkin's criticisms. He said that firms are often faced with unreasonable requests to produce statistics relating to imports and markets when they are proposing to manufacture some new line of goods. That is not correct. It is true that people often come to the Department of Industry and Commerce with industrial proposals which are half baked, which they have not thought out fully, which they cannot relate either to market needs or possibilities. The work of the officers of the Department is directed towards getting such people to think out their proposals fully and to examine with great care the possibilities of success, and if they are asked to inquire as to the extent of the market or conduct some other investigation of that kind it is only in their own interest so that they will realise fully what they are up against and what their prospects are. I have had, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, an extraordinary number of tributes to the officers of the Department,particularly the officers of the industrial section of the Department —tributes to the value of the work they have done in helping persons proposing to engage in new industries to get their plans into shape and modified where modification was necessary to ensure their success.

Deputy Larkin gave as an example some industrial project in County Mayo where he said the promoters were faced with unreasonable requests for information of a statistical character. From the records of the Department I may say that I am unable to identify the particular project to which the Deputy referred.

Deputy McQuillan also complained that the Department was, as he said, tied up in red tape. His complaint was based upon a particular request made by himself on behalf of a local industrial development committee. I would like to refer to this in some detail because it raises an issue of some importance, as the Dáil will appreciate. Deputy McQuillan, at the request of some local development association, came to the Department and said that this association wanted to contact some firms in England that might be interested in establishing a textile industry in Roscommon, and they asked the Department of Industry and Commerce to recommend the English firms they should approach. That is a responsibility which the Department could not take. He was referred to the list published by the Federation of British Manufacturers and was told that if he could not get a copy elsewhere it would be available to him in the National Library. He thought that that was unreasonable, but Deputies will appreciate that it is not possible for the Minister for Industry and Commerce or any of his officials to take the responsibility of recommending to a local development committee a particular firm in England about which the Department may have very little information. If such a firm came either in conjunction with a local development association or independently to submit a proposal we would make all the usual inquiries we could through trade channels as to its financial status and business reputation, but we just could not do that for allthe firms upon the B.F.I. list merely to have information available to local development associations if they should want to contact them.

It must be admitted also that we cannot provide Irish business people with the same service that is provided by the British Board of Trade. We have not an organisation as extensive or expansive as that which the British Board of Trade operate. However, any of the services to which Deputy McQuillan referred are, in fact, provided. We also get queries from abroad as to firms that might be in a position to supply particular classes of goods or requests for information as to the availability of a particular type of goods that are manufactured here. These queries are sent to individual firms or to the appropriate trade association. From the point of view of firms anxious to engage in export business, so far as the dollar market is concerned, Córas Tráchtála provide quite substantial services. These services include trade information. That term can be extended to cover a great deal because Córas Tráchtála will, in fact, undertake a special survey of market possibilities in any dollar country where prospects appear to warrant it. They are providing expert assistance to individual firms in designing products for dollar markets. They are organising technical assistance projects for industrial groups, designed to improve their productive methods to an extent that will make it possible for them to expand into export markets. They will organise the dispatch of trial consignments to suitable agents in America or Canada with a view to ascertaining sales possibilities there and securing repeat orders. Of course, they now have in operation the export credit guarantee and joint venture insurance schemes that we legislated for some time ago. They give advice regarding shipping facilities or customs duties that may be in force.

While it is true that these services are limited at the present time to dollar markets, it is possible that they may be extended to other areas later on although that will not be for a couple of years, at least. The workthat has to be done in developing export trade in the dollar markets is quite considerable and represents as big a labour as Córas Tráchtála can undertake with its present staff and resources.

I was asked for my opinion as to the prospects of dollar markets. I think they are quite considerable. It is true that market conditions there change more rapidly, perhaps, than in some other countries, but my personal examination of the position convinces me that openings for many classes of Irish goods exist both in Canada and the United States of America large enough to produce, in time, trade of quite substantial dimensions. It is true that these are enormous markets and that the share of them that we can hope to get will be very small but a very small share of these markets for any of the goods we have to export would be very big business for us. Competition is so keen there that the mere fact that our products are different from those that are available from other sources will, in itself, get them the first entry. There is also a great deal of goodwill for Irish products there and that, too, will help to that end. The second or third order will depend entirely on the quality of the goods and their saleability and upon the integrity of the business methods which our firms adopt in relation to their customers or potential customers on the other side of the Atlantic.

Mr. Morrissey

But we would have to produce for that market. It is not a question of disposing of any surplus we might have in our domestic market.

Mr. Lemass

A very large part of the present work of Córas Tráchtála consists in helping Irish firms to design and even to pack their goods for the American market in the way in which the people there are accustomed to have their goods packed.

Mr. Morrissey

I am sure the Minister does not want anybody to draw the conclusion that goods of which we might have a surplus here can be disposed of in America.

Mr. Lemass

I have said that already. There is no hope of trying to seek sales there on the basis of shipping surpluses of goods produced for the home market. Climatic conditions, trade methods and personal tastes are completely different. Even in such a matter as footwear, the design and shape are entirely different from what we are accustomed to here.

I have been gratified to hear from a number of firms during the past two or three weeks that they have been receiving orders for their products from Canada and the United States. A very considerable amount of interest has been aroused in the possibilities of these markets, leading to visits by Irish business managers over there to explore for themselves. It will take some time to build up trade of substantial dimensions but the possibilities are there, I am certain, provided we go after them vigorously enough.

Deputy Cowan raised a very important issue. He asked: "What assurance have we, if we exert ourselves to develop sales of industrial products in the American markets, that customs duties will not be raised or the terms of trade altered so that our efforts will be defeated?" I do not think we have any assurance. One of the matters that caused us concern recently was the fact that the question of a revision of the American customs duty upon table glassware and cut-glass products was sent to their Tariff Commission. Up to the present, the outcome of that review by their Tariff Commission of the customs duty upon table glassware is not known. Exports of Waterford glass were one of the developments of a most satisfactory character which occurred this year, and the fact that that was likely to be affected adversely by some change in the American tariff naturally caused us concern. There is always the risk that conditions there may change to our detriment.

Under an agreement made in 1932, we have the right to preferential rates of duty in the Canadian market. These rights have persisted ever since and they are of considerable advantage to us. So far as the American market is concerned, we have no such rights.Indeed, of all the goods we ship to America at the present time, only three or four types are not subject to a duty of some dimensions.

I have said that we have to endeavour to develop the American market for our products with conditions as they exist, and that we cannot hope to secure any alteration in these conditions. Some more powerful nation seeking American trade may have bargaining power with the American Government that would get them an adjustment of tariff rates in their favour. We have not that bargaining power. We have to deal with conditions as they are and, even as they are—assuming that they are not altered to our detriment—these possibilities are there.

The whole future of American policy is under review at the present time. A public debate was conducted by the newspapers, through speeches by American political leaders and in various American Government publications as to the wisdom or otherwise of changing the traditional American policy regarding international trade. That whole issue has been referred, through the President of the United States of America, to a commission which has to report next spring. I do not think there will be any change of any consequence in American conditions pending the report of that commission. Whether there is likely to be any change after the publication of the report is a matter on which I should not like to express an opinion. It seems fairly clear that American public opinion is coming round to recognising the obligations which arise from the predominant position of the United States in world trade.

I disagree also with Deputy Cowan in his view that trade possibilities in Germany are limited. We are at present exporting to Germany products of one kind and another totalling in value a little less than £1,000,000 per year. It is true that we import from Germany a great deal more, but we import machinery and materials from Germany because we buy there to better advantage than anywhere else. We do not have to strike an absolute balance in our trade with any individual country. So long as the overallposition is satisfactory, we can exploit the possibilities in individual markets as they arise and without very particular reference to the state of trade with that country, even though the emergence of a balance against us is occasionally to be used as a bargaining factor in the negotiation of trade agreements.

Last year, as the House will know, we opened an Irish pavilion at the Frankfort Trade Fair. German practice appears to be to do a great deal of a year's buying at trade fairs, and last year, before the German Government had liberalised a great deal of their trade, they encouraged that practice by giving special import quotas for goods purchased at trade fairs. That pavilion has been used by Irish exporters since it opened, and a substantial amount of business has resulted. It is true that many of the products that offer the best prospect in the German market have since been liberalised. We are not now either restricted by import quotas or assisted by them, and exporters of these goods have to get their customers to buy them in competition with goods from all other countries, but a substantial amount of trade has resulted, and in fact the main problem I see arising in Germany is that we may miss out to some extent by inability to meet all the orders that are forthcoming, particularly for tweeds. The German market for tweeds is quite good, and I have received complaints from some sources that orders were accepted here and not fulfilled. Of course, that is bad, and could do damage of a permanent kind.

An interesting trade developed there this year in gypsum board and, in fact, the whole of the industrial quota of the trade fair in August was secured by a firm that manufactures and exports gypsum board.

Mr. Morrissey

May I ask if there was any investigation made into the complaints about orders having been accepted for tweeds and not filled?

Mr. Lemass

There was a great deal of investigation, as the Deputy can probably guess for himself. It is certainly not intended to exercise anycontrol over these matters, because I think that would do more harm than good, but we can, by various methods of exhortation, prevent that situation reappearing. The great thing to note is that in relation to the three markets I have mentioned—Canada, United States and West Germany— they are rapidly expanding markets. In each of these countries, the demand for goods is increasing yearly, and consequently there is now a better opportunity of getting our products established on these markets than there would be in the reverse circumstances, where trade was stagnant or declining. That is certainly true of Canada where the population and production have doubled in 20 years and where expansion is still continuing at the same rate. It is equally true of Germany which has recovered with remarkable speed from the consequences of the war and which is now becoming again one of the strongest countries in Europe economically.

It is true, however, that what Deputy Cowan said must always be kept in mind, that Britain is still by far the largest market available to us and the market in which we have the most advantageous conditions of trade under the existing trade agreements, but a diversity of markets will contribute to our strength, and it is important that we should seek it, particularly at times like the present when exchange restrictions are still in force, because it gives us an element of security in relation to ability to purchase essential supplies which may at some times be important.

Deputy Cowan asked what was our attitude to O.E.E.C., the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. We are members of that organisation and we aim to support it positively, but perhaps for somewhat different reasons from those which may operate in the case of other countries. We are excluded from the United Nations, and for various reasons have not been able to play a part in many international organisations to the same extent as other small countries. Therefore, we have a particular interest in supporting and participating in the activities of these organisations such as O.E.E.C.,into which we can secure admission and which are working for results of which we approve.

The main work of the O.E.E.C. was the preparation of the agreement for the liberalisation of trade. So far as we are concerned, we are conforming to the requirements of that liberalising agreement which requires every country to keep free of quota restrictions 75 per cent. of its total imports on private account. We have not merely conformed to that requirement, but, quite recently, when I proposed to bring into operation a new quota order on woollen yarns and proposed to O.E.E.C. that that act of ours would be brought into line with the requirements of that agreement, that we would take out of the non-liberalised list which we had previously furnished to them, particular items which would still mean that, even with the new quota order in operation, we could claim that 75 per cent. of our total trade was still liberalised, the Council of O.E.E.C. would not agree that, by doing so, we were conforming to the letter and the spirit of our agreement, and consequently we revoked the quota order on woollen yarns and substituted it by an import duty.

Mr. O. Flanagan

On a point of order, is it right for a Deputy to be sleeping in the House while the Minister is speaking?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a point of order.

Mr. O. Flanagan

It shows a great lack of interest.

Mr. McGrath

You did not show much some time ago.

Mr. Lemass

The O.E.E.C agreement does not deal with tariffs; it deals only with quotas. They have, in the course of their time, produced a number of offshoot organisations, in some of which we are not interested, such as the organisation dealing with inter-European transport problems which do not affect us. They at one time seemed to be likely to propose an organisation dealing with inter-European civil aviation which did not seem to us to be a good idea.

Mr. Morrissey

Before the Minister passes away from the question of liberalisation, would he say if the position now is that we have no gap anywhere?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. If we wanted to go further now in withdrawing from liberalisation we would have to do as the British did—notify the council of the organisation that we were unable to comply with the requirements of the agreement and accept the consequences. There is an escape clause.

Mr. Morrissey

Have we now reached the position where we cannot impose additional quotas?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, under the terms of the agreement and so far as the liberalised list is concerned. On the basis of our present trade, we are in the position that 75 per cent. is liberalised and 25 per cent. is not. If we alter that position, in relation to our present trade pattern, we would not meet our obligation under the agreement.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not arguing the merits of it good or bad but have we now reached the point where we cannot impose another quota?

Mr. Lemass

No quota in respect to that portion of our trade which is at present liberalised without having to reconsider the position in relation to O.E.E.C. Remember that Great Britain, which is from many points of view a much stronger country than ours, withdrew from the agreement and has only 50 per cent. or 55 per cent. of its trade liberalised. It is true that last week the British Minister at the meeting of the Council of O.E.E.C. announced their intention to get back to 75 per cent. liberalisation in the course of the year. France has also withdrawn from the agreement, and so far as I know does not propose to go back yet to 75 per cent. liberalisation.

General Mulcahy

Would the Minister say that we are at a point at which we cannot further restrict trade on account of our quotas?

Mr. Lemass

No. May I explain? We have furnished a list of the classes ofgoods to which liberalisation applies and the goods in these classes represent 75 per cent. of our total imports. So far as the other 25 per cent. is concerned, we can impose or modify the quotas to any extent we like.

A Deputy

What about tariffs?

Mr. Lemass

The O.E.E.C. agreement does not affect tariffs at all. Deputy Cowan asked what was the position with regard to G.A.A.T.— General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. We have taken no part in the organisation of G.A.A.T. That organisation arose from an international convention which was negotiated in 1947 and under which it was proposed to set up an international trade organisation. That flopped. No country ratified the convention and the organisation never came into existence, but this interim organisation of G.A.A.T. has remained in existence. We have not participated in its work nor are we members of the organisation. That has involved no disadvantage as yet as far as we are concerned.

I was referring to the off-shoot organisation of O.E.E.C. To the extent that we had an interest in the work of these organisations we took an active part in them. There is, for instance, the Green Pool proposal. The European productivity agency to which Deputy Cowan referred is only a project at the present time. We have indicated that we are prepared to go along with the formation of the agency as proposed, but since then we have heard nothing further about it. So far as all these organisations are concerned, it is good policy for this country to participate as actively as possible in their work, particularly during the present situation in which our participation in other international organisations is restricted.

Deputy Larkin asked why we shall not be able to publish a report of the Industrial Development Authority. My answer is that the work of that organisation is of a character that does not lend itself to the preparation of an annual report. I explained that the organisation is now dealing with specific matters that I have referredto them. I have asked them to see if they can promote projects for the establishment of industries to make particular commodities, a list of which I gave them. I do not want even to name that list of commodities because it could produce complications which Deputies will understand. I have also given them the task of reorganising some projects which were approved of at one time but which got into difficulties. They were dealing with individual tasks of that kind which involve a great deal of discussion with private interests, and the reports they submit to me are of a very confidential kind because they deal with the affairs of private concerns.

The Industrial Development Authority have also certain other responsibilities. They act as the tariff-reviewing body which we were required by the terms of the 1938 agreement with Great Britain to maintain. They have also been dealing with trade loan guarantee applications although latterly, for various reasons, I have resorted to the older practice of having two or three committees rather than one committee to deal with these applications. They have also been entrusted with various investigations of a specific limited kind which I desired them to undertake.

It will be appreciated that there cannot be an annual report, in the ordinary meaning of the term, upon their work but I should like the House to feel that they are doing an important job at the present time. It is true that in respect of some of the commodities which I referred to them they had to report that the prospects of getting factories established to make them in this country are very poor or do not exist at all. In other cases, they appear to be likely to get substantial results for which they will be entitled to credit.

Mr. Morrissey

Do I understand that they have now no power of initiative?

Mr. Lemass

They deal only with projects for the manufacture of specific commodities which I have put on the list. Deputy Larkin said that thePrices Advisory Body is dormant. That is not entirely correct. It is true that they have not had a great deal of work to do lately.

Captain Cowan

"Dormant" suggests some life.

Mr. Lemass

The fact is there has been very little movement in prices for the past six months or so. Consequently the number of applications for authority to revise prices and the number of investigations which the body has had to undertake have been very substantially reduced. However, it is obviously undesirable to make any change in that position just at the time when we are considering what permanent organisation we will require to deal with prices.

Deputy Desmond raised some questions concerning the procedure of the Prices Advisory Body. So far as I am concerned I have not dictated any procedure to them at all. The body was in existence when I resumed office as Minister and they are carrying on precisely in the same way now as previously. Certainly they got no directions from me to alter their procedure in any way.

There is one other matter in regard to general industrial policy to which I wish to refer before proceeding to deal with specific matters. Deputy Barry, the new Deputy from East Cork, Deputy Crotty and some other Deputies, spoke on this matter of industrial decentralisation in a way which suggested to me that they did not understand very much about it. Deputy Barry spoke of factories being doled out by Fianna Fáil, and of Fermoy being neglected. That is a completely false conception of what is going on in the Department of Industry and Commerce. We are not in the position of having a group of factories under the counter which we hand out to deputations which come to us if they make a good case for them.

In every case where a new factory has been established in any town it resulted from somebody's initiative, not necessarily local initiative, although local initiative often had a great part in it. Somebody came with aproposition, or was induced to put up a proposition, to establish a factory for some purpose and were either themselves attracted by the facilities available in some town or were persuaded to consider those facilities before making a decision as to the location of their enterprise.

When Deputy Barry suggests that the Fianna Fáil Government let down Fermoy by not putting a factory there before this, I would answer that it is far nearer the truth to say that Fermoy let down the Government by not promoting factories before this. Certainly, if any business group had come to the Department of Industry and Commerce with a proposition for an industrial project in that town which they were prepared to finance in whole or in part, they would be received with open arms and given every reasonable help they could have expected.

The aim of the Government has been to encourage industrial decentralisation. It has encouraged that by various enactments and by exhortation. We have, I think, on a number of occasions succeeded in persuading people proposing to promote new factories that they would be better off by locating them in a small town rather than in one of the larger cities which they had originally in mind. But the fact of the matter is that the force of commercial advantage is often so great that no argument and no inducement will stop people from locating enterprises in Dublin and Cork, or in the East coast towns. We can, therefore, exercise the maximum pressure upon all people proposing to engage in industry to move West or South or to the Midlands without feeling that we are doing any harm to the East, because the East will get its fair share of any development.

The suggestion made by Deputy Barry that we should prevent new industries being established in Dublin is impracticable. There is no point in passing a law giving a Minister power to issue orders that no new factory is to be established in Dublin, or of similar effect, without contemplating the sanctions he will have to apply inorder to get his order obeyed and the degree of control which it would be necessary to exercise over industry in order to carry out a policy of compulsion of that character would be so considerable that no industrial development would result at all. We have to implement this policy of industrial decentralisation by means of inducements and exhortations and not by methods of compulsion.

Deputy McQuillan dealt with the question of whiskey exports. I have spoken on that previously and I expressed certain views as to how increased whiskey sales in dollar markets might be secured. I must confess that, following some personal inquiries which I made while over there, I am not now as sure that the views I then expressed are sound as I was when I made them, but I have not to come to a final conclusion upon that matter yet.

As I told Deputy McQuillan, arrangements have been made by Córas Tráchtála with a United States firm of market research consultants to have a market and consumer survey carried out for Irish whiskey in the United States. That survey entails a detailed examination of the present methods of distributing Irish whiskey, together with an investigation of its acceptability to American consumers and various taste tests which we hope will be of advantage to our whiskey distillers and exporting firms in determining future policy.

I met the Irish Whiskey Exporters' Association and I told them that the Government would be prepared to go a considerable way in giving practical support to any plans they prepared for the expansion of Irish whiskey sales, particularly to the dollar market.

I have not yet received the plans from them, but I would be unfair to them just to say that and leave it without further explanation because, subsequent to meeting them, I gave the matter some consideration and thought it would be desirable to entrust Córas Tráchtála with the job of organising this exploration of the possibilities of increasing whiskey sales and they have been in consultation with the distillersand exporters and others interested and I am awaiting their proposals.

Deputy Keyes referred to the need for speeding up rural electrification. I have already informed the House, and I think the House will be glad to know that as from the present month the rate of development in the rural electrification scheme is being increased by 50 per cent and that there will be a further 50 per cent increase in March next so that next year there will be twice the number of people employed on the erection of the rural network and areas will be linked in under the scheme at double the previous rate. That means I understand that the whole rural electrification scheme will be completed in approximately five or six years at the most.

It was a matter for consideration whether it was better to proceed at the old pace, recognising that it would limit the unemployment problem that might result when the job was done, or double the pace and double the problem and bring it forward in time also. But I am satisfied that the advantage of rapid expansion of the scheme is such that it is preferable to proceed as quickly as possible with the development of the various areas and to leave to be solved later the problems that may arise.

Mr. Morrissey

It is right to say that they are enabled to do that because they have sufficient trained staff and materials available.

Mr. Lemass

The materials position has been eased for a long time. Perhaps I might make some reference now to the Cork airport. I have said that the technical surveys required to enable a decision to be made as to its location have been completed and the results are being prepared in a report to the Government upon which the Government will take a decision in the near future.

Deputy Corry quoted me as saying that a previous meteorological survey had resulted in a recommendation in favour of a site near Midleton. That is correct, but it would be entirely wrong for anyone to assume that the only consideration which will determinethe location of the airport is the suitability of local meteorological conditions. Meteorological conditions are only one of the factors that will determine the decision. In fact, the most important consideration must be its location in relation to the City of Cork. The nearer the airport is to Cork, the better prospect of business at the airport. Indeed, it is also true to say that the meteorological considerations are less important now than they were in 1947, because various navigational aids which have been developed in the meantime permit of safer operations in adverse meteorological conditions than would have been possible then. However, I would dislike to see this question of the site of the airport becoming the subject of local controversy. So far as I am concerned, I do not care where it will be. Technical and commercial considerations will determine its site. So long as it is conveniently located to the city and so long as it is capable of safe operation, the main considerations that must arise in my mind will be met.

Mr. O'Leary

There are more votes in the city.

Mr. McGrath

You have plenty of experience of that.

Mr. Lemass

The airport will not be in the city. That is a certainty. A number of Deputies referred to An Tóstal. On the old principle that he starts the fight who strikes the second blow, I do not want to reply to their criticisms to the period selected. It would, I think, completely destroy the whole plan of An Tóstal if it became in any way controversial in a political sense. So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to leave the question of its timing to the judgment of those who are responsible for its organisation.

There are certain factors which, I think, Deputies should keep in mind. I referred to them at a recent function of the Irish Tourist Association. It is not enough to get the hotel-keepers and local tourist bodies together and ask them at what time they would like to get increased off-season business.It is more important to know at what time we are more likely to get more visitors from abroad, as off-season traffic, and it is necessary to bear in mind that it is a very difficult operation to induce people to come at a time when they would not normally come.

When we consulted a number of American experts in tourist trade promotion they all said St. Patrick's Day, which was a day known throughout the world to be associated with Ireland. The fact that St. Patrick's Day is in the middle of Lent ruled it out. It did emphasise to my mind, however, the fact that the day and the associations of the day in relation to this matter of increasing off-season traffic was more important than the time of the year or the weather conditions prevailing at the time. It was decided to organise the first An Tóstal to begin on Easter Sunday and to relate it with Easter because it was thought that Easter was a day which had some historical associations, and because it is a feast day known throughout the world. No expenditure is necessary to tell people the date of Easter Sunday. Everybody knew Easter Sunday and the date on which it fell, whereas a Sunday or a week-day picked arbitrarily for the beginning of An Tóstal would have to be specially publicised and built up in the minds of those whom we were trying to attract to the country.

There is also another consideration. One of the things which An Bord Fáilte is trying to do is to get reduced fares from airlines and shipping companies during An Tóstal. They will not succeed in getting reduced fares from these people except at a period when they are anxious to increase traffic, that is to say, when their accommodation is not normally full. Anyway, the decision in regard to holding An Tóstal has been taken so far as next year is concerned. The publicity and organisational work have been related to starting An Tóstal next year at Easter. Fortunately, Easter, 1954, will be a fortnight later than this year. After that, consideration can be given to the question whether it is then sufficiently well established as a national festivalto enable us to move it round to some other period of the year.

Captain Cowan

Is it not obvious that matter cannot really be determined on the experience of two years?

Mr. Lemass

That is another point I was going to make. Let us give it a fair chance. It is far more important for us to extend the tourist industry by lengthening the tourist season than by increasing the facilities available during the normal season. We can make the existing facilities earn more money and improve employment in the tourist industry. If Deputies have good criticisms to offer relating to the details of the organisational arrangements, then by all means convey these criticisms to the responsible bodies, Bord Fáilte or the director of An Tóstal. But until we have got this thing going well, the avoidance of unnecessary public criticism is to be desired.

Mr. Morrissey

Surely one year is enough to come to a decision to have that blot on O'Connell Bridge removed?

Mr. Lemass

That is not the responsibility of An Bord Fáilte. It belongs to the Dublin Corporation. I was glad to see that the corporation has decided to amend it.

Mr. Morrissey

Amend it? Blot it out.

Captain Cowan

In its present form it is incomplete.

Mr. Lemass

So I understand.

A Deputy

If we only got a chance of completing it.

Mr. Lemass

I do not know how to deal with Deputy Dillon's observations regarding hides. Either he knows nothing about the position or else he has given a completely distorted picture to the Dáil. I think he was trying to show he was a better Minister for Agriculture than his successor. Atthe time I became Minister for Industry and Commerce in June, 1951, Irish tanners were limited in the price they paid to butchers to a maximum of 8d. per lb. In fact, at that time the butchers were kicking up a fuss. Their hides were being stored. A number of tanneries were closed down and others were importing hides. The carcase meat exporters were complaining that they could not develop their business unless they got the world price for hides, which at that time was very high, 3/6 or 4/- per lb. An arrangement was made under which the hides arising from the slaughter of beasts for export as carcase meat were to be purchased by the Irish tanners at a price of 2/6 per lb. Those hides would be marked by some process.

It was not a very definite arrangement. It was not based on any Government Order or legal enactment. It was a sort of voluntary understanding that the tanners would buy these hides at 2/6 per lb. There was no contract entered into by any individual tanner. In fact, the inducement to an individual tanner to avoid buying a hide at 2/6 when other hides were available at 8d. per lb. was very obvious. I thought that the price fixed for hides arising from slaughter for home consumption here was too low. I raised it to 10d. and it is now 1/-. If that is the basis of comparison between Deputy Dillon and Deputy Walsh, as Minister for Agriculture, then Deputy Walsh is 50 per cent. better than he is.

Shortly after I resumed office as Minister the price of hides internationally slumped. The 2/6 per hide which the carcase meat exporters had been promised from the Irish tanners was then much more than the international price. All during the 1951 season these hides were accumulating upon which the carcase meat exporters had been promised 2/6 and which the tanners were not buying. When I came to try to settle this situation that was the position. The carcase meat exporters came to me and said they were owed £500,000 by the tanners in respect of these hides and if they did not get that £500,000 they would be all broke. The tanners said they owed £500,000and could not pay it, and that if it was insisted they should pay they would be broke. I made the only practical arrangement. The tanners formed themselves into an association called Associated Tanners, Limited. They borrowed £500,000 from the bank, paid off the carcase meat exporters the money they owed them and proceeded to pay the bank by levying on themselves 3d. per hide purchased by them and used in their tanneries. That process of recovering the amount due to the bank is still in operation, and so long as it is in operation it is clear that we must keep control of the export of hides.

We now allow the carcase meat exporters to export their hides. They are exporting their hides to the extent that tanners have to buy them back to supplement their other purchases, at the international price which is now about 1/6 or 1/7 a lb. for top grade hides. That arrangement will end some time. It is completely false to suggest that the producer of cattle is affected in the slightest by it. The price of cattle is not determined by the price of the hide, and if it was then we would have a far greater interest in the warble fly than we now have because the difference in price that a tanner will pay for a warbled hide as against a clear hide is from 6d. to 8d. per lb. If we could only get a realisation of the loss and damage which the warble fly is doing, then we could at least add, as I pointed out on a recent occasion, £2,000,000 a year to the production of the country. If the difference of 6d. per lb. in the price of a hide affects the price which the farmer gets for his cattle, then the farmer should take a greater interest in the warble fly and should make some effort to wipe him out as other countries have done, and as we could do. This is an arrangement which does not affect farmers at all but rather tanners and carcase meat exporters.

Mr. Morrissey

And consumers.

Mr. Lemass

It is true that it may affect consumers to some extent because, of course, the over-all returnwhich the butcher receives for a beast is affected by the price paid for the hide. In any event, that is the situation which I inherited, and I am trying to clean it up, and it will be cleaned up in a short time. When the debt to the banks has been cleared off we will then be free to consider what conditions should operate in connection with the export of hides in the future.

May I say a few words about Russian timber imports. I do not want to suggest that Deputies who have waxed eloquent in their speeches here to-day and yesterday about the buying of timber from Russia are insincere in their protestations, but it is to be commented upon that their protestations are somewhat belated, because we have been importing timber from Russia and other supplies from behind the Iron Curtain countries for years past. Our imports from Iron Curtain countries reached the peak in 1950, when we imported goods to the value of £3,000,000, and these goods covered not merely timber but certain quarried products, oil seeds, fats, certain cereals and feeding stuffs, fertilisers, iron and steel manufactures, electrical goods and machinery and various other goods and services from Bulgaria, China, Hungary, Poland, Rumania, Russia and Yugoslavia. It is quite obvious that either the Deputies who are protesting now did not know that, or else the fact that there has been a change of Government may have made them view this matter from a different angle.

So far as timber imports are concerned, we do not regulate the import of timber. I think it would be very undesirable that we should bring into force all the controls that would be necessary if we were going to regulate the imports of timber in order to exclude the possibility of timber coming from Iron Curtain countries. It would mean that every single consignment of timber would have to be checked, because, of course, what the Minister for Finance pointed out in reply to a recent Parliamentary question is perfectly accurate—that we cannot control effectively trade with those countries when no other country is doing it. So far as we areconcerned, we are operating export controls designed to prevent certain materials reaching Iron Curtain countries, materials listed in what is known as the Battle Act of the United States Congress, and that is all any country is doing. If Russian goods such as timber can be freely imported into Britain, then, of course, they can be reconsigned from Britain here and no control that we operate will be effective unless it is of international application.

Mr. O'Leary

Coming here in Russian ships?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. They can come in the ships of any nationality.

Mr. O'Leary

During the persecution that is going on.

Mr. McGrath

What did you do about it?

Mr. Lemass

So far as I am concerned, I have an objection to the introduction of these ideological factors into trade. If we want to exercise our powers to control imports in order to exclude goods from a particular country, let us do it in accordance with some consistent principle. Personally, I see no reason why we should go further in that respect than the United States is going, and so far as these commodities that have been imported in the past or that may be imported are concerned, there is no restriction on their import from Russia into the United States at the present time, Senator MacCarthy notwithstanding. It is asking too much of this country, small as it is, to take on the whole of this fight if other countries do not consider it practicable to do so. In any case, it is quite clear that any controls that we could operate would be ineffective unless they were of international application. For myself, I would object to the duty being put upon my Department of restricting the imports of these goods, which are normally freely allowed into the country, because of their origin. It would mean that we would have to set up a whole organisation for supervising and checking trade arrangements, which would be intolerable. If Deputies want todiscourage the importation of these goods from these sources, then I suggest they should address their exhortations to the firms which bring them in.

Mr. O'Leary

It is the Government's duty not to trade with them.

Mr. Lemass

We have no diplomatic relations with them.

Mr. O'Leary

Read the Heraldtonight.

Mr. Lemass

We have no such relations.

Mr. Hickey

Is it not a fact that timber could be brought from Russia, transferred to other ships in mid-ocean and be taken to this country?

Mr. Lemass

If a ship loaded with timber comes in from Scandinavia or elsewhere no one may know what the origin of the timber is. The task of finding out where it originated would be almost impossible.

Mr. O'Leary

They have not bishops in prison as they have in Russia.

Mr. Lemass

May I remind the Deputy that when the Government which he was supporting was importing £3,000,000 worth of products from Iron Curtain countries, Cardinal Stepinac and Cardinal Mindszenty were in prison, and there was not a word out of Deputy O'Leary about the importations in that year.

Mr. O'Leary

I never agreed to it.

Mr. Lemass

I am sure that you were never consulted.

Mr. O'Leary

I am surprised at a Catholic Government trading with Russia.

Mr. Lemass

Reference has been made to the position regarding clay field-drainage pipes, and some Deputies asked for information in regard to it. One firm was reported in the newspapers as having a stock of 1,000,000 such pipes at the present time. I do not know that the figure is very accurate, but it has to be recognised that this is a period of the year inwhich activities normally fall off and are not resumed again until March. The firms that enter into this business are expected to remain in production and accumulate the stocks that will be required next year. So far as we can estimate, the annual requirements of these pipes are, approximately, 12,000,000, and the home production of them is in the region of from 8,000,000 to 9,000,000. It is difficult to go on that last figure because there is a tendency amongst the firms that produce them to exaggerate their productive capacity, or at least to assume that the highest output they achieve in any one week can be achieved in every week, and that their annual productive capacity is 52 times the highest output which they had ever achieved, though that has never proved to be so in practice.

From the figures I have given it will be seen that there is still a deficiency in productive capacity in relation to actual requirements. Certain firms in the business can no doubt expand their capacity and that gap will be made good. We have been proceeding upon that assumption, at any rate, and at the present time no licences for the importation of pipes are being issued. None was in fact issued since June last. Some quantities of pipes may still come in under the authority of licences that were issued before June. The Department of Agriculture has not imported any pipes since June.

Some Deputy asked in a supplementary question to the Minister for Agriculture to-day what quantity of pipes was imported in June. The quantity was 125,000 and that is insignificant; it is less than a fortnight's production of the firm that claims to have these large numbers in stock, so that that importation cannot have affected the position in any way. The policy of the Department is to restrict imports to whatever proportion is necessary to meet all requirements, supplementing the production of the home firms.

Mr. Morrissey

Does the Minister not agree that it calls for a little more than that when a statement is issuedover the name of what is supposed to be a reputable firm in this country that we are importing clay pipes at a time when they have approximately 1,000,000 of them available for delivery?

Mr. Lemass

The statement is not correct. First of all, I know that when the representatives of that company were with the Department the stock of pipes they claimed to have was considerably less than 1,000,000; secondly, no pipes are now being imported at all. No import licence has been issued in respect of pipes since June last and any pipes that may come in now are residues of quantities that were licensed before June last and that position will not now persist. It is perfectly true that the demand for pipes is now going to fall off. In the months of December, January and February a minimum amount of work is done but the demand will undoubtedly revive in March and it is exceedingly doubtful if the total production of the Irish firms will then be sufficient to meet the whole of our requirements.

Deputy Larkin inquired about the Dublin graving dock. I would like to give him some information on that because I am personally very interested and keeping in touch with it. The House knows it was as far back as 1946 that the Government decided to make a grant of £500,000 to the Dublin Port and Docks Board to build a new graving dock at Dublin, that is, a new dry dock in which vessels could be brought for overhaul and repair. For some reason, of which I am not quite clear, the contract for the work of constructing the dock was not placed until 1951 and, in fact, the contractors only commenced operations in July, 1951. I mentioned that the project was approved and the grant announced five years previously, in April of 1946.

Captain Cowan

Did the Minister find out the cause of that delay?

Mr. Lemass

I think there was rather considerable difficulty in preparing plans and perhaps not enough enterprise in getting ahead with the work. It was originally estimated thatsome 250 persons would be employed upon the work, but that figure has never been reached; the highest number on the scheme has not been much more than 50 at any time.

Mr. Morrissey

No.

Mr. Lemass

There was a recent conference between the Port and Docks Board and the contractors at which, I understand, a substantial measure of agreement was reached. Work is likely to proceed more expeditiously in future although the date for the completion of the dock is now given to me as August, 1955; that is to say, the work which I had comtemplated originally might have been finished by 1950 or 1951 will not be completed until then.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister is not suggesting that the Government had anything to do with that?

Mr. Lemass

As far as I know there was no Government intervention in the matter at all. Deputy Larkin also questioned the policy of Irish Shipping, Ltd. in the matter of support of Irish shipyards. I think his observations were rather unfair to Irish Shipping, Ltd. In so far as the overhaul and repair of their ships are concerned Irish Shipping, Ltd. actually established a shipyard of their own, the Cork Dockyard which, as the House knows is owned by Irish Shipping, Ltd. itself. A high proportion of their annual overhaul and repair work is done in the Cork Dockyard and it is in the interests of Irish Shipping, Ltd. that they should support their own yard. They have had to support it financially on a number of occasions since its establishment and they have certainly supported it in the volume of business they have given it. It is true that vessels upon foreign charter have to have their overhauls and repairs done elsewhere and that a vessel that is damaged on a voyage has to be repaired in a foreign port. Consequently, not all the repair work of Irish Shipping, Ltd. can be done in Irish shipyards. I notice from the figures for the year 1953 the total expenditure of Irish Shipping, Ltd.upon repairs was practically £81,000, of which Cork Dockyards got £31,000 and the Liffey Dockyards got somewhat over £9,000; other Irish yards got about £2,000 and £38,000 was given abroad, which represented the annual dry docking and servicing of ships that were on foreign charter at the time and in some cases emergency repairs or else repairs requiring facilities which were not available in Ireland.

Irish Shipping, Ltd., have an order for a collier of 1,400 tons dead weight with the Liffey Dockyard. That vessel is due for delivery in January, 1955. There has been, of course, difficulty experienced by the Irish dockyards in getting deliveries of steel. At the present time Irish dockyards are considerably handicapped in competition with British shipyards by the fact that steel to British dockyards is subsidised and British dockyards have, therefore, that tremendous advantage over the Irish dockyards in having their steel cheaper. The Isolde,which was built for Irish Lights, was in a different category. The British Government agreed to supply the steel for the construction of that boat at the British domestic price, but they are not prepared to do that for the building of ships for Irish Shipping, Ltd. However, the Deputy and the House may be assured that it is the policy of Irish Shipping, Ltd., as it is certainly the policy of the Government, to give all practicable business to Irish dockyards. The Liffey Dockyard is the only one capable of building a ship of any size. The Liffey Dockyard can build a ship up to 3,000 or 4,000 tons.

Mr. Larkin

Irish Shipping, Ltd., did not know that.

Mr. Lemass

It will be appreciated that by far the greater number of ships which Irish Shipping, Ltd., are buying are much larger ships which could not be constructed in any dockyard in this country.

Deputy Dillon spoke about the export of bottles, and I would like to give him some information in that connection. I do not know what the facts are precisely, because there is one private firm involved in this business and I have not regarded it as open tome to inquire in detail into their operations. I am satisfied on this score, that the price charged for bottles here is related to the cost of producing those bottles and contains no unreasonable profit to the company or no element of subsidy for bottles exported by the company. I want to make that clear, because if there were any suggestion that the products of this company going abroad were being subsidised in any way—as Deputy Dillon did, in fact, suggest—then the British authorities have rights under the trade agreement to impose restrictions on the import of these goods into Great Britain. It must be made abundantly clear that the British authorities would not be justified in acting against those exports on that ground, because there is no element of subsidy whatever in the export price and the home prices are related entirely to the cost of producing the company's bottles for the home market. These prices have been investigated more than once by the Prices Advisory Body and my statement is based on their report.

What the company say is that in order to keep down prices here they have to get a volume of output larger than the home market makes possible. Therefore, they must go after exports and if they do not succeed in getting export business then the cost of production will go up. They are making these efforts to develop their export trade. We hope they will succeed in that. It is important to us that they should succeed in that, not merely to the 800 to 1,000 men employed in the industry, but to the country as a whole, because the future development of the industry and the price of its products on the home market will depend on the success of the effort.

I want to protest against this House being used to make statements about a concern of that kind which are untrue and for which there is not the slightest foundation in fact. Deputy Dillon said here that the Irish Glass Bottle Company sold beer bottles to a Dutch firm at 23/9, which firm brings the bottles to Antwerp, fills them there with Dutch beer and ships them back into Ireland, claiming exemption fromimport duty on the ground that they are Irish glass bottles, and undersells the Irish beer bottled here. There is not a word of truth in that. I checked it with the management of the company. They told me they sold no bottles to any Dutch firm, they do not produce the type of bottle that is used by Dutch brewers. They sold no such bottles to anybody who could in any way be connected with the Dutch brewery firm. In fact, they have not been exporting beer bottles at all. The only consignment of beer bottles they have exported was sold through the agency of a Dublin firm, which paid the home price for them. The statement was completely without foundation and could have been made by Deputy Dillon only upon the basis of information supplied to him which he did not trouble to check and which he could have checked quite easily at the cost of a couple of pence by a telephone call to the company's office, as I did.

Captain Cowan

The statement he made could have resulted in the unemployment of a considerable number of Irish workers, if it had been believed in England.

Mr. S. Brady

And that would not worry him one bit.

Mr. Lemass

It is true, of course, that firms sell for export at a lower price than they can secure in the home market. It would be grand if there were international agreement to cut out the practice, but I do not think we are likely to get it. It is not unreasonable to put this proposition in front of an industrial firm which is producing goods for the home market, to tell them that if they expand their export beyond home market requirements they can afford to sell these goods a bit cheaper, that the marginal cost of production would enable them to be sold profitably at a lower price than the main output of the firm. It is in that way that firms in other countries are able to build up an export business. It is in that way that we would be able to do it.

I remember on one occasion going to the Irish flour millers and asking to have explained to me how it wasthat English flour-milling firms could quote flour in Dublin at a lower price, even though they got the wheat at the same price, and the Irish flour millers claimed that their mills were just as efficient. Their answer was: "We will sell flour in England at the same price as they are quoting here, because with the lower cost of increased production it can be sold cheaper and just as the English mills quote a lower price for flour in Ireland so the Irish millers can quote a lower price in England."

Mr. Morrissey

The whole process is what we call dumping.

Mr. Lemass

The cost of production goes down as the volume of production goes up. Therefore, bigger sales lower the price at which the end product can be sold.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not arguing it —only stating the fact.

Mr. Lemass

Irish shoe manufacturers are selling abroad, so far as I know, a rather dearer type of shoe than the home market accepts, a better quality shoe; but the same principle applies. If they can increase export sales by selling the marginal products at a lower price, that would be to the advantage of the country, to the Irish shoe manufacturers and to their staffs.

Captain Cowan

On that point, was not the purpose of the question to bring to the Minister's notice a complaint by our mineral water manufacturers? Would the Minister consider this, that the price the mineral water manufacturers are charging for mineral waters is scandalous and that the prices are being maintained by a ring? Would he consider having these matters investigated by the Prices Advisory Body and also by the new authority he has set up to deal with rings and unfair practices?

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy should drink whiskey instead.

Mr. Lemass

I can understand the mineral water manufacturer who realises that Irish Glass Bottle Companybottles are being sold in Newry or Belfast at a lower price kicking up a row, and that is the most natural reaction in the world. My concern is to persuade him that he has not got the grievance he thinks he has, that he is getting the bottles here at a price which is directly related to the cost of efficient production.

Captain Cowan

He should not charge the price of a bottle of stout for a bottle of lemonade.

Mr. Lemass

If we wipe out the Irish Glass Bottle Company and remove the tariffs, we do not know what the price would be, because there is only one monopoly concern in Britain and, whatever price they quote now, it may bear no relation to the price they would quote if they are again established in our market.

Deputy Larkin reminded me of an undertaking that I gave when the Labour Court was established under the Industrial Relations Act, that it would be extended to the employees of local authorities. I would like the Deputy himself to consider the wisdom of doing so. First of all I think that the Labour Court itself is not quite a suitable body for determining the wages to be paid by local authorities.

Mr. Larkin

Not the Labour Court, but the principle of the machinery.

Mr. Lemass

Is it so necessary now in view of the fact that since the introduction of arbitration in the Civil Service the practice has developed of relating changes in remuneration of local authorities to changes in the wages of Government employees, recommended by the Arbitration Board? There is something equivalent to an independent authority operating to effect these wage rates at the present time. However, it is a matter on which I think there is room for reconsideration of views. Perhaps the Deputy would give some thought to the views I am expressing now.

Mr. Larkin

The local authorities employees have no access to the arbitration machinery of the Civil Service.

Mr. Lemass

That is true, but it is precisely the same factors that would determine the outcome. It is almost inconceivable that an arbitration board operating for Government employees would make different recommendations from an arbitration board acting for the same type of employee under local authorities.

Mr. Larkin

May I suggest that the Minister inquire from the city and county managers whether they would desire that type of machinery?

Mr. Lemass

Many Deputies referred to food subsidies and to the decisions taken last year affecting food subsidies. They spoke, however, as if food subsidies had been abolished altogether. In fact, as I pointed out earlier when introducing this Estimate, the subsidy on flour and bread this year is practically £6,000,000, and that will not be enough. It is quite obvious that we shall have to introduce a Supplementary Estimate to make increased provision for the flour and bread subsidy before the end of the current financial year, firstly, because of the higher price now payable for native wheat; secondly, because of the higher costs of collecting that wheat due to the new methods of harvesting that are coming into operation; thirdly, because of the higher proportion of native wheat—as Deputies are aware, there has been a very considerable increase in acreage this year—and, fourthly, because of the higher price now payable for imported wheat. We have not bought much imported wheat under the new agreement, and it may be that the price will come down at some stage but, proceeding on the assumption that we will have to pay the maximum price under the agreement, as well as the increased price for native wheat, it is quite clear that the cost of the flour and bread subsidy will be higher this year than we originally anticipated.

Mr. Davin

And to maintain the millers' higher profits.

Mr. Lemass

Is the Deputy not aware that control has been removed?So far as the Minister and the Department of Industry and Commerce are concerned now the position is that wheat is sold to the millers at a common price to all and, after that, they are on their own.

Mr. Hickey

There is, of course, no competition between them.

Mr. Lemass

And there is no longer a guaranteed profit to any of them.

Mr. Davin

Rank Unlimited!

Mr. Lemass

One mill went down.

Captain Cowan

Did the Minister say that the introduction of these big new machines that we see knocking around the roads is leading to unemployment and, in fact, causing an increase in the price of flour?

Mr. Lemass

What those machines have done is brought in the grain harvest far more rapidly to the mills than was the case previously. Consequently, the really acute storage problem that exists has had the result of increasing the cost of handling the wheat very considerably and has given to the industry, and to some extent to the Government, the problem of considering how storage facilities can be increased before the next harvest comes, because the indications are that we shall have still further increases in the wheat acreage next year.

Deputy Kyne said the Labour Party would not join any Government which did not agree to make up the cost of the food subsidies as they existed when the inter-Party Government left office in one form or another—in the form of increased subsidies, in the form of increased children's allowances or in the form of increased social welfare payments. I would ask the Deputy to take the Book of Estimates and make a calculation and he will find all that has already been done. If, when he has satisfied himself on that, he wants to join the present Government, as he knows, the door is always open.

Mr. Davin

Is it the back door or the front door?

Mr. Lemass

I think I have covered all the main points raised. A number of Deputies referred to special local problems and I would prefer to deal with them privately rather than in public. Deputy Everett and Deputy Cogan did, however, raise the question of Wicklow harbour and, because that has received some publicity, I should perhaps make some reference to it. I have a limited amount of money at my disposal to make available for harbour development grants. The amount is set out in the Book of Estimates. I must ensure that that money is spent to the best advantage and, in determining how to spend it, I must take into account the trade prospects in individual harbours just as much as the local and natural desire to see particular harbours extended or the employment involved in such extension provided. In the case of Wicklow, a proposal for the improvement of the harbour came from the local harbour authority and, after some considerable delay in the preparation of plans— these plans always take a considerable time—and a great deal of calculation as to the requirements of the port, having regard to other transport facilities available to it and the degree of industrial development in the locality, a decision was made that certain harbour works would be sufficient to meet current needs and, on the basis of that decision, a grant of approximately £35,000 against a local contribution of £7,000 was agreed upon. That decision was communicated to the local harbour authority. If they had accepted that decision, work would have started immediately because all the plans had been made and all the calculations had been completed; but the local harbour authority—possibly they saw that Wexford was getting a much bigger grant—decided they should not do worse than Wexford and they came back looking for a much more extensive scheme of works. I have not turned that down. They may get a larger grant but I do want them to realise that the preparation of the larger plan and the details of that plan by the Board of Works engineers will take just as long as the preparation of the originalplan, and they cannot expect a speedy decision. I cannot give a decision at all until the Board of Works having carried out the necessary surveys, tell me what it will cost. I only come in in determining how that cost can be met out of the funds available to me for the improvement of harbours. These funds have to supplement the funds of a number of harbour authorities in the carrying out of necessary works.

We have spent a great deal of money on harbour improvement works since the end of the war. Before the war the Government had no responsibility whatever for providing money for harbour works. When Galway Harbour Authority first decided to improve the harbour there they had to raise the necessary amount, supplemental to their own revenues, from the local authorities in the area serving the harbour. It is only since the war that the idea of a Government grant was conceived but, now that it is recognised, the Government is expected to supplement harbour revenues and finance works of that kind and, of course, harbour authorities are looking for more and more money. Only a limited amount can be made available and that must be spent on works which are not designed merely to create monuments but works that can be effectively utilised by shipping companies and industrialists in the areas serving the harbour. I do not want Deputy Cogan or Deputy Everett, or the other Wicklow Deputies, to think, however, that a decision has been taken against the proposal of the Wicklow Harbour Board for an increased grant. They may get it.

Mr. O'Leary

If there is another by-election they may.

Mr. Lemass

A decision cannot be taken until the survey has been completed and the estimate of cost prepared. The same applies to most other harbour works to which reference has been made.

I am personally interested in trying to revive the trade of the smaller harbours. I think it would be a good thing for the country if we could do that, particularly from the point of view of the development of our owncoastal shipping service; but it may not be an easy task and we may incur expenditure which will never be remunerative. It is, however, worth attempting provided we do not lose our heads and start erecting big port installations which can never be used because I am afraid the policy of importing direct from countries of origin is operating and the whole trend of trade is to bring supplies to this country now in bigger and bigger ships. That confines the movement of goods to the major ports and takes trade away from the smaller ports formerly served by small ships bringing in goods trans-shipped from English ports. From the national point of view the change is for the better, but the repercussions on local harbours are considerable, and we can only offset that by developing coastal shipping services of our own. Some progress has been made in that direction and no doubt that will continue.

General Mulcahy

I think it is hardly reasonable for the Minister to dismiss the question of the sale of the Slievardagh coalfield as a local matter.

Mr. Lemass

I intended to refer to it. I apologise to the Deputy for omitting it. So far as the claims of Mr. Ivers to a sub-lease is concerned, I do not want to make any comment. That is a matter which may become the subject of legal determination. It would be wrong, therefore, for me to refer to it in any detail.

Mianraí Teoranta has been operating at Slievardagh coalfield for some years. It got that responsibility in 1942 or 1943 when the original Slievardagh Coal-mine Company was amalgamated with Mianraí Teoranta. The workings there, of course, were started as a wartime measure to supplement our production of coal and the company was in fact instructed so to plan its activity as to get the maximum output of coal without regard to long-term development plant. It never made a profit and, in fact, time and again I had to come back to the Dáil to get losses wiped off. In 1947, by the legislation of that year, all the lossesincurred during the war period were wiped out and the company was set up with a capital sum which was then considered adequate to enable it to develop the coal-mine properly and get on to a profit earning basis. It did not. Deputy Morrissey, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, had to come back here in 1949 to ask the Dáil to amend the legislation and make more money available for the company. He expressed the hope that, with the additional funds, it would get to the profit earning stage. It did not and last year I had to come to the Dáil to explain that the amount that could be provided under the Act was exhausted and pointed out that it required more money urgently to keep its staffs in employment and its productive activities going. I got that money voted on a Supplementary Estimate, promising to regularise the position by an amendment of the legislation later.

By that time the Government had taken the decision to instruct the company to offer the coal-mine for sale. Apart from the fact that the coal-mine was, as far as we knew, losing money and likely to continue losing money, there was, and is, objection to a State company operating in a field in which private companies are also operating. As the Deputy knows, anthracite coal is being mined by a number of private companies operating here and it is unfair to them that a State company should be operating in competition with them, with apparently the right to call upon unlimited funds from the Government, as the three successive additions to the capital of the company would suggest.

At first no offers were made for the concern. Subsequently, an offer was received, after the advertisements were repeated, from the person who now owns it. Mianraí Teoranta recommended that the offer should be accepted. They said it was a good offer, that no better offer was likely to be forthcoming and that they had satisfied themselves as to the intentions of the purchaser to carry on and develop the property. I was naturally concerned about the point to which Deputy Mulcahy referred, that wewere not likely to find ourselves again in the position that, in order to prevent unemployment developing, or for some other reason, we would have to go in and save the undertaking again. From the point of view of the development of the coal-mine, the sale has been more than justified. I think the new owner is now developing the property far more energetically and in a far better way than the State company was doing. The Deputy, no doubt, will have seen from Press reports that he was the first to open up the possibilities of exports for Irish anthracite and generally is doing a very good job there. I am quite satisfied that from the point of view of the development of the resources of the area the sale was a good one.

From the point of view of Mianraí Teoranta, it gets them £50,000 in cash against what was for them a liability. My recollection is that Mianraí Teoranta claimed that they could break even on working costs at an output of 500 tons a week. They only got 500 tons a week over a very limited period last year. They never succeeded in maintaining it for any protracted period and did not seem likely to maintain it.

In any event, I, personally, was getting rather tired of the process of having Mianraí Teoranta coming to me looking for more money for this enterprise on the promise that they would make profits the next year. That had been going on too long and I did not want to see it continued. I think we were quite right in getting the State out of this business of coal-mining. It should not be in it when private enterprise is also in it. We were lucky in disposing of this property, at what Mianraí Teoranta regard as a fair price, to a company which is putting a considerable amount of additional money and a very considerable amount of enterprise into the development of the deposit.

The particular point in which the Deputy is interested is a special one. For a number of years there have been in that area people working outcrops of coal without a right to the coal, and it has been a problem for Mianraí Teoranta at various times. Mianraí Teoranta didin fact sell the lease of the property to the new owner clear of commitments and, therefore, the only question that arises is whether a man who was working on the property without a lease had an undertaking or a promise from Mianraí Teoranta which gives him a right of action against Mianraí Teoranta now. There is no doubt that the new owner has got a clear lease but it is possible that there may be some claim against Mianraí Teoranta by the individual concerned. If that claim cannot be settled by agreement —and it does not look as if it can be— then it can only be settled in the normal way by court proceedings.

General Mulcahy

The Minister thinks I am emphasising the position with regard to Mr. Ivers. I am not. I am particularly interested in the wider aspects of the case. The Minister mentioned certain people who, without what we call formal legal permits, are taking coal in that area. In addition to Mr. Ivers, who is actually working the mine and developing it, there are people known as the basset workers. The Minister's last remark would rather suggest to me that there may be a danger that the basset workers will be interfered with.

Mr. Lemass

It is no longer a matter for me or Mianraí Teoranta.

General Mulcahy

Do I understand from the Minister that this sale has taken place with his permission— perhaps with his urging rather than at the request of Mianraí Teoranta—and that the position of the basset workers has not been fully understood by him, by Mianraí Teoranta and by the new purchaser of the mine?

Mr. Lemass

It is fully understood, yes.

General Mulcahy

Do I understand that there is a danger that the basset workers will have to seek legal clarification of their rights?

Mr. Lemass

I do not think so. They have no legal rights, never had legal rights. Mr. Ivers has no lease and never had a lease.

General Mulcahy

He has been working and developing the mine.

Mr. Lemass

He has no legal rights.

General Mulcahy

The point I want to make is that the Minister has now sold the whole of the Slievardagh coalfield.

Mr. Lemass

No—Mianraí Teoranta.

General Mulcahy

Mianraí Teoranta, yes, and, according to the balance sheet published by Mianraí Teoranta on the 31st March, 1953, the assets, apart altogether from the mineral resources, apart altogether from the coal in the ground, are something like £45,382. That is, in so far as the balance sheet can be understood, the amount that has been transferred as realisable assets in land, plant, machinery and equipment of one kind or another. That is the amount that has been transferred to what the balance sheet calls the "realisation of sale".

Now can the Minister justify in any kind of general way the principle of the sale of assets of that particular kind plus the mineral resources of the coalfield for the sum of £50,000 arranged in that particular way? Can he say the terms of the royalties that are being included in the lease, and can he also in relation to the product of the Ballingarry mine—that is the copper one that has been referred to here in this balance sheet, the only one that has been worked recently by Mianraí Teoranta—give us any idea as to why a report issued on the operations for the year 1952 should show a loss of £11,303 when it was a year in which the greatest amount of coal was produced and it was a time in which the 500 tons a week and the greater than 500 tons a week for the rest of the period had been reached, when in the two years before that, with a substantially similar amount of production, the balance sheet recorded that the Ballingarry mine had a production output of 4,102 tons?

Mr. Lemass

So far as tonnage is concerned that is not any real indication of the nature and character of the production. A very high proportion of slack would bring down the average realisable price very considerably;but when the Deputy asks me why I sanctioned a lease of that mine the only answer I can give him is that one of the reasons why I urged that the property should be offered for sale was that I felt that a private owner managing that mine for his own profit would be able to make a far better job of it than this State organisation. It was not the type of enterprise that a State organisation should be engaged in.

As regards the question of whether the price offered was reasonable, the price offered was £50,000 cash plus a royalty, a royalty I understand of 9d. per ton for up to 150,000 tons and diminishing then with the quantity produced. So far as I am concerned at any time we would have leased the mineral rights in the area for a royalty of that kind to anybody who was prepared to develop them—in fact we have leased mineral rights for much lower royalties than that, in places where they were not likely to be worth as much. The payment of cash equivalent to the balance sheet estimation of the valuation of assets, plus a royalty continuing on any coal produced, represents to me a fair return, a fair price for the property, but it does not get us back anything like what we lost.

General Mulcahy

Surely the Minister will agree that to kind of part with this, a transfer from State ownership to the ownership of a private person of coalfields estimated to contain 40,000,000 tons——

Mr. Lemass

That estimate is worthless. It is not the quantity of coal in the area but the quantity of mineable coal that matters.

General Mulcahy

At any rate this is such a substantial property that even in an inefficient and superficial kind of way 200 families have lived on it for many years past.

Mr. Lemass

And I hope that they and more will live out of it in future.

General Mulcahy

So we all hope. I do not object to the Minister leasing. I think it is proper and desirable to lease where the proposal is a proper one, but does not the Minister agreethat it is a bad precedent and a bad principle that without any revealing statement of what is involved a coalfield of this dimension can be sold?

Mr. Lemass

Let us not exaggerate its dimensions. This was one of the smallest. It was not a very large one. It may become that now. I may tell you that I would have hesitated very much to sanction the sale by Mianraí Teoranta if I thought that the effect was likely to be a discontinuance of operations there. It was because I was satisfied that it meant not merely continuation of operations but an extension of them under perhaps more energetic direction that I sanctioned the sale.

General Mulcahy

Can the Minister not understand the anxiety of us here, and particularly of all the local people, when a transaction takes place without the Minister taking the initiative in making a full and fairly comprehensive statement on the transaction?

Mr. Lemass

As far as local anxiety is concerned, away back in 1947, when I introduced the Bill that year, I said that we were setting up this company again and wiping out its losses and giving it a certain amount of money, and if they could not be a paying concern,and could not be made to pay, that meant that the coalfield was going to close down. I asked the Dáil to pass legislation and to vote money on that understanding in 1947. Subsequently, when it became clear that more money would have to be provided, I urged the policy of offering the property for sale to private owners. When the company had advertised it again and again and they had got some offers which were not very attractive, and then they got what they considered an attractive offer, they recommended its acceptance, and I agreed. I think the alternative to selling it was to face the possibility of the concern closing down, because the Dáil would refuse to vote more money for its operation, or else continuing demands for more money from the Dáil, and we are in a far better position now.

General Mulcahy

The Minister's alternative is not clear from the last report.

Mr. Lemass

It lost £11,000 in the last year. That is not bad, you know.

Question—"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration"— put.

The Committee divided:—Tá, 56; Níl, 65.

Tá

• Barry, Richard.
• Beirne, John.
• Belton, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Thomas, N.J.
• Carew, John.
• Collins, Seán.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Costello, John A.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Crowe, Patrick.
• Davin, William.
• Deering, Mark.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, Anthony C.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finan, John.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hession, James M.
• Hickey, James.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, James.
• Lehane, Patrick D.
• Lynch, John (North Kerry).
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Madden, David J.
• Mannion, John.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Murphy, William.
• O'Hara, Thomas.
• O'Leary, Johnny.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rogers, Patrick J.
• Rooney, Eamon.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tully, John.

Níl

• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Dan.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Crowley, Honor Mary.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• de Valera, Eamon.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Fanning, John.
• ffrench-O'Carroll, Michael.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Gallagher, Colm.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
• McCann, John.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Moran, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheldon, William A. W.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Laurence J.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bre andán Mac Freórais; Nil: Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea.

Question declared lost.

Vote put and agreed to.