At the closing of the debate last night, I was referring to the statement of Senator Hawkins with regard to business and his description of the depression caused therein by remarks of mine. I do not like to fall back on comparisons of an odious nature, but I would point out that the former Minister for Finance, when questioned in Dáil Eireann with regard to prices and their effect upon the cost of living, announced to the Dáil that the public had the remedy in their own hands—that, if they stopped buying for a bit, they would bring prices down. In any event, I have that in common with my predecessor—that we both had seen that very effect clearly enough.
Senator Hawkins is of the view that manufacturers have ceased to produce because of remarks which may tend to take purchasers out of the market for a while. I have no evidence of that, although I asked my colleague in the Department of Industry and Commerce this morning if there was any evidence that would bear it out, but so far I cannot find the slightest trace of it. I was somewhat confused by Senator Hawkins' further remark when he asked me to impose a price control. I do not know what is the difference between asking people to stop purchasing for a bit, so that the stress of competition would help to bring down prices, and enforcing a price control presumably at a lower level of prices than now obtains. Such price control Orders have, in the main, not been effective—they have helped to raise prices rather than restrict them because they have to be taken by and large and so have not led to the desired effect—but if Senator Hawkins meant to impose a price control which would bring down prices and if the bringing down of prices caused unemployment amongst manufacturers and those in the distributive trades, he is going to achieve the same result by a more devious course.
I spent the morning investigating this mysterious client of Senator Hawkins who told him that he had paid 8/-extra for a pair of boots. It has been said of some men that they are so stupid that they could not do business with a slot machine without being fooled. I do not know who the Senator's friend is, but, as revealed in Dáil Eireann, the situation with regard to boots and shoes this year is that there is considerable unemployment in the boot manufacturing industry. Nearly 900 people were affected. That was in the beginning of this year and was due to two things. The first of these was that, somewhere in the early part of 1947, for a reason which I have not yet had explained to me, it was decided to remove to a great extent the quota Orders which were applicable to boots and shoes and also to relax the tariff conditions. The result was that tremendous importations of boots and shoes swept into the country. But that is not the whole story. The ordinary demand for boots and shoes, taken on the years before 1942 and including that year, thus giving a representative average—amounted to 650,000 pairs. In 1947, the home manufacturers produced two and a half times that amount and importations brought the amount available here for customers up to three times the annual demand. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, answering a question in the Dáil yesterday, said he had taken certain action already with regard to reimposing quotas and doing something with regard to tariffs, but that what he would do further about the industry would depend on how the industry would develop and particularly on how it developed a balanced trade as between the heavy boot and shoe—what we call the agricultural boot—and the other types. The situation in the country at the time Senator Hawkins' friend was asked, and apparently paid, 8/- more for a pair of boots was that the country was flooded with boots and shoes, and when, according to every known economic law, the prices should have gone down.
I have also gone to the trouble to look up whatever cost of living index figures there are in relation to boots and shoes. There is, of course, no segregation of the special type of boot about which the Senator spoke, but boots and shoes generally show no rise at all in price. All I can do is to ask the Senator to go back to his friend and get the receipt for these boots from him, because I think he has a cause of complaint, if not a cause of action, against the man who robbed him of 8/- for his pair of boots. It was sheer robbery in the conditions which existed either in the second half of last year or any part of this year. I have not been able to investigate the matter of the fabric because it is not so easy to spot, but any information I have would tend to dispose of the point Senator Hawkins made with regard to the prices charged. The cost of living index figure shows no increase in respect of clothing and that is what one might have expected from the amount of apparel of different types for sale in the country at the moment. The only surprising thing to me is that the cost of living index figure has not shown a much steeper fall in respect of these items than is shown.
The Senator also said that the trade agreement with France had neglected trade in the type of tweed made in the Gaeltacht. No type of tweed whatever is excluded from the French agreement. It may be that certain French customers will not take the tweed made in the Gaeltacht. I understand that it is single width and may be unsuited to the French market. If the Senator insists that we should try to change French tastes and make the people there take a type of cloth they are not accustomed to, he is asking us to do a great deal. The allegation is that those who made this agreement forgot the Gaeltacht tweeds, or that, having remembered the character of the tweeds made in the Gaeltacht, neglected to come to the aid of these people. The trade treaty is framed in general terms and there is no exclusion in it or in any documents concerning it. If nothing is being done with regard to Gaeltacht tweeds, it is a matter for those who trade in France. The other matters of a general and economic type to which Senator Hawkins referred, I want to leave over until the end of my remarks.
Senator O'Brien raised the, to me, very attractive matter of the university finances. I want to correct his figures before we go any further. The sum of money set down in one Estimate for university education is £327,000, divided between a certain number of universities and university colleges, but there are other sums of money devoted to that purpose. In the Vote for Agriculture, there is a certain additional sum and there is a further additional grant to University College, Cork, and these put another £60,000 on and bring the tot to £387,000. That is the figure I should like to get prominently before this House and Dáil Eireann— that the entire subvention which this country makes to higher education is something under £400,000.
As a matter of curiosity, I looked up the figures which I had always used for comparison purposes when in opposition and I want to present them to this House now. About 1938 or 1939, the Vote for Civil Aviation and Meteorological Services first began to assume any kind of serious proportions, but even in 1939, the entire moneys spent by the State in respect of aviation of the civil type and services in connection with meteorology were somewhere in the region of £60,000. The Vote for Aviation and Meteorological Services at this moment is £1,628,000, the subsidy to aviation alone being £600,000. We give as a subsidy to aviation services 50 per cent. extra to what we provide for the whole of higher education. When I add certain other moneys on a second Vote, it brings the civil aviation cost to £1,827,000. I suggest to Senator O'Brien that arguments based on those figures may be more effective when appealing to people who would not be appreciative of the arguments in regard to university education. Most people agree with it in theory, but when asked to pay they retract from the first position. If the country is able to afford £600,000 for aviation services, which are not likely ever to pay and have only a prestige value, it would not be too much to ask that the amount spent on university education be increased. I hope to put that point before my colleagues at a later stage to see if something better can be done for the universities. The pressure on the Exchequer at present makes it unlikely that such a provision can take high priority, but it will be considered as soon as possible.
Certain arguments have been made regarding agricultural development, which is the policy of the Government to which I belong. I am pleased to get statements from the side of the House from which I did not expect them, on dairying and dairy products being the pivotal point of agriculture. Senator Orpen yesterday said something about proceeding by way of trial and error, but that it may be possible to minimise the adverse effects of error by having some sort of thought beforehand. Very little thought was devoted to the sweeping rush this country was made take into the side of agriculture other than dairy produce. We have spent the best part of 15 years on this system of trial and error —mainly error—and now have arrived at the position that a Government Commission has reported that this concentration on cereal growing is not a proper thing for peace time here.
Spokesmen from the Fianna Fáil Party have put themselves on record here as accepting that aid will be given mainly to the dairying side of agriculture. When it comes to the question of how it ought to be provided, I find myself in difficulty. There are plenty of facilities at the moment, though possibly not all that agriculturists will want; but when that question is posed, one has to look at the answer provided by agriculturists themselves. They are availing of banking facilities and of the Agricultural Credit Corporation, and if a case is made that those are not meeting the demand, or are meeting it in terms the farmers cannot afford, that can be looked into. The case made that the amelioration of agriculture has to depend upon facilities at a very low rate of interest does not seem borne out by the evidence. I understand that agriculture at the moment is being held up mainly through lack of fertilisers and of certain equipment which cannot be obtained, at least with the kind of resources we have. That may be eased in the near future.
I welcome what Senator Honan said regarding dairying, but I counter what he said regarding Aer Lingus and ask him to accept my positive assurance now that the Government has nothing whatever to do with the running of Aer Lingus. There have been dismissals which are associated with Aer Lingus, in so far as Aer Lingus had built up part of their staff to serve a transatlantic service, and where the impact of Government has had some adverse effect. With regard to the staff of Aer Lingus, the Government has nothing to do with it. The decision to make substantial economies in staff was taken in December, 1947, but was stayed on request until the Government had a chance to see if there could be some gradual easement of the situation. The Senator will have noticed from statements in the papers that in any dismissals associated with Aerlinte, as opposed to Aer Lingus, certain terms better than in the contracts were offered to the employees; and the State is bearing the cost of that. Aer Lingus is operating a service on its own and will be left to do so. It will arrange the charges on passengers and so on, and the Board of Aer Lingus will develop that company as it thinks best. The Government will have no impact upon that service whatever.
I disagree with the Senator's argument about the amazing amount of good done to us by the Shannon Airport. That is an exaggerated statement. There is a sort of "Crewe Junction" traffic growing at the Shannon. No one would find any solid basis there for economic improvement. It is a passing traffic and has not yet been of sufficient good to balance the financial disadvantages from having to erect and now maintain that airport. I think the Senator would agree with me, having an intimate knowledge of that area, that the vast majority of people who come there do not stay more than a few hours. A very small percentage spend enough time to get from the airport to Limerick. If we could get more money and less advice from those who do come to the port, I would be better pleased.
The question of the Tourist Board is sub judice at the moment and I do not care to go into it. Senator Colgan says that it has upgraded prices without upgrading the services, and I think that is the case generally made. However, it was set up before my time, it is still there, lingering on, and I would like to have a decision taken that would put it out of agony or give it a chance to look forward to the future. That decision cannot be made right away. The Senator also complained that juries are called to the Four Courts in order to assist barristers to get paid on their briefs. That is a complete misconception. The brief over which a counsel would get his cheque would be out long before the jury would come into court.
Senator Mrs. Concannon has referred to the huge sum in the Bill. I am glad it is getting home to people—it is not the first time Senator Mrs. Concannon has made that type of observation— that the sums are huge, even staggering. Of course they are—far beyond the capacity of the people to meet. There may be the excuse that they were forced up in critical and exceptional years, but as those years are passing by we are entitled to hope for the assistance of everyone in reducing those staggering figures. In that connection, I would ask people to forbear from basing arguments upon such luxuries as the short-wave station, which apparently we were having built here, and which we would have to keep and incur certain expense in everyday transmissions, so that in the event of some war breaking out we would be able to have one last dying cry issued from the station to the nations of the world. It is not a very good argument on which to base a case for a short-wave station, in the face of the other matters to which I will refer briefly again.
Valuations are not a matter for the Government. There is a Valuation Department, the service of which is provided by the taxpayers. Whenever there is a revaluation—in the absence of a general revaluation code, and that is not contemplated—the revaluations are made at the request of the particular local authority, which takes the initiative. Also, the complaint about the increased rates is a matter for the local authority. Apparently, Galway decided to have it both ways and were not satisfied with raising the rate and letting the valuation alone. It does not seem to be pretending about a small increase in the rate and getting more money through an increase in the valuation. I would ask the Senator to apply to the local authority. Someone else made a point that instructions should go out to these valuers to include a reference to neighbouring hereditaments or similar hereditaments, so that the valuation might proceed on the basis of equalising as between areas. There was always a resort open to an aggrieved person, to go to the courts, where a matter could be argued out before independent judiciary.
Senator Duffy mainly referred to more general economic problems, which I am keeping to the end. He spoke of transport. An inquiry is proceeding at the moment into transport—not merely the activities of Córas Iompair Éireann, but also the Great Northern Railway; and in so far as there is any other transport body which, so to speak, bears upon the activities of those two statutory organisations, that will also be brought inside the terms of reference, which are very wide. Senator Duffy seems to expect that, before the inquiry proceeds any length, the Government should say whether they are going to maintain or abandon the railway system. That is one of the objects of the inquiry—to assist the Government in determining what is to happen. I do not think the Government ever will be faced with making a clear-cut determination that the railways must be maintained to the exclusion of road services, or that they must be abandoned. It seems that there will have to be some mixture, but the proper details of that are left to the commission.
Senator Summerfield referred to the acquisition of real property by aliens. The only evidence I have is such as may be derived from the figures of the 25% tax on the transfer of property to non-nationals. The tax has not brought in £10,000. There is either no property or very little property passing into the hands of aliens, or else there is complete evasion of the tax.
