When we heard there was going to be an adjournment this week we thought it right to bring forward as a matter of urgency this question of the delay in bringing in proposals dealing with the protection of the coach building industry and that it should be mentioned in that way. The Ceann Comhairle said that that could not be brought up under Standing Order 57. Accordingly this is the only opportunity we have of dealing with it at present although we will not have what we would like to have, an opportunity of having a definite vote on it except in connection with the adjournment of the Dáil. It seems to us it shows a want of consideration by the Ministry to propose to adjourn the Dáil over a period of five months when we have an important industry like the coach building industry practically on its last legs because of the inaction of the Ministry in connection with this question of a tariff or protection for the industry.
The facts of the industry have been put before the House on more than one occasion. The demand for protection of that industry was made back in 1926 and it was referred to the Tariff Commission in 1927. Now the Commissioners had three years to consider that application and the information we got was that this report was practically ready. But this Ministry that has been so careless about this industry proposes now that we should adjourn and leave this industry to suffer a further period of five months of loss and uncertainty without taking any action on it. Most of the members of the Dáil remember the facts put before them for this industry. It was pointed out that it was an industry in which we had the advantage of having a number of skilled workers, that it was an industry which was able to compete with imported articles as far as price is concerned, particularly motor bodies, and that the only reason why protection was necessary was because of the fact of the selling organisation across the water where the complete car is pushed to such an extent that the people who buy here do not realise that in buying the foreign body they are unnecessarily exporting Irish money and giving employment to the stranger. We have the advantage then of having skilled workers. We have the advantage of being able to get something like 42 per cent., I think, of the materials that are needed here at home. I think that the census of production in 1926 showed that the value of the products was over £1,000,000 and that about 42 per cent. of that were obtainable at home and had not to be imported.
From the Irish point of view it has the further advantage that of all industries, next to the building industry, the greatest proportion of money is spent on wages. Fifty per cent. practically of the money spent in providing the article is spent in wages: but notwithstanding the fact that it has been estimated that something like 2,000 extra workers would be employed in the industry and that it could be used to produce our requirements, we have this thing hanging over for a period of three years without any action having been taken. I suppose they will tell us that they had to wait for the Report of the Tariff Commission. It seems to us, at any rate, that of all the applications that should be dealt with quickly this was one, that this long period was not necessary at all, and that the Ministry ought in a case like that, if there is an altogether unreasonable delay in the Tariff Commission, to take action themselves. We are losing these skilled workmen. We are losing the wages. We are importing cars into this country, the bodies of which could be made at home, to such an extent that we quoted from a British motor trade journal to the effect that we were the best customer of British cars. The Australians were the best customers of chassis. The purchase of these cars involved here an annual loss of £600,000 by comparison with the Australians. These facts have all been put before the House already, and any person looking at these facts and considering the loss we are suffering should be against the attitude of the Ministry in proposing the adjournment of this House for a period of five months when we are told there is a Report practically ready.
That is the information I have, at any rate, that this Report is practically ready. I would like to know what justification the Ministers have for adjourning the House for this continued period without having this Report before it. I do not think there is any member here who wants to see our skilled workmen going away. I do not think there is anyone who wants to see this loss of wealth occurring to Ireland when there is a way to prevent it. Again, it is not like some of the other industries where there would be an additional cost on the poor man. Applicants for the tariff have held that they can produce as cheap as the British catalogued prices, particularly in the case of bus bodies and so on. The Ministry's whole attitude in respect to this in the past has been certainly, to use the least strong expression I can, very culpable. They have allowed these motor bodies at the time when we were getting in these British cars to flood the country to saturation point, and consequently allowed Irish money to be exported in buying articles which could be produced at home. Our attitude is—we intend opposing the adjournment if for this reason only, on the ground that there are a number of urgent matters that should be brought forward and particularly this matter of dealing with the question of the tariff and protection for the coach building industry.
