Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 12 Jun 1958

Vol. 168 No. 12

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

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

Mr. Sweetman

When I was speaking before Question Time, I was referring to the estimate given by the Minister yesterday of the increased demand for electric current and the potential increase for the future. The White Paper of 1954 was wrong by, very roughly, an average of 25 per cent. If the White Paper of 1954 was wrong by 25 per cent. in relation to consumer demands, it meant we were spending approximately £2½ million per annum on the provision of a generating equipment in advance of what was reached. To service a capital cost of £2½ million at 6 per cent. a sum of £150,000 a year is required. That means that, as a result of the decision then taken by the Minister, £150,000 was to be wasted instead of being taken in its proper perspective and utilised in the proper priority.

The Minister yesterday announced the restoration of the 50 per cent. grant to the E.S.B. for rural electrification. That is entirely a question as between the accounts of the E.S.B. and the national Exchequer. It does not in any way affect the cost to the consumers in any of the more remote areas. It is a matter for argument as to whether it is desirable that the cost of developing outlying areas should be borne by the taxpayer directly, or by the taxpayer in relation to his electricity consumption generally. Everybody will agree that it is highly desirable that the outlying areas should be developed. The question of the priority of that development is one on which we have had many discussions in this House and on which we shall probably have further discussions. It does not arise now, except in the one respect to which I referred a moment ago. The restoration of the subsidy is merely a question of E.S.B. accounts or Exchequer accounts. It does not affect the ratio on which the special service charge is taken by the E.S.B. from their consumers, unless some new direction is——

Mr. S. Lemass

It has nothing to do with the special service charge at all.

Mr. Sweetman

I am saying that. It does not make any difference whatever to the consumer. It merely means that the E.S.B. accounts are getting a capital subvention, not a current one, from the Exchequer. Whether a person in an area in Connemara gets the area in Connemara worked under the rural electrification scheme last year or this year, he pays exactly the same for the current that will be supplied to him. It does not mean any easement of the supply question there.

Another point of view which I should like to put forward and which is far more urgent than the other, which is merely a board one, concerns small pockets throughout the country which are not large enough to be classed as areas for distribution lines but which do require some special type of servicing. I am glad the Minister has recently changed the arrangement by which it is essential for capital moneys to be put down before an outlying consumer could be connected inside an area already developed. However, by and large throughout the country, there are considerable difficulties and apprehension as to the cost of installation from an E.S.B. point of view for pockets that are not of sufficient size to be considered in relation to an area as a whole, but which require to be mopped up. It would have been better business, from the public point of view, if from the consumers' point of view, if some subvention were to be made available to the E.S.B., if it were made available expressly for the purpose of cleaning up the possibility of distribution in some of the areas I have in mind.

I have here another point which is a matter of policy though it is a matter of detail also and therefore one which I do not think probably ever came to the Minister or his predecessor. Once and area has been developed, if it is necessary for persons in that area to require supply after the development of the area has concluded, special terms are quoted, special onerous terms. I can understand that completely in relation to people who have refused to accept current when the organisation for making that development was there. However, there is one class in my constituency amongst whom grave hardship arises in that connection.

The Land Commission take over a large tract of land and build from six to ten houses on it. Those houses were not there when the area was being developed in the normal course under the rural electrification scheme. Now, when the people go into those houses, erected by another State Department, they are quoted the same onerous terms for electricity current as they would correctly be quoted if they had been there at the date of the development of the area and refused connection.

I do not think it is right that, where people come into an area as part of the deliberate policy of a State Department—and were not in the area at the time development was carried through under the rural electrification programme—they should be penalised because they were not there at the time in question. There is an entirely different case to be made in relation to the class of person I have in my mind from that to be made in respect of the ordinary householder who says, when the work is proceeding all around him: "I will not take it; I will sit down and wait and see whether I might get it later on." That type of person who, of his own volition, refused to accept supply when development was going on in his neighbourhood, has nobody to blame but himself, if it costs him a lot more to get the E.S.B. engineers back afterwards.

On the other hand, several farms have been acquired by the Land Commission and divided. After division, when they were allotted and people put into the houses erected by the Land Commission, the people found they had to pay what amounts to a penalty because the Land Commission had not wakened up in time to the necessity to build those houses before the E.S.B. had completed operations in the area. That is a situation that requires amendment. While it cannot involve a very big sum of money from the point of view of E.S.B. accounts as a whole, it affects the individual very substantially indeed—particularly, I suggest, in relation to Kildare and Meath, where that type of small Land Commission farm is being utilised virtually completely for the supply of liquid milk to Dublin. All of those types of Land Commission small farms go into the liquid milk business. That is one of the things for which electricity is more useful than anything else in increasing production. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to take up that matter as one of policy with the board to see if it would be possible to obviate that grievance that these Land Commission holders undoubtedly have, genuinely and with justice.

I was not quite clear when Deputy Desmond was speaking, when he was referring to nationalisation, whether he meant industry as a whole. I hope to make it quite clear that, as far as the Fine Gael Party is concerned, we do not accept the principle that industry should be nationalised as a whole. I think it would be disastrous to the whole policy of getting more people interested in industry, particularly in export industry, if there was any suggestion abroad—by abroad I do not mean only in this House, I mean outside this House—or any volume of support for the nationalisation of industry as a whole. It is well that we, the Fine Gael Party, should make it quite clear that, if that was what Deputy Desmond intended, it is no part of the policy we support. On the contrary, we believe the proper policy in relation to industry is to provide the climate in which private enterprise can expand to the fruition to which all of us feel it must expand, if we are to avoid national difficulties.

Yesterday, when the Minister was speaking, he devoted a very considerable amount of time to consideration of the balance of trade and balance of payments position. I was rather surprised he did so because it is an unusual line for any Minister to take on the Industry and Commerce Vote, particularly——

Mr. S. Lemass

It is industry and commerce.

Mr. Sweetman

——when finance business is running concurrently, but I am glad the Minister did so. I must confess I felt rather sorry for him while he was telling that story. I happened to be listening to him and what the story amounted to, shorn of its padding, was that the longer the Minister sat over there, the worse our situation became in relation to trade balance of payments. He showed how the last quarter of 1957 had disimproved and that the first quarter of 1958 had disimproved even more. It must have been particularly galling for Deputy Lemass, of all people, to have to admit that, as he did admit it, yesterday. Leaving aside such pleasantly on the political account, I want to say quite seriously that I am perturbed by the March and April figures in relation to our trade and commerce. The May figures will be available in a few days and I hope sincerely they will not contribute further to my anxiety.

The April figures, showing as they did, an import excess greater not merely than that of 1957, but greater also than that of 1958, were certainly figures and statistics to give us cause to pause and see where we are travelling. I am particularly disappointed with the March and April figures. In March we had an import excess of £6.6 millions and in April an import excess of over £7,000,000. If one took those as being average figures, they would put us in a very difficult position for the year. I am particularly disappointed with them having regard to the fact that freight rates, shipping rates, throughout the world have fallen so very dramatically.

When we were in difficulty in relation to our balance of trade in 1956, and in the early part of 1957, freight rates were very different and our import prices were running at a very different unit rate from that at which they are running at the present time. We all know that in February, 1957, import prices reached their peak when they were something over 17 per cent. higher than in 1953, taking 1953 as the basic year. That was as a result of the Suez crisis, of increased freight rates following Suez.

Since that time import prices have been falling steadily all the way down. In March, 1958, they were 8 per cent. less than in February, 1957; yet in March, 1958, we find ourselves with an import excess of over £6,000,000. Not merely that, but the position was that our export prices were more or less holding on a steady keel, so that in a month in which we are getting all the benefit of the drop in international freight rates and of the drop in international prices of the things we have to import, we still had an excess of that order, and one that in April was greater than in April, 1956. I agree completely that is a matter that must give us very substantial cause for anxiety. I do not know whether the May figures will be available before the Minister comes to conclude on this Estimate but, unless the May figures do show a turn, I am afraid the position is one which will require most careful watching.

I understood the Minister to say that textiles industries had increased their exports from last year. I do not quite understand that because in fact the percentage of textiles for our exports dropped from 6.3 per cent. to 4.3 per cent. Quite clearly, the Minister and I must be looking at different sets of figures. There may be some explanation for it, but in the returns that were issued by the Central Statistics Office the Minister will find that there was that drop. I think also it is important we should note in this general connection that in relation to last year the amount of the producers' capital goods imported was less than in the preceding year, and that trend has continued during the current quarter, the first quarter of this year, the only quarter for which we have information.

There is a drop in producers' capital goods imported in the period January-March, 1958 as compared with January-March, 1957, of approximately 9 per cent. I am disappointed to see that one of the reductions that took place in that period is under that heading because, if we are not obtaining the capital goods that are necessary, there is no prospect of our improving our general position. I do not think it is likely that those capital goods are, instead, being made here. It is possible, however, that the explanation may be that the comparative figures for the similar quarter of last year may have included some heavy importations of diesel stocks for C.I.E. or some item like that about which I have not got information.

The Minister yesterday said comparatively little about the position in relation to employment. Manufacturing industry in March, 1958, as compared with March, 1957, shows an increase of a mere 2,000 people. It is reasonable to suggest that if the Minister had gone out on the hustings in February, 1957, and had told the people in his own constituency of Dublin and throughout the country that, after the 12 months of his sitting in that chair, the best he could say in relation to manufacturing industry was that the number employed would have increased by 2,050, I do not think he would have got the vote he did get at that time.

One of the reasons the Minister is over on that side of the House and sitting in his chair in the Department of Industry and Commerce is that he persuaded the people a year ago that it was only necessary for Fianna Fáil to be elected as the Government and there would be an immediate improvement in relation to the numbers employed here in manufacturing concerns and otherwise. There was not to be in that respect a long-term plan. There are plenty of quotations available all down through the election campaign and in the months before it, in the Fianna Fáil bulletin, Gléas, which was always sent to us when we were Ministers but which apparently the Fianna Fáil Party now wish to keep secret.

Mr. S. Lemass

I must rectify that.

Mr. Sweetman

I shall be glad. Unfortunately, a period has elapsed and, therefore, my file has a gap in it from February, 1957, to June, 1958.

Mr. S. Lemass

We will repair the gap.

Mr. Sweetman

I should like to bridge the gap because it is a most illuminating scrapbook. All through the months before the election and through the election campaign, there was not a suggestion that, at the end of 12 months, there would be an increase of a mere 2,000 in manufacturing industry. The suggestion was that there would be a bounding jump in employment, if only Fianna Fáil were put into Government. In fact, however, as one can see from an analysis of the figures, the increase is one that had started already. I think all of us would agree that the December quarter of 1957 represented the period at which the effect of the measures that unfortunately had to be taken in the national interest had had their results and it was from that on that there was a rise starting again. If one takes manufacturing industry, one can see readily that December, 1956, to December, 1957, showed a difference of 12 per cent. but that March, 1956, to March, 1957, showed a difference of only 8 per cent., making it clear that, the trend having been arrested, it had started to rise again in the first quarter of 1957.

I could make another case, quite convincing from a political point of view, taking one quarter and matching it with another, but I want to compare like with like, and only like with like. On that basis, it is quite clear, not-withstanding what the Minister said in the debate on the Budget, that the improvement had started in the first quarter of 1957 and, whatever else the Minister will claim credit for—and he will claim credit for a lot—he will not claim credit for anything that happened in the last ten days of March, 1957, when he was in office.

I want to underline another point in relation to industry rather than commerce, that is, that we cannot hope to have any progress in industry without very considerable capital outlay. At present we are in a situation, nationally, in which the available capital must be channelled as much as possible, by inducement and otherwise, into productive work. We are in a position in which there must be as much productive capital expenditure as we can possibly sustain and as we can possibly make available.

I want to make it quite clear that I disagree with one of the conclusions set out at page 15 of the Irish Banking Review of this month. In that, it is stated that the most encouraging features, indeed, are that there has been no increase in the provision for capital expenditure this year and the statement that there will be a shift from unproductive to productive projects. As far as the second part of that is concerned, the shift from unproductive to productive projects started in 1955 in relation to the State capital programme. It is a shift that, on the planning there was at that time, would be an accelerating one and it is one that must be even more accelerated, if we are to get out of our difficulties; but, to suggest that it is encouraging to restrict productive capital expenditure is to ignore completely the facts of our economic position at the present time. Perhaps it may be that, in synopsising, what the writer of that article meant was that it was encouraging that there was a restriction on unproductive capital expenditure. If that is what he meant, I would agree with it, but it is not what was said.

If we are not prepared to make capital available for productive enterprise, whenever the opportunity for productive enterprise becomes available, it is tantamount to saying that we will slip further and further back in the economic race. It will mean we will slip further back because of the disimprovement in the terms of trade.

There was evidence in the figures supplied to us with the budgetary explanatory tables that there had been a disimprovement of 12 per cent. The fact that there had been that disimprovement in the terms of trade from 1953 to 1957, shows that now we have got only an 88 per cent. advantage compared with the 100 per cent. advantage we had at that time and it is something that we must offset, no matter how unpopular it may be to say so. We must offset it by saving more, by employing our savings in agriculture and industry and by ensuring that there is greater productive capital expenditure in every field, but always supporting that, in so far as we can, from home resources and always making sure that the expenditure is productive and is not something which may, perhaps, give temporary employment during the spending of the capital assets but which, when that spending is over, will mean that there is nothing permanent there to give employment to our people.

I have mentioned the collapse in shipping freight rates and the Minister referred to the fact that two ships belonging to Irish Shipping, Limited, were at present tied up. If that is so, is there not an opportunity to utilise those ships for the type of Irish-Continental trade in respect of which there were considerable difficulties in the past? It may be that the ships which are tied up are not suitable for the task I have in mind, but we all know that occasionally opportunities arose for exports to continental countries—cattle to France and so forth— but when the opportunities arose, there was difficulty in getting the required shipping facilities. If, as a result of the international collapse in rates, there is an opportunity of utilising these ships in that way, it is an opportunity that should be taken.

There are only two further matters which I wish to mention on this Estimate, which deals with the air companies. One is in relation to the air companies and the other is in relation to prices generally. In relation to the air companies, I want to say, as a person who has had considerable experience of using the facilities of Aer Lingus, that it is a service of which any Irishman may well be proud. The record of the company speaks for itself, but even more important is the manner in which the personnel of the company go out of their way to assist travellers. That is something of which we can all be very proud indeed. I am not referring to facilities which might be offered to me—I might be, if I may use the phrase, a marked man—but I am referring to facilities which I have seen being given to other passengers and which reflect great credit on the management and redound very greatly to the credit of the personnel concerned.

In the Budget debate, I referred to the other air company and I want to make further reference to it to-day. Everybody knows our views in relation to a transatlantic air service. The Minister, however, is Minister for Industry and Commerce; the Government is the Government lawfully elected, even though I believe they fooled the electorate into voting for them. They have decided that there should be a transatlantic air service, and it has been put into operation. I do not propose, therefore, to say anything in criticism of that air service that might reflect on it from a national point of view.

I take the view, in relation to such an undertaking, that up to the moment of decision people who are opposed to it should criticise and criticise vigorously, but that once a decision has been taken, and lawfully taken, it is only proper one should withhold any criticism that might, in any way, affect the success of the venture. I have my own views on this service, but it is now a national undertaking, and I hope it will be successful.

However, I regret that the opportunity was taken at the opening of such a national venture by the chairman of the company to indulge in what can only be described as an improper speech. It is not proper for the chairman of any State-sponsored company to indulge in a political speech when speaking as chairman of that State-sponsored company. I do not think it is proper either, I may add, for an ex-civil servant to speak, on an occasion such as that, or indeed on any occasion, critically of decisions taken when he was a civil servant and a civil servant primarily concerned with being the confidential adviser of the Minister. It was very regrettable, indeed, that the person concerned so far forgot himself as to indulge in the speech in which he did indulge.

I want to make it quite clear that I think it was quite improper; that it should never have happened; and that it is because of that impropriety that I make it clear that I hope no other chairman of a State-sponsored company will equally forgot himself. It is the impropriety in that regard, of course, to which I referred on a previous occasion and which impropriety I meant when I referred to political integrity. I am not talking about financial integrity, or any moral integrity, but impropriety, both as the chairman of a State-sponsored company and as an ex-civil servant, who held the honourable position of Secretary of the Department of Industry and Commerce. I hope that nobody from this side of the House will ever again have to comment on the chairman of a State-sponsored company utilising his position, as it was utilised, at what should have been the inauguration of a national venture.

The most significant thing, perhaps, in the whole speech made by the Minister yesterday was that, from beginning to end, as far as I can read it in his own newspaper, he never made any reference to the question of prices. This Government was——

Mr. S. Lemass

I was going to make the same comment on Deputy Cosgrave's speech.

Mr. Sweetman

Deputy Cosgrave is not the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister is the person who is charged with the responsibility, and he got himself so charged, amongst other things, as a result of the campaign which he carried out from 1954 to 1957 about the cost of living.

Mr. S. Lemass

That I deny.

Mr. Sweetman

We all know that the Minister was the guiding light of the Fianna Fáil campaign——

Mr. S. Lemass

That was not a campaign. We were denying the power of the Government to control the cost of living.

Mr. Sweetman

We all know that the Minister was the guiding force in the direction of the Fianna Fáil propaganda. We all know that Fianna Fáil propaganda all over the country was directed towards getting the electorate to believe that any increase in the cost of living arose because of the ineptitude of the inter-Party Government. Time and time and time again, the Minister and his various henchmen now on that side of the House made it clear up and down the country that they believed that it was solely due to our ineptitude that prices were rising.

Mr. S. Lemass

I challenge the Deputy to produce a single quotation.

Mr. Sweetman

We had Deputy Major Vivion de Valera coming in here and reading out list after list of things in respect of which the price might have increased by a trifling amount and vigorously attacking the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Norton, in relation to those increases. Now we have a situation which can be compared with the position then. Then, I think I am right in saying, the cost of living increased only by two points; it increased at a time when international prices of all the things we have to import were advancing day by day. I have already referred to the increase in freight rates arising out of the Suez crisis. The strain that that must inevitably have put on our international price structure was perfectly obvious. Now we have got the reverse position. We have got a position in which international prices are falling, in which, as I have said, there has been an 8 per cent. drop in import prices between February, 1957, and March, 1958, an 8 per cent. drop in the prices of all things coming in. In spite of that drop in the price of commodities we have to import, in spite of the drop in freight rates, we have a Government now the shallowness of whose criticism in previous years is shown by the 9 per cent, increase in the cost of living now.

This Government has been in office 15 months. In that time prices rose, the cost-of-living index figure rose by nine points and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, under whose jurisdiction prices are dealt with, comes in here, introduces his Estimate and never, during the whole of the debate on that Estimate, does he mention one word about prices, even though his Department is the Department which must take responsibility in that regard. I do not want to weary the House by going through the list of things which have increased in price since Fianna Fáil took office. I do not propose to read through the enormously long list in the Dáil Debates of the 12th March last——

Mr. Dillon

Why not?

Mr. Sweetman

——because, if I did, the period until five o'clock would not afford sufficient time. I propose instead to take only a few selected items——

Mr. S. Lemass

Very selected, I am sure.

Mr. Sweetman

Well, if the Minister wishes, I shall give the whole list. I shall read out the whole list from the beginning, but the important fact is that the Minister in office at present, who used to allege when Deputy Norton was Minister that prices were one of the main things with which a Minister for Industry and Commerce should concern himself, got up here, introduced his Estimate and never mentioned a single syllable about prices.

I would suggest, for example, that the Minister might take some of his time to do a little penance and to read back over some of the things he said about prices—and much more so some of the things he got his lieutenants to say—during the period from 1954 to 1957 and from December, 1950, to June, 1951, when there was an even more disgraceful campaign by the Party opposite in relation to prices. We made it clear that we believed that stability in relation to prices was an essential factor for ordered economic progress. As a result of that, with international prices rising all round us, we were faced with problems with which the present Minister is not faced.

Is there anyone in this House or outside it who does not know that any disorder there may have been in relation to the negotiations for wage rates during the past 12 months arose solely because the stabilisation policy in relation to prices that we had in operation was deliberately torn up and thrown overboard by the present Minister and the present Government? It was solely as a result of the policy deliberately taken in the Budget of 1957 by the Government that much of the difficulties and unrest on the labour front arose during the past 12 months, difficulties which are further revealed in the additional cost of commodities at present.

Mr. S. Lemass

The point I made yesterday was that there was no increased cost. The most outstanding feature last year was that increased productivity completely offset the wage increases.

Mr. Sweetman

I thought the Taoiseach had learned his lesson when he got up and said there was no evidence that the cost of living had increased——

Mr. S. Lemass

That is not what I said.

Mr. Sweetman

——and within a week afterwards the Central Statistics Office issued a statement which showed that the cost of living had increased.

Mr. S. Lemass

I said that the wage increases, as far as industry was concerned, had been completely offset by increased productivity.

Mr. Sweetman

How can the effect be otherwise than what I am saying when you have a drop in international prices and in prices of imported raw materials and yet have increased finishing costs? Is it not obvious that the increased finishing costs must stem back to the fact that the Minister tore up the prices stabilisation policy in operation when he took over?

No matter what aspect of price increase one takes, there can be an increase on only either of two grounds or on a combination of those grounds: it must be either that prices are rising internationally or that they are rising internally. The Central Statistics Office—I am prepared to accept their word on this—have evidenced that international import prices, so far as we are concerned, have dropped by 8 per cent. from 117 to 109 in the period from February to March, 1958. If international prices are dropping and internal prices are rising, is it not clear that the reason for the rise is the action deliberately taken by the Government in May, 1957, to increase prices?

The budgetory policy adopted last year has come home to roost in the present cost-of-living index figure. People now see that the advent of a Fianna Fáil Government has coincided —I shall not put it further than that —with a further reduction in the purchasing power that the housewife has when she goes down to the shops to buy what she wants for her family for the week. I am sure the Minister will not challenge the accuracy of the Central Statistics Office figure. His 15-month period in office has coincided with a nine point rise in the cost of living. Yet, when he comes in here to introduce his Estimate, he does not mention the word "prices" at all. The obvious reason, of course, for that omission is that he is thoroughly ashamed—as, indeed, he ought to be —of his record.

Mr. S. Lemass

I may do it in conclusion.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

It is indeed regrettable that the Minister is not possessed of the same capabilities and intelligence in his capacity as Minister as he appeared to be when in opposition. For two hours yesterday, we listened here to a rather dreary outline of the affairs of his Department. More than two years ago, when he was in opposition, he painted an entirely different picture at a Fianna Fáil gathering down in O'Connell Street. The picture occupied more than half a page of the Fianna Fáil Party's newspaper.

The people were told that if Deputy Lemass were put back as Minister for Industry and Commerce, all our difficulties regarding unemployment, emigration and consequential problems would be solved. We were told that he and his Fianna Fáil colleagues had a plan to provide 100,000 jobs and that, so many jobs would be provided through the medium of this unique plan, we would be able to bring back some of those who had emigrated. That is a statement of Fianna Fáil policy adumbrated at that time, a time when they were in opposition.

Where is that plan now? Where is the policy? I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary can he give me any information as to where the plan is? Has it been lost? Has it been stolen? Did it stray away? Something must have happened to it because, in his two hours' dissertation yesterday, the Minister never once mentioned it. Yet, that plan at the time was so important it occupied more than a page of the Fianna Fáil newspaper.

It is quite clear now that that plan was merely a plan to secure votes and not to provide employment for our people or to help in any other way. The sole reason that paper plan was devised was to secure the return of a Fianna Fáil Government. Unfortunately, our people were misled by that plan and by other promises made by Fianna Fáil, promises which they had no hope of implementing, and the people gave Fianna Fáil a big majority and returned them as the Government of the country.

Now that they have the majority, what of the plan? What of the unemployment position? What of emigration? What of the decentralisation of industry and all the other items in the programme? They have been forgotten. I represent a constituency that has never gained anything from this Estimate, has never benefited from this Vote. No industries whatsoever have been established there. Time and again, public representatives have tried to get some help to establish industries. Part of the fault may rest with the people themselves and some share of the blame may lie with them, but we have never benefited by Governmental policy in relation to the establishment of industries and the grants made available for that purpose.

It is only right that we should get information on the activities of this body known as An Foras Tionscal. Yesterday the Minister told us that the Grant-in-Aid had been increased by £50,000. I understand that we have now paid out to that body something in the region of £1,000,000. That is a substantial figure. Possibly I am not adopting the best method of getting information, but I want to know from the Minister how he distributed this money. Is he prepared to give the names and addresses of the companies or individuals who have availed of these grants, the nature of their business, what contribution, if any, they made and all the other relevant information?

Last year, we had the Minister and his predecessor engaged in an argument in relation to the moneys made available to certain parties by way of grants, money that ultimately went down the drain. These companies were neither solid nor solvent and whatever grants were made were completely lost to public funds. It is time that the responsible Minister gave details of such transactions to this House. I asked for details then and they were refused.

With regard to industrial development, we have been agitating for many years for the decentralisation of industry. I represent one of the most congested areas in the country and public representatives there, irrespective of Party affiliations, have tried on numerous occasions to get some industry established there. We have failed. We have never benefited by any grants made by the Department of Industry and Commerce. As a public representative, I shall endeavour to get by way of parliamentary question information as to where these moneys go, to whom they are paid——

Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Hilliard)

The Deputy will get that information in the annual reports.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

——whether the management is solvent, or whether it is possible for certain people with political influence to influence certain other people to make grants available to companies which are neither solvent nor economic.

Mr. Hilliard

If the Deputy looks at the annual reports, he will get most of that information in them.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Parliamentary Secretary can tell me at any time he so decides about these two companies that were not solvent. What I want to know is was any action taken, legal or otherwise?

The only other plea I would make in relation to industry is that, if there is any change of viewpoint on the part of An Foras Tionscal or on the part of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, they might possibly think of us down at the end of Ireland. A large part of the help given by the Department is devoted to populous areas and areas contiguous to the big cities and towns. It is about time that rural Ireland got some little consideration.

The Minister mentioned a provision of £250,000 for piers and harbours. We have again and again made representations to the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industry and Commerce for grants to help to develop some of ours harbours in West Cork, but we have not met with any great measure of success and I would ask the Minister to tell us in what way this money will be dispensed. Will the bulk of it go to Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Waterford? They are the four largest ports and admittedly they should get consideration, but I do not agree that year after year whatever moneys are made available should be expended on five or six major ports and little or none of it made available for other ports. There should be a more equitable distribution of money.

Another item I notice in the Estimate is in relation to Bord Fáilte. If I have my figures correct, the money made available for it is £450,000. Bord Fáilte, we are told, is a board set up to help to bring British tourists to this country, to develop tourism and to make more foreign currency available here, a very desirable aim. We have statements from various people and in articles in the Press relative to the actual amount of money that tourism brings to this country. There seems to be a wide divergence of opinion, and it is the responsibility of the Minister to give the facts as to what is the actual value of tourism to us.

There is an increased provision of £50,000 for Bord Fáilte. I agree that some such body is essential and apparently their activities will expand this year, when £50,000 more is being made available. I assume this money is to help offices which they have in foreign countries, many of them in England, others in America and elsewhere, and which are trying to attract people to this country. Let us examine that in the light of the question asked by Deputy O'Higgins at question time to-day. Deputy O'Higgins wanted to know from the Minister why a number of tourists——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

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

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I beg your pardon. I am dealing with this fact that £450,000 is being provided in this Estimate for Bord Fáilte and, for all I know, it may be as a result of the activities of Bord Fáilte that this section of the British Navy decided to hold this regatta and to visit our beauty spots down in West Cork.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not discuss the matter on this Vote. It is a matter for another Minister, as the Deputy is well aware.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

While I respect your ruling, Sir, I am not satisfied that I am not entitled to refer to this matter. I am referring to Bord Fáilte. The fact that I mentioned the portion of the fleet that intended to hold a regatta in Bantry Bay is only incidental to the main question with which I am dealing, that is, the money made available to Bord Fáilte. I am making the point that it may be as a result of Bord Fáilte's activities in England that certain people decided to come here. We very much like English visitors here. Every hotel manager and every other business person in the country says they are good spenders. If we do not like themselves, we certainly like their money. The Minister for External Affairs to-day did not seem to like them.

I did mention that we were getting nothing in West Cork in the line of industrial development, but we have the advantage of delightful scenery, beautiful surroundings and are admirably situated for the holding of a regatta. These foreigners want to come to our shores, possibly through the efforts of Bord Fáilte, and to hold their regatta in Bantry Bay. Surely every businessman in Bantry and other places round about would like to see them coming. We need money and business to pay rates and to meet taxation. The Department cock their noses——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid the Deputy does not understand that the decision in relation to the holding of a regatta was not the decision of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is a matter for another Minister and the Deputy may raise it at the appropriate time.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I accept your ruling, Sir.

Mr. Dillon

If one Minister is cutting the other Minister's throat, that seems to be a reasonable point to raise.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

We are expending £450,000 on Bord Fáilte and I understand they have offices in London and in other English centres. I think they should be more specific and should mention in these offices that only a certain type of people are welcome here. There is no use in fooling these foreign people. We must ask Bord Fáilte to change the notices and advertisements in its offices in England and say: "Before you decide on coming to Ireland, you will apply here for information because only some of you are desirable; others we do not want." I think I am quite relevant. Let us not confine this matter to a Minister, although I assume it was a ministerial decision which denied to certain people the right to use our ports and harbours.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is continuing to disobey the ruling of the Chair. I must ask the Deputy to resume his seat.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I have no intention of resuming my seat at the moment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am asking the Deputy to resume his seat.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I shall depart from that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is continuing to disobey a ruling of the Chair.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am not disobeying the Chair.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am asking the Deputy to resume his seat.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am leaving that point.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has been asked by the Chair to resume his seat.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am leaving that point, but I expect I shall be allowed to continue my speech.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will not be allowed to continue. He has disobeyed the ruling of the Chair on at least four occasions.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

It is very unfair, but you are the boss. I should like to know on what grounds you are ruling I am not entitled to continue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has made it very clear to the Deputy. The Chair asked the Deputy to get away from the subject he was discussing.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I was dealing with Bord Fáilte.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy refused to do so and returned to it on four occasions, and was continuing to debate a point which does not arise on the Estimate.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There can be no discussion on the Chair's ruling.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order, are we not entitled to discuss on the Industry and Commerce Estimate questions as to whether varieties of visitors are to be put in categories, some of which are welcome and some of which are unwelcome?

I respectfully submit that that is eminently relevant to the Vote for the Department of Industry and Commerce and I know of no other Vote on which it can be discussed.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is being naïve. Deputy Murphy continued to discuss the question of British sailors holding a regatta in Bantry. It does not arise on the Vote and I pointed out at least four times to the Deputy that he was out of order. Deputy Murphy continued to dispute the ruling of the Chair and I have asked him to resume his seat. The matter is one for another Minister.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

That is something I did not know until now—that one can discuss An Bord Fáilte under a different Department from that of Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Griffin

This is a most important Vote. While all agree that our major industry is agriculture, the development of our industrial arm is of paramount importance. It was most encouraging to hear the Minister state yesterday that the benefits accruing from the amendment of the Control of Manufactures Act are considerable. The urgent need for Industrial development in rural Ireland cannot be over emphasised. Agriculture now and for some time past has not been giving any appreciable amount of employment. The employment is declining rapidly, because of the advent of modern machinery. People in rural Ireland, who had enjoyed employment down the years before modern machinery was introduced, have lost it now.

If we are to provide more employment and stop large-scale emigration, we must try to bring into rural districts any big industry that can be secured. The industrial policy of Fianna Fáil, and the consequent enactment of the Control of Manufactures Act of 1933, has been clearly demonstrated throughout the length and breadth of the State. Immediately following the enactment of that Act, various industries were established in many towns. Most of them are progressing to-day. In some cases they were established against very adverse criticism of Deputies here and from a large section of the general public. Most pernicious statements were made here about those factories—that they were set up by Jewmen and that they employed sweated labour. They were termed "back-room shacks" and "sweat shops". To-day most of those factories are giving lasting, lucrative employment. I do not think any member of the House has had more experience of the struggle to establish industries in rural Ireland than I have had.

Mr. Dillon

Tell us about it.

Mr. Griffin

I was very glad to be one of the few in my own native town of Trim who set out in 1933 to establish an industry there to give employment to boys and girls in that town. It was impossible to secure sufficient capital in the town, although it is reputed to be one of the richest towns in rural areas. We had to come to the City of Dublin, to get industrialists here to give us assistance. The people in the town were most antagonistic towards the development of Irish industry. Everything possible was done to impede progress but to-day I am very glad to say that we have three industries there. Not alone are they giving employment to a large number of our people, but they are rewarding our investors with a very remunerative dividend each year. Had the same happened in many other towns in past years, the unfortunate cancer eating up our population would not exist to-day. If people invested their money in Irish industries, instead of investing it abroad, we would have a far better and more comfortable country to live in to-day. The real explanation why the country is not industrialised is that certain people preferred to invest their money in foreign companies rather than see our workers get employment at home in their own factories.

Another aspect is the apathy amongst the general public towards goods of Irish manufacture. In some big stores in Dublin and provincial towns, on many occasions one finds the assistants recommending foreign manufactured goods in preference to those of home manufacture. I have had that experience myself. It is a process which has gone on down the years, something which was injected into the people— that anything manufactured in Ireland was of inferior quality. The factories of which I have had experience and with which I have been connected have been only about 20 years in operation. We had considerable trouble at first in trying to sell our goods, but to-day not alone are we supplying the home market but we are exporting our products.

The same remarks apply to the fuel position. If more of our people were to buy native fuel, many more could be employed by Bord na Móna. Our Irish industries are so developed and mechanised now that most of our factories can burn Irish fuel, and if more people followed that example, much more employment would be given on the bogs.

I suggest that there should be more co-ordination between the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture. Industries based on agricultural production would be far more beneficial to the country than factories that have to depend on imported raw materials. I suggest various industries could be established based on raw materials produced on the land, such as jam making, canning of vegetables and fruit. At one period on the east coast in Meath there was considerable activity in the growing of soft and hard fruits. At one stage the establishment of a jam factory was likely but unfortunately the promoters did not get any encouragement or assistance. Such industries would be of great importance to the rural community.

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the necessity of factories for some of our towns in Meath. Meath has been noted down the years as a ranching county but agriculture does not give sufficient employment to absorb the people available in rural Ireland. Most of the towns badly need some industry and I feel that, under the Undeveloped Areas Act, most of the industries are being sent across the Shannon. Other parts of the country need industries also and I do not agree entirely with that Act. I believe that any concern anxious to establish a factory in this country should go wherever proprietors of the concern decide themselves. Meath is very convenient to Dublin; we have good transport and I know that various towns are in a position to offer many concessions such as sites for industries and perhaps sufficient capital could also be provided. I am asking the Minister therefore to keep in mind any industries that might come under his notice which could be sent to County Meath.

I should also like to refer to the development of Drogheda port which, I believe, will take place in the not far distant future. Meath County Council has decided to advance a very substantial loan for that development and it is a scheme with which I agree thoroughly. When this port is reconstructed, however, a number of people who earn a livelihood from fishing will be adversely affected. They have approached me about this matter and I should like the Minister to keep them in mind when a decision on the matter is being made in his Department. The livelihood of 40 or 50 people is involved. While the development of the port is of primary importance I would like the situation of those people to be considered so that some sort of recompense could be made to them before the scheme is commenced.

Practically every Deputy mentioned rural electrification during this debate. I have been approached by various people in different parts of County Meath which have not been connected to the E.S.B. system through some cause or other, mostly, of course, through the people's own neglect. In other cases, lands were divided and houses erected after the rural electrification scheme had been carried out in that area. There are various pockets in the county and the charges they have to meet are exorbitant. It is rather unfair to ask any small farmer or labouring man to pay £60 or £70 to have the supply installed when it would only need a couple of poles to bring the current to the premises. I am sure the Minister and the Department are well aware of the grievances that exist. I think the time has come when something should be done to provide these people with such a very important amenity as electricity.

While we must congratulate the Minister on the great work he has done for tourism for a number of years past, I feel much more could, and should, be done. It is one of our most important industries. Some areas have developed and have received very substantial grants towards the improvement of hotels and other amenities in various parts of the country such as Kerry and Wicklow and other tourist resorts, but there are other areas which seem to have been overlooked. I am drawing the Minister's attention now to the East coast. In Meath we have a small stretch of strand which I think is one of the nicest and safest in the country but no grant of any substantial amount as far as I am aware has been given to that area. Any improvement there has been carried out by the local authorities. Much more could be done.

This seaside resort is used by very many young families on account of its proximity to Dublin and its long stretch of safe strand. The accommodation there for families is not what would be expected in a modern seaside resort. The roads leading to it are little better than back-roads although the surface is good. A great deal could be done if An Bord Fáilte would help the local authorities to develop the approaches to this seashore.

I conclude by congratulating the Minister on his statement yesterday. I think it was most encouraging and it is very gratifying to know that there are so many inquiries from outside sources regarding the establishment of new industries which, we all agree, are very badly needed. If, as I said before, we are to curb emigration and create employment for our people, the establishment of industries provides the only cure for that disease.

Mr. Coogan

I see no ray of hope in this Vote for unemployed in my area. I speak for an area that has been very badly hit in regard to unemployment. I come from an area that depended to a great extent in the past on the building industry. Building has ceased and I do not see what is to take its place.

The Minister will recall the Taoiseach's statement when he resumed office that the first problem he would tackle would be that of unemployment and emigration. I do not see anything in this Estimate which shows that any effort is being made to remedy that great evil. We have one major industry but it was started by the inter-Party Government. The then Tánaiste, Deputy Norton, went out and got the industry. We are now able to see the first of the fruits of that industry. We hope it will play its part although, naturally, we hope that it will be only one of the industries which we shall have in the future in our area.

To a great extent, the economy of my constituency depends upon tourism. However, tourism is only a part-time industry and does not give full employment. Day after day, we see tears shed at our railway station. We see the breadwinner, the father, maybe the son or daughter, leaving at the railway station. It is an everyday sight and it is time a halt were put to it. I see no hope in this Estimate of calling a halt to unemployment and emigration.

The building industry has folded up. The Minister should take cognisance of that fact and take some more positive step than merely passing a Bill and saying it will do the devil and all for the West. A moment ago, I heard a Deputy say industries should not be sited in the West. I see no reason why they should not be sited in the West as there is a labour market there— unlike areas in the rich lands of the East.

Captain Giles

The West is coming to the East.

Mr. Coogan

Cromwell said: "To Hell or to Connaught." We are on the rocks and the Minister would keep us there if he had his way. "It's tough, mighty tough in the West."

For the furtherance and encouragement of industry in undeveloped areas, I think we should have a special rate from C.I.E. Industries have to compete with Dublin and they have to pay rather a heavy rate. Another step to encourage industry in the West would be to give a special E.S.B. rate for power especially now that they have a surplus and are trying to sell it. I think that that would be one of the best ways they could sell it.

Not alone is it the duty of the Government and the Minister of this Department and the Minister to see is also the duty of the Minister to see that industries already established are protected and given every assistance to develop further. It is all right to talk about "the dole". People in the West are running away from it. That is why we have so much emigration. They are not prepared to stay and take the hand-out. They would prefer to go over to England and work where they are appreciated. Even little girls are sometimes offered 35/- a week but if they go over to England they can get £9 or £10 a week and they would be damned fools if they stayed here in such circumstances.

Industries in the West fold up overnight, as the Minister knows. There seems to be the mentality that Dublin is Ireland, that once you reach Nelson Pillar you are in the centre of Ireland. What does the Minister intend to do in regard to furthering the Undeveloped Areas Act? A major industry is sited very close to the constituency of the last speaker, although the necessary labour is not immediately available there. They have to go out into the country with buses. I am speaking about Athlone. I think the Minister had a part in the siting of that industry. Why was that factory not built where labour is immediately available? Why was it not built in an area from which there is the greatest amount of emigration? Passing through the Midlands any day, one can see bus loads of workers being brought to and from that industry. The Minister should take steps to ensure that an industry is sited in an area where it is most needed.

I referred to the protection of industries already started. Though it may not be relevant on this Estimate, I want to mention protection for our little industries on the Aran Islands. It is a known fact that certain gentlemen cash-in on the little Aran industries such as the making of pullovers and belts or "criosanna" as we call them. The Minister should see to it that these little industries are protected as they help to prevent emigration. There are some "back-room" boys in Dublin who are ready to cash-in on anything. Certain firms in Dublin sell the genuine article made in Aran, and I do not want anybody to confuse my remarks or to think that everything that is sold in Dublin is the "back-room" boys' stuff.

I was glad to notice the improvement in the souvenir trade. There is less of the "Made in Japan" stuff on the market. We see a lot of these little souvenirs known as shillelaghs, but I do not think we can in any way be proud of them. They are merely relics of faction fights in the past. The Department of Industry and Commerce, through its tourist channels, should avail of every opportunity to put an end to the sale of souvenirs such as shillelaghs and the leprechauns as they are things of the past. We can be justly proud, instead, of souvenirs such as St. Brigid's Cross.

Tourism is looked on as one of our greatest assets, ranking next to agriculture. I am interested in tourism, as it affects my area, and I should like to point out that I have been told, over and over again, that you cannot get Irish tourist literature on the Continent, that it is as scarce as a snowball in hell, and that is scarce enough. People complain that we are falling down in that respect and it might be a good idea if we used Radio Luxembourg now and again to advertise our tourist attractions. It might also be worth while if we used television a little more. A lot is being done by television, but it is not being done by the Department or Bord Fáilte; it is being done by people who have the interests of the country at heart.

In my area, which is a hard hit area, tourism plays a big part and we have placed certain proposals for amenity schemes before the Department. There has been a lot of talk about such schemes being stop-gap measures which do not count, but I hold that amenity schemes for the benefit of tourism certainly do give a return. The Minister has these proposals now in his Department and I feel that their implementation will have a two-fold result. They will give much-needed employment and will give a return from the tourist point of view in the future. They cannot be looked upon as stop-gap schemes, as some schemes were described in the past, and I should like the Minister to give them his blessing, now that they are before him. Money spent on them will be well spent and in that respect we have a lot of leeway to make up.

I have raised the question of hostels with the Minister. The amount of money given in grants for An Óige hostels in Dublin, Killarney, Cork, Donegal and Wicklow in 1958 was £11,000, but Galway got nothing, not having applied. We have a case to make now that our hostel has closed down in Galway City, and I believe the Minister will give it his full consideration. During last year, we had over 3,300 visitors from overseas to the hostel in the Galway City area, but that hostel has now closed down. These people came from 31 different countries and, being satisfied, were in themselves an advertisement for our tourist industry. They go back and tell their friends that they got value in Ireland and, when this case comes before the Minister, we hope he will give it his blessing and provide a decent grant.

These figures I have given are all the more remarkable, in view of the fact that last year we had an increase of 1,462 people coming to An Óige hostels and of those 1,025 were Galway hostel visitors. Those figures speak for themselves. They make a very sound case and when that case comes before the Minister, I hope he will give a 100 per cent. grant, and his blessing thrown in.

There have been several complaints from different organisations that the E.S.B. are not prepared to give a special lighting rate for An Tostal, and at Christmas time. They may do it through local collaboration but where this is not available, they should not be so reluctant. There should be a special rate given on every occasion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would seem to be a matter for the E.S.B.

Mr. Coogan

Yes, but other Deputies have pointed out that moneys have to be voted for the E.S.B. and they have a surplus of electricity, particularly during the time of year when such functions come round. We have competition at the moment from kerosene oils, with the result that people are returning to the use of kerosene for different forms of heating, due to the increase in the cost of electricity. Another point is that customers who have been with the E.S.B. from the very start should get a reduction as they have borne the heat of day for so many years.

Reference has been made to Bord na Móna and it is stated that the Minister has no responsibility for what they do. I think it was Deputy Corry who mentioned it. We had a bit of scandal there a few years ago—I call it a scandal for it was nothing else. At that time, 31 new and unused turfcutting machines were sent out to the bogs. They cost £55,000 and they never left their packing cases. They were just distributed around the bogs and were sold as scrap for £900. I wonder what steps the Minister took to deal with that situation. I know some of his friends might get a rap on the knuckles and possibly that is why nothing was done, but the result is that the taxpayers have to pay through the nose to make up the loss.

I should like the Minister to let me know what are the results of the geological survey and what hopes it holds for the West. Further, I should like the Minister to expedite the implementation of the Galway harbour scheme. I am afraid it has become a sore question to me, because between the Harbour Board and the Minister, a game of ping-pong is being played. None of them will take responsibility and red herrings are being raised for the purpose of delaying action.

Irish Shipping, Limited, has been mentioned and I should like to know how two ships belonging to Irish Shipping, Limited, are tied up when an American line can come in here and pick up business in the Port of Dublin. Somebody is slipping up and the Minister should examine this problem to see what can be done. Another matter of importance to my constituency as a tourist area is the cross-channel passenger service. Can the Minister state if there will be a further improvement in that service, because as it is at the moment, people are afraid to come to this country? That is actually the position; they will not come. There is a rush during the peak holiday period and people find conditions then very exhausting.

The Minister told us he had seven proposals for the establishment of industries in Galway. That information was given to me in reply to a parliamentary question recently. Can the Minister give any further information on that and can he tell the people there what they may hope for? We have the workers and we have the raw materials. The finest workers in the world come from the West, but they are running from doles, and that is why there is emigration. Unfortunately, the few that remain to hold the fort have to accept doles, and to a great extent the rents of houses in Galway City are paid on Monday mornings on the arrival of letters from England.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 17th June, 1958.