Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas

Dáil Éireann - Volume 38 - 06 May, 1931

Vote 56—Industry and Commerce (Resumed).

Motion again proposed:

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £70,590 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála, maraon le Coiste Comhairlitheach na Rátaí.

[824] That a sum not exceeding £70,590 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, including the Rates Advisory Committee.—(Minister for Industry and Commerce.)

Debate resumed on the motion of Mr. Davin: “That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.”

Mr. Davin: Previous to the adjournment of the House on Friday last, I gave very briefly and in the short time at my disposal four reasons why Deputies should vote for the amendment on the Order Paper. The first reason was for the purpose of giving the House an opportunity of showing its disapproval of what I described as the Minister's half-way house policy for industrial development. By that I mean as far as I understand the Minister's policy, the policy which he has adopted of encouraging the development of industry through the agency of the Trade Loans Guarantee Act, plus the policy of selective protection which is the Government's policy with regard to industrial development. In answer to the question which I addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce last week, the Minister informed me that between the date of the passing of the Trade Loans Guarantee Act of 1924 and the 31st March of this year a sum of £325,840 had been sanctioned by his Department under the Act. The number of persons employed at the date of the passing of the Act by the firms who have received guaranteed loans was 110; the number of people employed on the 31st March this year by the same firms was 873. In other words, between the date of the passing of the Trade Loans Guarantee Act and the 31st March last the Minister's policy has had the effect of finding employment for 793 persons. Assuming that it is correct, and I am not going to say it is, that the total sum of £325,840 would eventually have to be found by the taxpayers of this country, it would have cost the taxpayers £130 per person to find this [825] employment for 793 people in the intervening period.

I do not think that the Minister will claim that that is a very great or a very marvellous contribution towards the solution of the problem of unemployment, and that it is no great effort on the part of the Government to encourage industrial development. The Trade Loans Guarantee Bill when originally introduced into the House received the qualified support of the members of the Labour Party. If the Minister will read the Official Report of the Second Reading debate on that occasion he will find that many of the things which were pointed out by the then leader of the Labour Party have since happened. He will find that if the suggestions then put forward had been adopted by the Government there might have been very different results now.

I would like the Minister to tell us, if he can, what portion of the £325,840 was given to firms in industries that had already received the benefit of tariffs. What portion, if any, of that money may now be treated as a bad or irrecoverable debt, and what amount of new capital has been put into tariffed industries by private capitalists? I am sure the Minister will agree that that has a bearing on the matter. The members of this Party contend that the industrial policy of the present Government has failed to achieve the objects for which the Government themselves adopted it.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

We are perfectly satisfied that it is practically useless for the taxpayers of this State, and we are satisfied that all these taxpayers will have to pay either one way or the other for the development of these industries and for the guaranteed loans which may have to be found unless these industries are reorganised on a national scale. We have a considerable number of industries which have received the benefit of tariffs, and I do not see that there is any co-operation between the firms concerned in these industries—cooperation of the kind which would [826] enable them to turn out and manufacture in quantity and quality the commodities that are required by the citizens of this State.

I take the boot industry as a clear case in point. As far as I know there is very little reduction in the numbers of pairs of boots imported into the Saorstát since the tariff was put on. There has been very little effort on the part of those firms who got the benefit of a tariff to turn out the type of boot which the majority of the people of this country require. I am extremely anxious to find out to what extent new capital has been put into that industry and whether the Minister believes that the policy of the Government in giving the benefit of the tariff to people engaged in the industry has brought about the results which the Government hoped to achieve at that particular period. The tariffs have got and are getting a fairly long trial, and in our opinion the people who were given this form of assistance have not done their duty in manufacturing the type of boots which the majority of the people of this State require. On one occasion I gave the Minister a copy of an advertisement which appeared in the “Daily Mail” and the “Irish Independent” on one day and which was inserted by a Northampton boot firm. That advertisement appeared in the “Daily Mail,” circulating in England, and in the “Independent,” circulating here, and showing clearly a photograph on the body of the advertisement that the price was 16s. 9d. in England and 18s. 9d. in Dublin, proving clearly that the people who want this type of boot, and will get it, will have to pay the amount which is put on the boot in the shape of a tariff.

The members of the Labour Party believe that the benefits of a tariff should not be given to any industry or to any group of people engaged in an industry unless there is some reorganisation of the present methods of production and until there is an assurance given by the Government that there will be a monopoly of the whole market available for the home manufacturers. The population of this State is only three million people. On the other side of the Channel there is an [827] available market of forty-five million people. The policy of rationalisation or nationalisation, or whatever one likes to call it, is being pursued there very vigorously by the industrial people, with the result that the available capital at their disposal makes it possible for them to throw their surplus boots or other manufactured articles into our market at prices considerably below what the firms here can turn out these articles at in the ordinary way. The experience of seven years which the Ministers now have of the boot tariff should go to show the necessity there is for insisting upon the reorganisation of these small industries on national lines and the necessity there is for guaranteeing the home market if that can be done without any disadvantage to the consumer. That guarantee should be given to every industry which gets the benefit of a tariff at the expense of the taxpayers of this State.

The point is, can we establish new industries or maintain existing ones by tariffs or guaranteed loans unless we give a monopoly to those who control such industries in our own limited home market? I would like the Minister's answer to that in the light of the inside experience he had of the working of the firms who got these advantages during the last six or seven years. Can this be done without a reorganisation of the existing industries and a greater and more direct form of national control? We say not. If the Minister believes there is any good ground for that opinion then it is up to him to alter the policy of the Government which they have followed and face the new situation that confronts him.

There is another matter that I would like to refer to. From my own personal observations of the manner in which the Trade Loans Guarantee Act has been and is being administered, it is being administered only nominally by the Department of Industry and Commerce but in reality by a well-known firm of chartered accountants in this State. An application for a loan is referred to an Advisory Committee consisting of certain selected persons, people who are heads [828] of certain firms of chartered accountants in the State, plus one person— very seldom more—who has some experience of the working of the industry. The loan is sanctioned by the Minister through the agency of the Industrial Trust, the directors of which consist practically of the controlling individuals of these very same firms of chartered accountants and auditors. The Industrial Trust, then, has the power to appoint directors or a certain number of directors on Boards of the firms which get the benefit of the loan. Again, these firms, consisting of accountants and auditors, nominate a representative of their own as a director of the firm that gets the benefit of the loan, and when it comes to the winding-up of the firm, strangely, it is wound-up by the same individuals. If there is any responsibility given in the future to the Minister of continuing the policy outlined in the Trade Loans Guarantee Act there must be more authority and more responsibility thrown upon the Minister and far less upon the people who have been administering this Act up to the present.

In dealing with this Trade Loans Guarantee Act and its results so far as the finding of employment for citizens of this State is concerned, I think the Minister will agree that it has been a very costly experiment up to the present. I asked the Minister, and I hope he will be able to furnish the figures when replying, to give us approximately the amount of irrecoverable debts which will have to be met hereafter by the taxpayers. We all know that certain firms who got the benefit of this particular Act have since closed down and that others, I am very sorry to say, are on the verge of closing down. This is the only Vote on which this matter can be thoroughly thrashed out, and the House is entitled to get such information as the Minister has at his disposal on the working of the Act up to the present time. I hope that he will supply the figures that have been asked for.

Mr. Good: Will the Deputy say why the costs of production are so high in the particular industry referred to?

[829] Mr. Davin: The excessive rates of interest charged by the rotten banking system we have in this country.

Mr. Good: If the Deputy cannot answer I will be able to help him later on.

Mr. Davin: I am sure that answer is not satisfactory to the Deputy. We know, at any rate, that a considerable amount of money was given for the purpose of establishing a dead meat factory in Drogheda. I do not know to what extent the State will be involved in a bad debt in connection with that particular transaction. We know also that a fairly decent amount has been guaranteed to the Glass Bottle Co. at Ringsend, and I regret to say that that particular firm, which up to last November was giving employment to close upon 200 people, is now, for all practical purposes, closed down. I would like to know whether the Minister has any information in that matter, or whether there is any possibility of giving any assistance whereby that particular industry can be carried on. I was one of a number of members of this Party who were asked to meet a deputation representing the people on the workers' side. We heard a very long story concerning what led up to the closing down or partial closing down of that particular factory. I was one of a number of members of this Party also who subsequently met those who had some responsibility for the management of the concern. Any ordinary-minded man deducting fifty per cent. from what had been said on both sides could not come to any definite conclusion as to where the real responsibility rests in connection with that particular matter. From what I could gather, it is a regrettable state of affairs, considering that the concern had received £50,000 at the expense of the taxpayers of this country, that both the management and employees of the concern should so differ as to lead up to the closing down of the concern and thus deprive 200 people of very valuable and useful employment. There are other Deputies in this House who have a far greater responsibility in connection with that particular matter by reason of the fact that they [830] represent the area concerned, and perhaps it might not be right for me to go any further into the matter. Perhaps the Minister could say whether, for all practical purposes, the firm is closed down, and whether the amount of the guaranteed loan will eventually have to be found by the taxpayer.

I come to another firm. On this I could say a good deal, but I will say as little as I possibly can for the present. It is the firm of Ailesbury Brothers, Edenderry. The number employed by that firm before the loan was asked for in 1922 was 350. In 1929 and long after the loan had been given by the Department of Industry and Commerce the figure dropped to 250. Unfortunately, at the present time, as far as I can find out, there are only 98 persons employed, many of them casually, in that particular concern. Rumours have been circulated by the management of the concern that there is a likelihood of the Edenderry factory closing down in the near future. Deputy Lemass has been touring that part of my constituency, and he is reported in the local Press to have held conferences, whatever that may mean, with some people, and possibly with the management of the factory. Perhaps he will be able to give some information in addition to whatever the Minister may be able to give in the matter. However, the number of people employed in 1922 was 350, and it has now dropped to 98. There is something radically wrong with the management or working of the place. This particular industry got the benefit of a tariff of 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem duty on imported furniture and a guaranteed loan by the Government of a very respectable sum. The industry that cannot carry on and pay its way with such a generous measure of State assistance is not worth propping up, and the cause requires to be investigated.

I contend that there is something radically wrong with the management or present conduct of the particular concern. This is a case where there can be a fifty-fifty argument as between the Minister and the shadow Minister, Deputy Lemass, in connection with the working of this particular concern. A [831] loan has been guaranteed by the present Government or by the Department of Industry and Commerce, and the manager is a very responsible public representative of the Fianna Fáil Party. There will be, therefore, no trouble on that particular score. I am only concerned in this particular case in so far as whatever is wrong can be put right, and I say that anyone and everybody who can should help to find employment in that particular concern, if employment can be found for the numbers that were employed there in 1922. I might inform Deputy Lemass, and the Minister also—I am not sure whether they know it or not—that the representatives of the trade unions and the trade unionists have given considerable latitude to the people responsible for the working of that factory in so far as they have been allowed to encroach upon existing trade union regulations. Boys have been employed, and are being employed, even in spite of protests, where men should be employed. Skilled workmen who have served their time in many cases are being paid improvers' rate of wages. Trade union officials and trade unionists working there have put up with that for the purpose of helping the factory to carry on, and not giving the management or the Minister an opportunity of saying that trade union action was the cause of the closing down of the factory. I should like Deputy Lemass to bear that in mind, particularly in view of the fact that he has been holding some conferences there.

Mr. Lemass: I have not been in the Deputy's constituency recently, or in Edenderry for months, and have not been in conference with the manager of that factory, nor was I reported in the Press as being in conference with him.

Mr. Davin: The local papers reported the Deputy as having held conferences with the people interested in the working of the Ailesbury Factory before Christmas.

Mr. Lemass: The reporter was drawing on his imagination.

Mr. Davin: That is quite possible. In any case, I am sure that Deputy [832] Lemass knows something about the working of the factory, and if he does not, it is his business to find it out. If he accepts the figures I have given, it is up to him here and now to point out to the Minister how the working of that factory can be improved, or what he would do if he were in the Minister's position to find employment for the 350 people who were employed there in 1922.

Mr. Aiken: What would you do?

Mr. Davin: I am sure I will have his co-operation and support in attempting to have that done, if it is possible to have it done. I should like to know from the Minister—I am not sure whether it is his business to find it out, or whether he has made inquiries—why it is that this firm do no advertising.

Is it due to the conscientious outlook of the people responsible for the management? Is it due to the fact that they do not believe in using the taxpayer's money for advertising against the other people engaged in the same industry who are not getting Government assistance? Any good business concern, whether boot manufacturers or anything else, believes in advertising in these days of competition. I have been asked by people who have a life interest in the future of that factory to find out why the present management do no advertising.

Mr. Moore: They have no money.

Mr. Davin: Deputy Moore seems to know something about the place, too. At any rate, if they have no money they should be given sufficient money to advertise the very high-class quality of furniture which is being turned out at present in that factory as compared with what was turned out five or ten years ago under private management and without Government assistance.

Mr. Moore: I think the Deputy is not aware that the loan the Government would give could not be used for advertising purposes.

Mr. Davin: I am sure that if Deputies Moore and Lemass took up the same attitude on that matter as they did on the question of the toffee factory they would not get any further. If Deputy Moore will recollect the attitude adopted by Deputy Lemass on the [833] question of the provision of Government funds for advertising the products of a toffee factory, he will find the reason why the management did not advertise the furniture which is being turned out there in order to get a larger market and employment for the people previously employed.

Mr. Lemass: That has nothing to do with the trade loans.

Mr. Davin: I am hoping to learn something from Deputy Lemass on this. I think he knows a good deal more than I do about this factory. I know that he has far greater privileges than I have so far as going into the factory and seeing the books, etc., is concerned.

Mr. Lemass: None whatever.

Mr. Davin: There is a feeling in that particular area—at least it has been repeatedly conveyed to me—that there is a sort of political preference given to workmen engaged in the factory who are known to pay a penny a week into the local Fianna Fáil fund.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Perhaps it is no harm to state at this stage that it is the Minister for Industry and Commerce who is responsible for this Vote and not Deputy Lemass. The Deputy should keep that in mind.

Mr. Davin: I was addressing the House when I said that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy should get back to the Estimate.

Mr. Davin: I am sure Deputy Lemass would not object to that. I ask the House also to express their disapproval by their vote of the policy of the Minister as regards his responsibility for the chaotic condition of the transport industry—the go-slow policy of the Government which is leading to the bankruptcy of the transport industry. The Minister referred briefly in his opening remarks to certain proposals which would be brought before the House in the shape of legislation dealing with the railway situation. Of course, I am not in a position to anticipate what the Minister is likely to do in connection with that matter. I do [834] not know whether he is in a position to get up—if he does, he certainly could not justify it—and tell the House, after six years' working of the Railways Act, that his amalgamation policy is a success. If he has any intention of doing that, will he tell us from what point of view the amalgamation policy has succeeded? Is it from the point of view of giving better paid employment and more employment to workers who have a life interest in the industry? Has it succeeded in giving better dividends to the 14,000 or 15,000 shareholders, or has it brought about decreased rates for the trading and travelling public? These are the only things upon which one can judge of the success or otherwise of the Minister's policy in regard to the Railways Act of 1925.

Mr. Good: Which I understand was supported by the Deputy.

Mr. Davin: The Deputy misunderstands me very seriously when he suggests that. I think that the Deputy, if he will search his memory, will find that our policy in regard to transport was clearly put before the Dáil in what is known as the Railway (Transport and Communications) Bill, 1923.

Mr. Lemass: Is the Deputy against amalgamation?

Mr. Davin: I say that the amalgamation policy of the Government has failed, and I want the Minister to indicate more clearly than he did in his opening speech what is the next step that the President referred to when, in 1925, he said that the next step would be taken if this policy failed in three or four years. I hope it does not mean the continuance of a deadweight board of directors of fourteen or fifteen members, many of whom would be considered over age if they were working at manual or clerical work in the service. How many of the present board are over sixty, which is the retiring age for all railway men from active service? Does the Minister seriously suggest that any good business board should consist of such a large number of individuals?

[835] Mr. McGilligan: Does that arise on the Estimates? The question of directors is not under my control.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I do not think it does.

Mr. Davin: I certainly suggest that any alteration of the existing policy of the Government should mean the establishment of a board representing national rather than sectional interests.

Mr. McGilligan: Would the establishment of such a board require legislation?

Mr. Davin: I am not quite sure whether it would or not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I am.

Mr. Davin: I hope, at any rate, that the Minister will bear in mind the remarks I have been allowed to make on that most important aspect of the matter. I should also like to ask Deputies to disapprove of the policy of the Minister in so far as he has, apparently deliberately, refused to deal with the profiteering evil which has had such a disastrous effect upon the poorer sections of the community in the cities and towns.

The Minister very hurriedly made reference to this in his opening remarks on the last occasion that he addressed the House at considerable length on the matter, and said he was satisfied that profiteering did not exist to any great extent, and therefore there was no necessity for the Government intervention or of the taking of remedial measures to put the matter right in the interests of the community.

Mr. McGilligan: How could the Deputy ask me to remedy this matter?

Mr. Davin: I would ask the Minister, when making inquiries into this particular matter affecting the main body of the citizens of this State, to inquire what the farming community are getting for eggs, bacon, butter and milk in the local market, and what price the people have to pay for the same commodities in the cities and the towns. Would he be surprised to hear that [836] during the winter I know people who sold milk, and found it very hard even to sell it at the price, at 8d. or 9d. per gallon to people in the city who retailed it at 2/4 per gallon? There is surely some margin between the figures in that particular case to justify the intervention of the Minister. The same thing applies to-day and applied for the past three or four years in connection with every one of the necessaries of life on which the poorer section of the community have to rely. I hope the Minister will, if he satisfies himself that there is some grounds for the complaints that I make, bring in whatever measures are likely to prevent the continuance of this profiteering.

Mr. McGilligan: Again the question of legislation is introduced. I put it that this does arise from this particular Vote.

Mr. Good: Will the Deputy say if there was profiteering also in wages?

Mr. Cassidy: And also in builders' profits?

Mr. Davin: I asked the Minister to read the recommendations of the Food Prices Commission, which gives valuable advice. It is a matter for himself to decide on the ways and means that may be adopted to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission. At any rate, within the limited scope which the Chair has allowed me, I have given four good reasons why I think this Vote should be referred back for reconsideration.

Mr. Lemass: Deputy Davin moved that the Vote be referred back for reconsideration. It is our intention to support that motion, though not necessarily on precisely similar grounds to those advanced by Deputy Davin. Apparently Deputy Davin based his main case on the administration of the Trade Loans Guarantee Act, which, he said, was by no means a marvellous contribution to the solution of the problem of unemployment or of industrial development. In arguing that the policy of the Government for assisting industry, as indicated by the annual enactment of that Act, has been a failure, Deputy Davin is undoubtedly in a position to produce [837] facts which appear strongly to support him. Under that Act the State was committed to a liability of £326,000, over £175,000 of which it has already had to meet. The net result has been to increase employment in industry by only 773 persons. These facts appear to support Deputy Davin's plea that assistance of that kind to industry is unduly expensive, and not productive of substantial results. At the same time I do not consider that we can, on that account, abandon altogether the possibility of promoting industrial revival in that way.

In any scheme that we adopt for giving financial assistance to industrial concerns that need it, we must make a very considerable allowance for mistakes. Mistakes will occur. The type of concern that requires assistance from the State is a concern which cannot get assistance from banks, and on that account, the State Department dealing with the matter is liable to have a much higher proportion of failures than any bank directorate could contemplate. At the same time, however, we have to note the fact that the proportion of failures under the Trade Loans Guarantee Act here is substantially higher than the proportion in England under the Trade Facilities Act.

There has been recently laid upon the Table of the Dáil a return of the State guarantees which the taxpayer is about to be asked to make good. I would like to make it clear that I do not consider it advisable that the Minister responsible for the administration of this Act should be subjected to any undue criticism on account of the failure of the firms to which he gave assistance. At the same time, the Dáil should not allow any case of this kind to go without a very thorough examination. I would very strongly urge upon the Minister that a Select Committee of the Dáil or of the Dáil and the Seanad should be established to inquire into the facts relating to the six cases in which the taxpayer is asked to make good the guarantees. It would be possible for such a Committee to deal with matters that cannot be very well discussed [838] in public and in much greater detail than is possible here.

Of the six firms mentioned in the Report, I wish to make some remarks. As I have said, the total amount which the taxpayer is asked to provide is £175,000, made up of £150,000 in respect of principal and £25,000 in respect of accumulated interest. The first firm in the list is Allihies Copper Mine, Ltd., in County Cork. I understand that when the assets of this firm came into possession of the State they were sold. The plant has been broken up and the possibility of the mine restarting at some future date has been definitely destroyed. This mine, I understand, ceased operations in consequence of the slump in the price of copper. It was possible that the slump would be only of a temporary duration and that in the future there would be a possibility of the mine restarting again. I am sure it is not necessary for me to tell Deputies how important it is to the very poor district of West Cork, in which this mine was situated, that no possibility of employment there should be lost sight of.

Certainly no possibility of future employment should be wantonly destroyed. These mines, while working, gave employment to 130 or 150 men, and the cessation of that employment has caused very great hardship in that area. The only hope which these people had was the prospect of the mine being re-started, and that is now definitely removed as the result of the action of the Minister in ordering the scrapping of the machinery, some parts of which, I am informed, were sold at an amazingly low price. I am told, for example, that a Crossley engine which cost £4,000 was disposed of at the ridiculously low sum of £170, and that other parts of the building were sold at corresponding prices. When the Minister for Finance was in West Cork recently he was approached by a deputation from these districts and asked to consider the advisability of allowing that plant to be retained and kept in working order so that the possibility of taking advantage of any rise in the price of copper could be availed of. Apparently the Government has [839] decided otherwise. I doubt very much if the financial advantage of scrapping the machinery can have been very considerable. In that connection I would like if the Minister would tell us where information relating to the amounts secured by the realisation of the assets of any of these firms can be obtained by a Deputy. We have been furnished with a statement which would seem to indicate that the taxpayer will be asked to pay the full amounts of the guarantees plus the accumulated interest without regard to any sums secured by the realisation of the assets.

The next firm mentioned in this list is the Carrickmacross Knitting and Hosiery Company, about which I know nothing. The third is the Irish Fresh Meat Company, Drogheda. I think I am correct in saying that a guarantee of £70,000 was given in the case of this firm against the advice of the advisory committee.

Mr. McGilligan: That is not correct.

Mr. Lemass: My recollection is that the Minister has so stated, but I will take his word that that is not so. In any case a guarantee of £70,000 was given. The directors of the Company in their report to the general meeting of the members, which was held on the 1st March, 1929, stated that the losses which they had experienced as a result of their trading operations were due, mainly, to insufficiency of working capital, and a consequent necessary restriction by the Company to a small weekly kill, which was insufficient to carry the weekly factory expenses. It was obvious from the beginning that the capital resources were inadequate and they could not possibly extend their operations, so that its weekly or monthly or annual revenue would be sufficient to meet its overhead charges. In addition, however, complaints have been made, and I want the Minister to tell us how far he has investigated these complaints, that some part of the failure can be attributed to the fact that excessive commission was paid to cattle salesmen, some of whom were salaried directors of the Company. I think the Minister should state why it is that he did not take action in respect [840] of this Company earlier than he did and before the sum of £8,446 had accumulated in arrears of interest. It seems that the pending failure of the Company was obvious early in the Company's operations, and the delay as between the period in which it, in fact, ceased operations and the date on which these returns were submitted to the Dáil has been very considerable.

The next firm mentioned here is Cornelius Connor & Sons, Ltd., which received £6,000. I do not know anything concerning the circumstances of that firm, but I think the Minister should give them to us. As far as we can discover from the information which was tabled, that firm was engaged in the business of trading in milk in the neighbourhood of Dublin and was given this sum of £6,000 to extend its operations. Surely there are enough people trading in milk in the neighbourhood of Dublin to obviate the necessity of the State financing another? In fact, the Minister will recollect that the Food Prices Tribunal reported that the price of milk was being maintained in Dublin at an excessive level, due to the fact that there were too many people trading in milk. Despite the fact that everyone knew what the circumstances were, the Minister decided to give £6,000 to this firm for the purpose of enabling it to extend its operations and allowed £686 to accumulate in arrears of interest.

The next is the Wicklow Mineral Grinding Company, the only point arising in connection with which was the additional cost in which the State was involved arising out of the legal action which the Minister undertook apparently on wrong advice. The last one mentioned here is the Irish Glass Bottle Company, Ltd.

Mr. McGilligan: What does the Deputy say was wrong advice?

Mr. Lemass: I take it that the Minister was advised that he had a case which he was likely to win in the courts, and as he did not win I presume that the advice was wrong.

Mr. McGilligan: That is the simple statement of the Deputy. The advice was wrong because the case was lost.

[841] Mr. Lemass: That is the standard.

Mr. McGilligan: That is the standard. Is it the standard that rules with regard to clients and counsel?

Mr. Lemass: That has been the practice.

Mr. McGilligan: Good heavens, it is amazing. Did the Deputy find out who gave the advice?

Mr. Lemass: I did not; I do not think it matters in the least.

Mr. McGilligan: You were very inquisitive the last time. Did you find out?

Mr. Lemass: No.

Mr. McGilligan: It was one of the Deputy's advisers on the land annuities who advised us.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister has a good point to make now. I do not claim that the advisers or the members of our Party are infallible.

Mr. Davin: The lawyer members are.

Mr. Lemass: Not always. Occasionally they make mistakes. In any case, I want to deal with the Irish Glass Bottle Company. Deputy Davin stated that the failure of that company appears to have been due to the fact that there was continuous friction between the manager and the directors. I do not think that was the prime cause of failure. It is quite obvious that the capital liabilities were altogether in excess of what it could bear. There was no possibility of the company, even if it got a monopoly of the glass bottle trade, paying the interest on all these capital charges. The Deputy will, no doubt, remember the circumstances under which this £50,000 was given and the other liabilities which the company had at the time. The only possibility which that company had of ever making progress lay in a reduction of these capital charges in some way.

When the taxpayer has provided this £50,000 such a reduction may be possible, but it has not been possible heretofore. It is well known that there [842] was friction between the workers and the management. It appears to have been continuous and must have affected the efficiency of the Company. I cannot accept the statement that responsibility for that can be evenly divided between both parties. As far as I have been able to discover, the management appears to have been unnecessarily dictatorial and shortsighted in their dealings with the workers. Whether I am correct in that or not I am satisfied that no matter what the management of the Company did it was not possible to meet the interest charged on the loan much less repay any of the principal, in view of the other capital commitments.

Altogether, I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce can have no reason to feel satisfied with the manner in which he has administered the Trade Loans Guarantee Act. I think better results could have been achieved, and I said so before. I take it that it is the considered policy of the Minister to allow the Act to expire and to substitute for it some other form of legislation. Statements to that effect have appeared in the Press, and I would be glad if the Minister would tell the House exactly what he intends to do in this connection. The Act is due to expire in June or July, and inasmuch as the Minister has not abandoned all hope of giving State aid to industry, whatever legislation he intends to substitute for it will have to be introduced before then. I do not intend to discuss the circumstances of any other firm which does not come before us in consequence of a report from the Department. The firm to which Deputy Davin referred has apparently met its liabilities in this respect. If it has done so I think it is a considerable tribute to the management in view of the very difficult circumstances in which that concern has to operate.

Mr. Davin: Has the Deputy any suggestion to make whereby the number of people employed could be increased or existing conditions improved to such an extent that the number of men employed in 1922 could be reemployed?

[843] Mr. Lemass: The concern of members of the Dáil is not so much to devise plans by which a particular industrial undertaking could be fostered but how a particular industry could be fostered. The information which I have been able to get concerning the furniture industry here would seem to show that it is making good headway under the protection of the tariff which it has received.

Mr. Davin: What about the number employed?

Mr. Lemass: I am not sufficiently familiar with the conditions of the Edenderry factory to know whether it is not making greater progress. If, in fact, the circumstances are as Deputy Davin suggested, I am not nearly as familiar with them as the Deputy is.

Mr. Davin: Does the Deputy dispute my figures?

Mr. Lemass: I do not know anything about the Deputy's figures. The Edenderry factory was at one time doing a very substantial business in the construction of coach bodies, on which a large number of people were employed. That industry has been allowed to die out by the Government. An application for protection which was under consideration by the Tariff Commission for four years was recently reported on unfavourably. When a motion asking the Dáil to reject the report was moved here it was defeated by the Cumann na nGaedheal majority, although not one voice was raised to justify the Vote given on that occasion. I do not know whether the Minister's inability to defend the Government's action was due to lack of argument or to natural shyness. I wish to suggest to the Minister that if it was due to sudden shyness he has an opportunity of doing so now, and I will be very glad to get an indication of the Government's attitude to the report and to know if they see any hope for the coachbuilding industry in this country other than through the granting of protection which it asked for.

Mr. Davin: Can the Deputy tell the Minister if he knows the cause for a [844] reduction of 150 men in the Ailesbury factory between 1929 and the present time?

Mr. Lemass: I could not.

Mr. Davin: Surely it was the Deputy's business to inquire when he was there?

Mr. Lemass: It is eighteen months since I visited Edenderry. The Deputy may know more about my movements than I do myself, but I can assure him my statement is correct. I wish to leave that subject and to come to another of very great importance and that is likely to attract considerable attention from the public in the near future. It is a long time since we had a discussion here on the conditions existing in the flour-milling industry. It is an industry which applied for a protective tariff, and whose application was referred to and reported on by the Tariff Commission. By a majority the Dáil confirmed the report of the Tariff Commission, and in the discussion which took place, fears having been expressed from certain parts of the House that the flour-milling industry was about to go as the coachbuilding industry has since gone, Ministers were at great pains to assure us that they were keeping an eye on developments in that industry, and that if anything took place which they considered detrimental to the interests of the people they would not hesitate to take action to prevent it. Developments have taken place, and on the 25th of last month it was announced that a scheme of rationalisation for the Irish flour-milling industry would come into operation on the 1st May.

It was stated that the general idea was to restrict the output of the mills in such a manner that the price of the product would be increased and that trading would be gradually confined to a definite area. That Press announcement drew an official statement from the Flour Millers' Economic Association, a statement which did not contradict anything I have read, but which stated that as there were no redundant mills in the Irish Free State there was no question of closing down mills, and also that there was no price agreement [845] in the parties concerned. In a comment on this development, the official organ of the English Flour Millers' Association, quoted in the “Irish Independent” of April 5th, stated: “The Irish mills did not feel the troubles of the over-production of late years as easily as the English mills.” I do not know if it is necessary to advance any argument to convince members of Cumann na nGaedheal that you cannot have over-production in an industry in which the productive capacity does not exceed our total requirements. The Irish flour-milling industry never suffered from over-production, but it has suffered and is suffering from over-importation. The purpose of the rationalisation scheme appears to be to stabilise the existing volume of imports. The production of the Irish flour mills may not be decreased, but, if this rationalisation scheme is allowed to go through, all possibility of getting it increased is going to be destroyed. The Minister looked without concern on the invasion of the industry by the British flour-milling combine and thought, in fact, that it was a good development, but now he is faced with the situation that the mills in this country are going to be restricted to a maximum output equal to the average over the past few years. That is the declared intention of this new organisation at present, although it is quite likely that in the near future its aims will be changed and that we will find a gradual restriction of the output of the Irish flour mills coming into operation, with the consequent gradual increase in the importation of English flour.

We are definitely opposed to this rationalisation project because we think that it is fraught with considerable danger to the Irish people, and we think that the Minister should take action to prevent it as soon as possible. There is probably need for some organisation that would increase the efficiency and improve the selling methods of the Irish flour mills, but that does not appear to be the purpose of this organisation. We do not suffer from over-production, as I have already said, and there is no necessity to restrict our mills to a definite quota or [846] to limit the area in which they can sell. The only purpose which the promoters of the organisation could have would be to ensure that the importation of English flour will be maintained at the present quantity. We know from the trade returns of this year that flour imports are going up while wheat imports are going down.

It is natural in that situation that Irish mill-owners should jump at any project which would appear to offer them security on the present basis for the future. Under the rationalisation scheme they are, apparently, guaranteed a certain share of the market, whereas the only future they could see otherwise, in consequence of the Government's refusal to impose a tariff and the continuous increase in the importation of foreign flour, is ultimate extinction.

Not merely are we opposed to the rationalisation project on the ground that it is detrimental to the best interests of our people, but also because we see that if it is allowed to develop it will prove a considerable hindrance to any Government that attempts to improve the situation in the future. An international combine, controlling production inside and outside the country, can defeat any tariff which is imposed by any Government by a mere manipulation of prices. If the rationalisation scheme goes through, and if the flour-milling industry here is definitely linked up with the combine in England, no tariff imposed in the future will be able to improve the situation. The effect of a tariff will be merely to increase the price of imported flour, the revenue from which will go to the Government, whereas the price of home-milled flour will also be increased, the profits going into the pockets of the combine. The Minister, in introducing this Estimate, made some reference to two movements which he said appeared to be in restriction of trade, which took place last year, and in relation to which he took action. As a result of that action he said that one of these movements had definitely disappeared and that the other was forced into a channel in which it could not be harmful. Here [847] is another similar movement now, and I would like the Minister to tell us what steps he will take to prevent it developing in a manner which will be very detrimental to the interests of the industry and to those of industrial revival in this country as a whole.

Deputy Davin made reference to the transport situation and said that amalgamation had been a failure. He left us under the impression that it was his desire that the railway situation should be restored to the condition that existed before the Amalgamation Bill was passed by the Dáil.

Mr. T. J. O'Connell: Not at all.

Mr. Lemass: Deputy Davin not merely made the statement but was questioned about it and he adhered to the assertion that amalgamation had been a failure.

Mr. O'Connell: Yes, but surely the conclusion to draw from that was that they should go further and nationalise?

Mr. Lemass: Nationalisation is amalgamation. The word he used was “amalgamation.”

Mr. O'Connell: His argument was that they did not go far enough, that they did not nationalise them.

Mr. Lemass: The phrase used was “amalgamation.”

Mr. O'Connell: That they stopped there, that amalgamation was a failure.

Mr. McGilligan: He stated that our scheme of amalgamation had failed.

Mr. O'Connell: Exactly.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister, when introducing the Estimate, said that he had been considering the transport situation last year, and had prepared a Bill the purpose of which was the betterment and the preservation of the existing railway system, but during the and of last year, or the beginning of this year, he had certain conversations with the railway directors, as a result of which he found it necessary, he said, to embark on another line. I find it difficult to know what other line the Minister could be embarking on other [848] than the betterment and preservation of the existing railway system. Either the Minister told us too much or did not tell us enough. I think that it is due to the Dáil that we should get from the Minister some clear exposition of his intentions in regard to the transport situation. We have heard rumours and have seen reports which would seem to indicate that it is the policy of the Minister, if not of the Executive Council, to hand over complete control of all the transport resources of the country to the Great Southern Railways Company. The transport policy for which the Minister has stood heretofore does appear to have failed.

The amalgamation of the railways has not produced the results which he appeared to have anticipated. After five years the Great Southern Company has not come within 80 per cent. of the standard revenue, and the whole purpose of the Railways Act and of amalgamation was to put the company in a position to earn a certain minimum revenue known as standard revenue. Even the operation of standard charges as from the 1st July last does not appear to have improved the situation in the slightest. The Minister appears to recognise that fact. The difficulties of the railway company arise mainly out of the fact that a large part of their passenger trade has been diverted to the roads. In fact, the revenue from goods traffic has been maintained at a remarkably steady level, despite the decline in commercial activity during the past few years. The policy of this Party in that regard has already been made known. We believe that the interests of the railway company and of the transport users of the country require that the road and rail services should be brought under one control, but we do not think that that control should be the existing railway management.

Deputy Davin used some hard words about certain railway directors. Whatever we may think of these directors as individuals, we cannot consider that Board is necessarily the most suitable which we can get to control the transport of this country. There is need for some policy. The Chairman of the [849] Great Southern Railways Company, at the annual meeting this year, spoke as follows:—

“Whether the future policy of the Free State is to be nationalisation or a continuation of company ownership, the whole question of transport demands immediate attention in the interests of the country. At the Congress held in Madrid in May last it was abundantly demonstrated that of all the countries there represented in none did such chaos as regards road and rail control exist as in Great Britain and the Irish Free State.”

A need for a policy there undoubtedly is, and that policy apparently the Minister has not yet attempted to formulate. He has promised us three Bills dealing with transport before the House rises for the summer, and he said that even after these three Bills had been considered the whole general transport question will have afterwards to be reviewed.

Mr. McGilligan: I did not say “afterwards.”

Mr. Lemass: I will quote exactly what the Minister said:

“There are at least three Bills on transport which are now being considered and on which the whole general transport question will have afterwards to be reviewed.”

Mr. McGilligan: When the Bills are brought forward.

Mr. Lemass: I am not trying to make any point about that. If the Minister tells us that the policy of the Government in respect to the transport situation will be given effect to by these Bills, then, well and good, but from other remarks made by him on Friday last when he was speaking he certainly definitely left the impression that certain delays had taken places as a result of which the preparation of these legislative proposals have been very considerably delayed, and would have to be delayed for some time longer. If the Minister has any doubts on the matter I will quote him the relevant sentences.

[850] Mr. McGilligan: I would like if the Deputy would.

Mr. Lemass: “As I did not receive any final information from the railway company on certain points I put up to them until the early months of this year, that legislation has had necessarily to be postponed.”

Mr. McGilligan: That is the legislation which was in preparation last year had to be postponed. If the Deputy goes back a little further in the report he will find that.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister said he was proposing to introduce legislation on certain lines.

Mr. McGilligan: Last year.

Mr. Lemass: But subsequent to the preparation of that legislation he had certain discussions with the directors of the Great Southern Railways Company, as a result of which he abandoned the original legislation and proceeded with entirely fresh legislation on new ground.

Mr. McGilligan: I proceeded this year to draft new legislation.

Mr. Lemass: That fresh legislation was held up until the early months of this year. This is only May, and I take it the legislation has not yet been completed in his office.

Mr. McGilligan: Not all.

Mr. Lemass: If it has not been completed in his office, then the prospects of having it introduced here before the summer recess are very slight.

Mr. McGilligan: They are not very rosy.

Mr. Lemass: So I take it that the Dáil will have to wait a considerable time longer before it will have any idea or explanation of what the policy on transport is. The Minister refuses to give any indication of policy.

Mr. McGilligan: Does the Deputy think that I should give an indication of policy ahead of the Bills?

Mr. Lemass: I should certainly think so. I do not know what the Government's [851] proposals are, but in respect to the majority of Bills an indication of policy is usually given beforehand, sometimes, I admit, at country meetings rather than in the Dáil.

Mr. McGilligan: No matter what the reactions of such an announcement would be?

Mr. Lemass: There are certain cases in which it is not impossible to give an indication of policy. Certainly the policy of this Party here is to bring the transport services in this State under State ownership and unified control. I do not think any serious results are likely to accrue from the fact that it is known that is our policy.

Mr. McGilligan: Why? Because the populace know that it cannot be carried into effect.

Mr. Lemass: I do not know if they know anything of the kind.

Mr. McGilligan: Surely they do.

Mr. Lemass: Surely projects which can be carried out successfully elsewhere can be carried out successfully here?

Mr. McGilligan: It is one thing for a member of the Government, who has the backing of the majority Party in the House, to give indications of policy in advance of legislation, but it is another thing for a minority Party to say what it would do if it were in office when nobody bothers about it.

Mr. Lemass: After all, it is only a matter of weeks now.

Mr. McGilligan: You can state any policy you like.

Mr. Lemass: In my opinion the Minister is open to criticism for having allowed the situation to develop as it has and for having held his hand so long before taking action to remedy it. It was obvious very shortly after the Railways Act came into operation that the original anticipations of the Minister were not going to be realised. Everybody expected that the second step to which President Cosgrave referred then, and to which Deputy [852] Davin referred to-day, would be taken shortly afterwards.

In the course of his remarks the Minister dealt with a number of other matters to which I want to refer. He gave us a promise that a number of publications were going to come from the Statistics Branch. I do not know what reliance we can place on these promises. Similar promises given in the past have not been fulfilled, but if the publications to which the Minister referred are made available I admit that there will be a very considerable addition to our knowledge of the economic conditions existing in the country. I cannot, however, accept as reasonable at all the Minister's explanation of the delay in relation to the publication of the Census volume on unemployment which the Minister called the Volume on Industrial Status. As far as I can understand the Minister's remarks, these statistics are available for publication, but the written matter necessary to explain them away is not yet ready, and that without that written matter the Minister does not think that any useful purpose would be served by giving the statistics unadorned by this written matter.

I think that the Minister can take the risk that some irresponsible people may misunderstand the figures. It is now four years since these figures have been collected, and their value is daily growing less. I suggest that if necessary we could do without the written matter to which the Minister has referred. There is, in fact, in my mind a very strong suspicion that the whole anxiety of the Minister is to present these figures in the form most favourable to the political party of which he is a member. I do not think the delay in the publication of the figures is due to the pressure of business in the Statistical Branch of the Department so much as to the political difficulties of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party.

Mr. McGilligan: I never said it was.

Mr. Lemass: We are both agreed that it is merely political considerations that are behind it.

Mr. McGilligan: Why does the Deputy bring that in as if it were something [853] that had not been already dealt with? When one thing is denied the Deputy jumps to the other.

Mr. Lemass: The publication is being held up anyway, and it happens to suit Cumann na nGaedheal politically that it should be held up.

Mr. McGilligan: That is not so.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister referred to the Bill implementing the Article in the Constitution—the Minerals Bill. He said that the Minerals Bill has now been received from the office of the Parliamentary Draftsman, and that it has been finally discussed in the Department. On June 30th, 1927, the Minister said in connection with this Bill: “It will probably come before the House in the autumn”—that is, the autumn of 1927.

The autumn of 1927 came, but the Bill did not. On the 16th May, 1928, the Minister said that “Legislation is at present being considered; part of it, in fact, has definitely left the Department's hands, but there is no hope of having it introduced before the Autumn Session.” That was in 1928. He went on to say: “I hope that before Christmas there will be no obstacle as far as this House can take away that obstacle, to proceed with that Minerals Development Bill.” Now he tells us in the month of May, 1931, that the Bill is nearly ready, and he hopes that it will be introduced before the Autumn of this year. I do not know that the Minister's promise on this occasion is of any more value than the promises he made in 1927 and 1928, on each of which occasions he said that the development of the mineral resources of the country was being impeded by the absence of that legislation. The same thing applies to a number of other Bills which the Minister here has promised from time to time. Speaking on Friday last on the matter of prices he said that his Department had taken action which resulted in the reduction of the prices of one commodity and that in relation to a number of other commodities disputes concerning prices were in progress and that he thought that it was much better that the problem of excessive [854] prices should be tackled in that way rather than by the introduction of legislation giving them compulsory powers. The Minister has long ago declared his opposition to compulsory price regulations but he did promise when the Food Prices Tribunal reported to introduce two Bills, one dealing with Short Weights and Measures and the other with Merchandise Marks. The Minister knows that the Food Prices Tribunal urged the introduction of such legislation, saying that certain poor classes of the community were being robbed by unscrupulous shopkeepers through bad measures of one kind or another. Speaking last year, the Minister said that he had a Short Weights and Measures Bill drafted in his Department. That Bill has not yet appeared. He also said that he had a Merchandise Marks Bill fully prepared. That has not yet appeared either.

I do not know why it is that the Minister's Department in so far as the Dáil is concerned appears to be the most inactive of all Departments of the Government. It may be that the Minister has to give portion of his time to the management of another Department. In that case I would strongly suggest to the Government that the work of Industry and Commerce is so important as to require the whole time of a Minister, and that it is work that we cannot afford to neglect, no matter how important such things as the Royal Style and Title and other such things with which the Minister is so much concerned may be. It is almost seven years since a Departmental Committee set up to examine into the working of the Workmen's Compensation Acts reported. The Minister promised legislation to give effect to its recommendations, but he did not do so. Two members of the Minister's Party, Deputy Rice and another, introduced a Private Member's Bill seeking to effect some temporary improvement in the position while the Minister was preparing a permanent measure. When that Bill came before the Dáil the Minister asked to have it withdrawn, on the ground that additional information had become available and that he was to re-summon the Committee [855] to consider that information. The Bill was withdrawn; the Committee was re-summoned, but it reported that the additional information had no bearing on the subject at all and reaffirmed its original report. The Minister has not taken any action since, and the permanent legislation, which has been in preparation since 1924, has not yet appeared before the House. Is there any prospect that it will appear, and that those other Bills will appear in the course of the year? I have spoken for a longer period than I had intended, but I do not think that the inactivity of the Department of Industry and Commerce in respect to a large number of matters should be the subject of severe criticism by members of the Dáil. The dissatisfaction which has been felt throughout the whole country should be expressed by the members of this House. I therefore support the motion moved by Deputy Davin to refer this Estimate back for reconsideration.

Mr. Byrne: The House has listened to a very venemous attack by Deputy Davin on the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It seemed to me that was a most illogical attack. The Deputy pointed out in the course of his argument that certain payments for the relief of the unemployed were being made throughout the country at present. I remember when the Bill was passing through the House to legalise these payments that Deputy Davin was one of the strongest supporters in the Dáil of the Bill. It seems to me that, in view of the support Deputy Davin gave to the passing of that Bill through the House it is now rather illogical that he should condemn or even criticise its failure. I think it is a very poor thing that a Deputy who supports a Bill legalising these payments should, when they afterwards appear in black and white, treat them as something that should not be done, or as something unworthy of the Department of Industry and Commerce, or, indeed, something of which the nation should be ashamed.

One would think, listening to the [856] arguments of Deputy Davin, that the Department of Industry and Commerce had done absolutely nothing for the expansion of Irish industry in this country, that no steps had been taken by the Department to encourage industry. If anybody would consider the reports which the Department of Industry and Commerce issued recently they would see what the facts of the situation are. Anybody who has read the reports, which have been sent to every Deputy of this House, would notice that one fact stands out pre-eminently; that is, that the industries of this country are not alone holding their own against world-wide competition, but that they are actually progressing in the present condition of economic depression that exists throughout the whole world. There is one thing that the Department of Industry and Commerce has got to be careful about. It seems that this House never takes notice of the fact that one-third of the people of this country earn their livelihood in industrial pursuits. Speaking upon this question, purely as a business man, it is one of the most important things that the Department of Industry and Commerce is charged with—to safeguard this one-third of the population who are earning their livelihood in industry. If the greatest care is not taken by the Department of Industry and Commerce, it is simply a matter of destroying all the industrial progress that this country has made within the past eight or nine years.

I think, in view of the many statements that Deputy Davin has made, that it might be interesting for me to point out, very briefly, some of the industrial progress that the Saorstát has made in the past few years. I regret that the Minister, when introducing his Estimate, did not give the House a short review of the industrial progress that the State has made for the past few years.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Minister would not have been in order in going beyond last year.

Mr. Byrne: Perhaps he would have been in order in stating that in the past three years there has been a considerable [857] expansion of industry in the country. However, I think if one considers the many industries with which the Department of Industry and Commerce has recently dealt, one can only come to the conclusion that considerable progress has been made. If one looks at the margarine industry, for instance, what has happened in the output of that industry? The industry is now practically supplying the whole of the Irish market. The output is now £331,000, and imports have fallen from £167,000 per annum to £3,987. Was not that due to some effort on behalf of the Department? In the confectionery and jam industry twelve new factories have been established since 1926. Was no progress made by the Department in the matter of these factories, all of which are working prosperously at the present time? Since 1926 the output of these factories has increased from £879,329 to £1,172,418 in 1929, an increased output of £293,086, or 33 per cent. It may be well to mention that there has been an increase also of 53 per cent. in the chocolate trade and 29 per cent. in the jam trade. There has been an increase of 542 hands employed in these industries, and the wages paid have increased by £60,000 per annum. I would like the House to recollect that these are practically new industries as far as this country is concerned, and the Labour Party, above all parties in this House, ought to give honour where honour is due, as far as industrial progress and industrial employment are concerned.

Mr. O'Connell: Would the Deputy tell us about boots?

Mr. Byrne: I will refer to the items that I want to refer to. There has been a lot of talk about the bacon-curing industry. In the bacon-curing industry two new factories have been established since 1927. All these establishments at the present time are practically working full time, and there has been an increased output of almost half a million pounds. The farmers have received £639,000 in increased prices for their commodities. There has been an increase of 650 hands, and wages have increased by £41,548. If there is one industry more than [858] another that has been criticised from the opposite side of the House as being in a very depressed condition it is the bacon industry. We ought at least to be fair to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, no matter from what angle we speak, when we are speaking about industrial questions.

Mr. O'Connell: What did the Minister do for the bacon industry?

Mr. Byrne: Let us speak of things as they exist, not as the Labour Party, perhaps, would have them to exist. Look at any other of the trades which have been dealt with by the Department. Take the clothing trade. Has there been no industrial progress made in the clothing trade? If Deputies would look at the reports to which I have referred the fact that there has been considerable progress made in the clothing trade would be evident. Would it astonish the House to know that since 1926 there have been ten new factories opened? Despite the world depression at the present time, ten new factories have been established in a trade that is practically new to the country. That is something that the Minister ought to be congratulated on and not be criticised about. In that industry at the present time we have 4,500 hands employed, an increase of 1,300 hands, and that is one of the industries about which there has been very severe criticism.

Deputy O'Connell asked me to deal with boots and shoes. I want to look at that in as fair a way as possible. In the boot and shoe industry the wages bill is now £93,726 per annum.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Perhaps the Deputy would tell me what all this has got to do with the administration of the Minister's Department in the last twelve months?

Mr. Byrne: I am dealing with the arguments put forward by the Labour Party.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I do not think the Deputy is.

Mr. Byrne: With all respect, I am dealing with the particular industry that I have been requested from the Labour Benches to deal with.

[859] An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: What we have got to consider on this Vote is the administration of the Department of Industry and Commerce during the last twelve months, and nothing else.

Mr. Byrne: Has it been efficient or inefficient? How can we find out whether it has been efficient or inefficient without looking at certain facts and figures? I think there is no Deputy in this House who sticks more closely to the subject than I do. I will be very brief as far as this particular industry is concerned. There has been an increase of 126 hands in the industry. There are now 1,125 hands employed. Let me take another industry. The woollen trade is now employing 600 extra hands. The blanket industry is employing 390 extra hands. We are making now 80 per cent. of the blankets required in the Irish Free State. The progress made in these industries has been made during the period to which I refer, and part of it has been made in the period under review. If one looks at the new Ford factory——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Surely that has nothing to do with the Minister's administration in the last twelve months?

Mr. Byrne: In dealing with the administration of the Department it is necessary to deal with the policy of the Department and with the methods which the Department has used in the expansion of industry. It is necessary to ask those criticising the Estimates, not in a constructive but a destructive way, if the policy and administration of the Department have not made for industrial progress. If one looks at the exports he will find a figure of £10,000,000 for Guinness's stout. That may not be palatable news to the Labour Party, but at least one has to be fair to the Government when discussing industrial questions. The policy and administration of the Department of Industry and Commerce have everything to do with it. If the Labour Party do not know that upon the policy and administration of the Department the prosperity of this industry depends then they are not fit to [860] represent their constituents in the Dáil.

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare): We will take a shot at it.

Mr. Byrne: You may have a shot at it, and you are only having a shot. We have, through the administration of this Department, a revenue from tariffs of £1,335,000. That is due to the administration of the Department and nothing else. Through the policy of the Department we have, perhaps, the smallest number of unemployed of any country in Europe, with the exception of France.

Mr. Hogan: What are the figures?

Mr. Byrne: It was stated a few days ago that the registered unemployed numbered about 25,000.

Mr. Hogan: Do you accept that?

Mr. Byrne: There are in Northern Ireland, which is only a fraction of the Free State, several thousands more than that.

Mr. Hogan: It is not a portion of the Free State.

Mr. Byrne: I accept that correction— it is portion of Ireland. There are more unemployed in the city of Glasgow than in the whole of the Free State. There are more unemployed in the city of Liverpool than in the whole of the Free State. Is that position not due to the wisdom and administration of the Department?

Mr. Anthony: Talk about India and China.

Mr. Byrne: Deputy Anthony is a great wit, especially when he has no argument. If I am touching the Labour Party on the raw, I think it is time that they got a little touch. The Labour Party, if they want to be fair, honest and straight, and criticise the Estimate upon its merits, should recognise that we have a smaller ratio of unemployed than any country in Europe. We have listened to Deputy Lemass for a long time dealing with the problem of rationalisation. I hope you, sir, will not rule me out of order if I say a word about what rationalisa- [861] tion means. It appears to me that those who criticise rationalisation in the flour industry do not appear to know what is the object of rationalisation. I am sure Deputy Anthony knows very little about it. I do not know whether he will support the views put forward by Deputy Lemass or not, that rationalisation necessarily means reduced output. Anyone who knew anything about political economy would not attempt to make a statement of that kind.

Mr. Anthony: It produces reduced employment.

Mr. Byrne: It does not necessarily mean reduced employment. If rationalisation is carried out in a proper way it means, not reduced employment, but increased employment, and it certainly means increased output. I have no hesitation in saying that it means a reduction of overhead expenses; it means the elimination of waste in an industry, and the putting of an industry on a proper economic basis, so that it can meet competition. Deputy Lemass was very careful in dealing with this to keep away from the actual state of the grain milling industry at present. If he had looked at the report of the Department what would he have found the economic condition of that industry to be? Would he have found it to be in the condition of decay that we were told a few months ago it would inevitably fall into when certain proposals were put forward by Deputy Anthony in this House and were not accepted? The figures are there for Deputy Anthony to read as well as for me. The grain milling industry shows an increase of 6 per cent. output in flour and a reduction in imports of over 83,000 cwts. There is not much sign of decay there. Is that due to the administration and policy of the Department? I think the Department has played no small part against very severe criticism in having that state of affairs exist at the present time. If one looks at the production of maize meal one will find an increase of 15 per cent., or over 811,000 cwts. If one looks at [862] flaked meal, one will find an increase of 132 per cent., while the imports have fallen off by over 158,000 cwts. That is the great criticism that has been put forward by the Opposition. That is the great criticism put forward by Deputy Davin and the Labour Party for the referring back of this estimate. Has there been a single sound argument advanced why the estimate should not be passed? The only thing I feel sorry for is that the amount of the estimate is not considerably larger. In my opinion, if the industries of this country are to be expanded in the way which it is undoubtedly possible to expand them, the country will have to expend a considerably larger sum of money than the amount contained in this estimate.

There is one thing I should like to say to the Minister, and I say it by no means in the way of criticism. I should like to ask him has any progress been made in the negotiations regarding the cement industry. I have had communications from many quarters asking me to take up this question with the Department. I do think that when we have available deposits of material for the manufacture of cement here something should be done to satisfy the areas in which these deposits exist that the Department is alive to the necessity for getting ahead with the development of this industry in the same fashion that they have got ahead with the development of the other industries to which I have referred. I realise something that perhaps Labour Deputies do not understand. I realise that large-scale production in this country is practically impossible. I realise the diversity of the industrial imports that come into the country. But if there is one industry more than another which, in my opinion, can be dealt with upon a successful basis by this State, it is the cement industry. I have been written to from the areas where these deposits lie, and it has been pointed out to me that certain firms have bought up these deposits on the distinct promise and understanding that the development of the cement industry would be taken in hands in the shortest possible time. [863] I should like to hear from the Minister if any progress has been made, or if he has any announcement to make.

I referred to the question of small-scale industries and to the diversity of the industrial products that come in here. In doing that, I am thinking at the present moment that in a little country like ours—that is, Denmark— they have more cement factories, and they are working there successfully at the present time, and they are practically able to supply the needs of their own home market. I believe we could do just as successfully in the manufacture of cement. I desire to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he could inform the House if any progress has been made in the development of the Irish cement industry.

Mr. P. Hogan (Clare): I am afraid I cannot rise to the same intellectual level as was exhibited by Deputy J. J. Byrne. I would rather talk in plain, common-sense fashion of plain, common-sense and mundane interests. If I were to argue on the basis of the logic used by Deputy J.J. Byrne, I would say, possibly: “Look at the great fruit crop we had last year, all due to the activity of the Minister for Industry and Commerce,” and then I might be asked: “Why does the Labour Party propose to refer back this Vote?” I would also refer to many other things that the Minister for Industry and Commerce would not claim to have anything to do with, although Deputy J. J. Byrne would attribute all to the activities of the Minister and his Department. I am never so happy as when I find myself in agreement with Deputy J. J. Byrne, and when he says that it is important for the community to realise that the safeguarding of one-third of the community engaged in industrial pursuits is an important matter for the community and for the Minister, who is responsible for the safeguarding of that industry, I agree with him. But it is amazing to think that while he referred to several industries, he did not tell us what the Minister for Industry and Commerce has done to prevent the flour-milling industry from passing out of the control [864] of the people of the country, and thereby endangering its continuance here. Deputy Byrne would find it inconvenient to mix Guinness's stout and flour, and that is the reason, I suppose, why he left it over, but the danger is, nevertheless, evident, and the Deputy ignored it.

I want to refer to some things that the Minister has deliberately ignored in his administration in the last twelve months, and it is not for want of knowing something about them. I have taken considerable pains to bring under his notice the fact that his Department through the administration and development of the Shannon power has thrown out of employment a very large number of men in the Killaloe area who were dependent for their means of livelihood upon the Shannon. Now when the Minister has utilised the Shannon power in the interests of the community for the development of electricity, notwithstanding every effort that we have made, he has so far refused to recognise the claims of these people. We had not very long ago meetings in that area and we had promises of support, both oral and verbal, from people with reference to the hardships caused through the development of the Shanon power. I hope these people who wrote promising their support and others who expressed their support in person will give us their support now in this Assembly, which is the proper place to give it.

I shall endeavour to put the case of those people before the House as understood by themselves. That case has been issued by the people concerned who give it under two headings. In class one it is stated:

(1) When the riparian ownership changed hands the fishermen went with the incoming purchaser, thus establishing an inherent right of fishing on those waters.

(2) When a fisherman died or became unable to pursue his craft, he was succeeded by his son or some member of his family; and this was the practice for the past three generations.

(3) When the riparian owner sublet the water, the incoming tenant [865] paid each fisherman £2 10s. 0d. per week, thereby showing a dual ownership. The fishermen were fixtures on these waters, and their rights were never questioned or interfered with by owner or sub-tenant.

(4) The fishermen's art or craft is highly technical, and the acquisition of this skill was confiscated when the hydro-electric scheme was put in operation.

—that is to say, his skill went by the board. It was no use afterwards.

(5) The riparian owners—Messrs. Whip Bros., Major Lefroy, and J. Crowe—were handsomely compensated, whilst the poor fishermen were cast on the “scrap heap,” and their acquired art and skill absolutely ignored. It is to be hoped that there is not special consideration for the rich, and none for those who require it most when their trade is rendered useless by measures adopted by an Executive Government for the benefit of the nation as a whole. This Machiavellian policy is absolutely destructive of all right.

(6) The fishermen on the riparian waters also enjoyed the privilege of trout-fishing in the evenings, thus adding to their emoluments—7/6 per day on an average for each man.

(7) The fishing grounds at Killaloe extended from Lough Derg to a distance of 2¼ miles down the Shannon, to a point where the Garranboy River discharges into the River Shannon.

(8) The increased height of water, ten to fifteen feet, precludes all salmon and trout fishing now. The number of licences taken out previous to the Shannon scheme in the Killaloe area was about fifty for salmon, and this year the number issued was one.

The second class of fishermen concerned——

Mr. McGilligan: Before this interesting category is finished, might I ask what has it to do with my administration of the present legislation?

[866] Mr. Hogan: What it has to do with it is this: the Minister has power to pay compensation to certain people who had claims upon the Shannon waters.

Mr. McGilligan: No. The particular class to which he refers do not come under any Act.

Mr. Hogan: The Minister has power to pay compensation. He has sufficient power under legislation at the present time to pay compensation to those people.

Mr. McGilligan: To the people mentioned by the Deputy?

Mr. Hogan: Yes.

Mr. McGilligan: No, I have not. It would require amendment of the Act. I have not that power under the present Act.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: If it would require amendment of the present Act the Deputy is precluded from raising a matter which would require legislation.

Mr. Hogan: I submit that it is not a fair method of meeting the argument to say that the Minister has no power under the Act. It would require a good deal of legal argument to sustain his contention that he has not power. I submit the Minister has not addressed any legal argument to show he has no power. I am not ascribing any wrong motive to the Minister there, but I am putting it that he has not put up any legal argument to prove that he has not power to pay compensation under the present Act. I submit there is legislation existing by which the Minister could pay compensation to those people. I cannot produce the necessary authority, but I submit he has the power to pay.

Mr. McGilligan: I have been asked this question several times, and I have always replied in regard to groups of applicants that to pay them would require an amendment of the existing Act, and that I am precluded from paying because of the restrictions imposed under the present legislation.

[867] Mr. Hogan: Let us argue it this way: That in the administration of his Department he has utilised the Shannon with the effect of throwing a certain number of people out of employment. Surely that is administration, and I am entitled to open up that by pointing out that his administration of the development of the Shannon power has thrown these people out of employment.

Mr. McGilligan: When the Shannon legislation was passing it was recognised that certain people would be thrown out of their employment, and for certain of those the House approved certain compensation in terms. For certain others it unfortunately did not. I am advised that it would require new legislation to do what the Deputy is asking.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It seems clear from what the Minister says that he is advised that he cannot pay compensation to those people for whom the Deputy is concerned without new legislation and, therefore, if the Deputy argues the case on that assumption he would be, in effect, advocating new legislation. The Deputy knows that would not be in order.

Mr. Hogan: I do not want to suggest new legislation upon this Estimate. I just want to say that that is an unfair way to ask me to produce my authority to show that he has power to pay compensation to these people. And the Minister knows perfectly well that is a matter that would require a good deal of research and examination of statutes that I am not in a position to do at the moment. However, I argue that that is an effect of his administration. He has thrown a certain set of people out of employment. That action is attributable to his administration.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: To the administration of the Act.

Mr. Hogan: Then he has paid no attention to that. I suppose if I am ruled out I will have to pass from it, but I would like the Minister to indicate whether he proposes to take and cognisance of their existence at all [868] in the near future. I will have to take other means of raising this matter. As the Minister has chosen this method of interfering with me, I will have to choose another method of raising it in this Assembly. Now, going further on, I think I will be quite relevant and quite in order in dealing with people thrown out of employment because of the operation of the Shannon scheme. I have a statement here, signed by a good many workers in the district, in which it is stated deliberately that people are brought in from adjacent and far-removed counties to undertake work on the Shannon, while there are people who did work on the Shannon Scheme idle in that district. I put it to them, was there any particular skill required? The reply was characteristic: some of them told me that the only skill required was the skill in getting the job.

Mr. McGilligan: From whom was the job got, the Department or the Electricity Supply Board?

Mr. Hogan: Have we no means of raisin