Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 May 1932

Vol. 41 No. 9

In Committee on Finance. - Customs Duties (Agricultural Machinery).

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move:

That the Customs Duties (Agricultural Machinery) (Provisional Imposition) Order, 1932, made by the Executive Council under Section 1 of the Customs Duties (Provisional Imposition) Act, 1931 (No. 38 of 1931), and a copy of which was laid on the Table of Dáil Eireann on the 20th day of April, 1932, be approved subject to the following modifications, that is to say—

(a) the deletion of the Schedule to the said Order:

(b) the reference in paragraph 3 of the said Order to the articles mentioned in the Schedule to the said Order shall be construed as a reference to the articles mentioned in the First Schedule to this Resolution, and the said paragraph 3 shall have effect accordingly;

(c) the parts of agricultural machinery specified in the Second Schedule to this Resolution shall be exempt from the duty imposed by the said Order;

(d) the duty imposed by the said Order shall not be chargeable on any component part of an agricultural machine which does not exceed five shillings in value;

(e) the Minister for Agriculture with the concurrence of the Minister for Industry and Commerce may issue a licence to import any grass mower, wheel rake, or swathe turner, and where a licence is so issued, the Revenue Commissioners may authorise the importation without payment of duty of any grass mower, wheel rake or swathe turner referred to in such licence or repay any duty paid thereon in pursuance of the said Order.

First Schedule.

Machines and component parts of machines of all descriptions (other than machines driven by an internal combustion engine incorporated in the machine) for use in cutting turnips, mangolds or other roots, but excluding machines for use in the combined process of cleaning and cutting roots.

Agricultural machinery (other than machinery designed and constructed for operation or haulage in operation by mechanical power) of any of the following descriptions, and component parts of any such machinery, that is to say—grass mowers (except lawn mowers), with or without reaping attachments, wheel rakes, tumbler rakes, swathe turners, hay tedders (excluding hay kickers), hay collectors (not exceeding 15ft. in width), hay carts or bogeys, horse drawn agricultural sprayers (excluding powder sprayers), chaff cutters, oil cake breakers, ploughs, spring tooth harrows and zig-zag harrows, one wheeled horse-drawn grubbers and hoes, corn drills, disc drill cleaners, beet lifters (excluding combined beet lifters and toppers), single and double turnip and mangold seed sowing machines, grass and clover seed barrows, horse drawn land rollers, potato diggers, manure distributors (excluding combined ridger and distributors).

Second Schedule.

Castings not machined, tines and helpers for spring tooth harrows and tines for swathe turners, coil springs, chains, steel fingers for grass mowers, steel bars and iron tubes which require a process of machining before being capable of use as parts of agricultural machinery, brass nozzles and rubber tubes for agricultural sprayers, spiral steel tubes, steel discs.

As Deputies are aware, when an Order is made under the Customs Duties (Provisional Imposition) Act imposing a duty, the Resolution has to be submitted to the Dáil within ten sitting days and approved of by the Dáil. Otherwise the duty ceases to have effect and any revenue secured under it has to be repaid. Within another period of ten sitting days a Bill must be submitted to the Dáil and must pass its Second Reading. In view of that, I suggest that it might not be desirable or necessary to discuss these Resolutions at length now. I shall explain the circumstances under which the Orders were made and the modifications in the duties which are now proposed, and any discussion which Deputies consider may be necessary could take place upon the Bill which will be introduced within ten sitting days from now.

The position concerning the Order made in respect of agricultural machinery was that certain information reached the Executive Council that some abnormal importations of agricultural machinery had taken place and that others were in contemplation. Consequently, an Order was made to prevent industrial injury being done, from the flooding of our market with foreign machinery, pending the consideration of the circumstances of this industry by the Department of Industry and Commerce. The examination of the circumstances of the industry took place in the meantime, with the result that we have now to submit to the Dáil a Resolution confirming the Order, with certain modifications. These modifications are set out in the Resolution circulated to Deputies. Certain classes of agricultural machinery are exempted from duty altogether. The Order originally applied to certain classes of agricultural machinery which are enumerated in the schedule. Certain classes there enumerated will not be subject to duty in the future. In addition, certain parts of agricultural machinery are also being exempted from duty. One of the matters in relation to the duty, which was raised here by Deputies, by way of question, was the necessity for permitting the importation of parts for foreign machines now in use here. We have considered that matter, and it is proposed here to modify the duty by excluding from its scope all parts for agricultural machines which do not exceed 5/- in value. Investigations that we have made show that that exemption will operate to exempt from duty 95 per cent. of the parts for the foreign agricultural machines referred to. In addition, as certain apprehensions have been aroused, it is proposed, in this year, to confer upon the Minister for Agriculture power to issue licences if, at any time, it appears to him that inconvenience will be caused through inability to procure any particular agricultural machine of home manufacture.

Normally, an Order of this kind should be imposed some months earlier than it was made so that the factories here would be in a position to build up stocks that would enable them to meet the requirements of the country in the first year. In this year, however, that is not possible, and, consequently, as some people are apparently of the opinion that the home factories may not be able to supply all our requirements in certain machines, it is proposed, where the necessity is proved, to give this power to the Minister for Agriculture of permitting the importation of parts for these machines under licence, free of duty.

Mr. Minch

Would the Minister inform the House when the licences will be available?

Mr. Lemass

As from to-day, if the Resolution is adopted now. The modifications contained in it will be in force as from to-night. I would like to give the Dáil a general review briefly of the position of the industry. The three principal firms engaged in it are situated in the County Wexford. There is also a firm in Limerick which produces a limited range of agricultural machinery, and also a certain number of smaller firms situate in Galway, Clones, Letterkenny and Dublin, that make plough and other implement parts. The employment given at the moment in the industry is roughly over 300. The employment given by the three principal Wexford firms never at any time fell much lower than 250. That figure has risen to 350. It is anticipated that the effect of this tariff will be to increase employment in the industry by about 500.

During the European War all the country's requirements of agricultural machinery were produced here and, in addition, at that time the Wexford firms engaged in this industry carried on a fairly considerable export trade. The factories are all of considerable extent. One of the Wexford factories is the largest agricultural machinery factory in what formerly was called the British Isles. They are efficiently equipped and quite capable of supplying all the requirements of the country as regards the agricultural machinery enumerated in the Order. At the present time, they are only supplying roughly one-third of our requirements. Their production in each of the census of production years was roughly about £100,000, while the total imports averaged about £250,000.

The majority of the foreign firms doing business in the Saorstát in these goods are linked up in trusts and combines for the purpose of monopolising trade, and some of the methods adopted by these trusts and combines make it exceedingly difficult for the home manufacturer to hold his trade upon an economic basis. The Irish firms are members of the Harvesting Machinery Section of the Agricultural Engineers' Association. That is a British Association, which includes amongst its members most of the British manufacturers of agricultural machinery. The Association fixes prices for its products in Great Britain and Ireland. On a number of occasions the Irish representatives complained at meetings of the Association that certain makers of British machines were selling certain articles at a lower price in Ireland than they were selling them in Great Britain. In the records of the Department of Industry and Commerce there are minutes of meetings of the Association showing that as a result of complaints made by the Irish firms the prices of machines sold in the Saorstát were increased to the listed prices fixed by the Association.

There is considerable evidence at the present time to show that the industry in Great Britain is passing through a very critical time, that a large number of firms there have been forced to close down in recent years, and that competition has become very severe. It is the opinion of Irish manufacturers, an opinion which appears to be supported by the facts, that the only hope of saving the Saorstát industry is the imposition of an effective measure of protection such as we are proposing.

Now various statements have appeared in the Press from people purporting to speak for farmers, and some statements have been made here concerning this duty. I would like at the beginning to clear up any misunderstanding that may exist in the minds of Deputies. One of the statements made is that the Wexford machines are not suitable for all types of soil, or for the conditions prevailing in all countries. The manufacturers, of course, claim that they can make all types of machinery, machinery suitable for all kinds of soil. In order to test the validity of the complaints made, we had an investigation carried out, and find that the proportion of Irish-made machines in actual use at the moment is the same in every county in the Saorstát. It would seem to be fairly conclusive, therefore, that there are no special considerations peculiar to any county which would make these machines unsuitable for use in any county in the Saorstát.

The manufacturers have given an undertaking to me that no increase will be made in the price of their products as a result of the imposition of the duty. The present basis will be maintained by which the prices charged in this country will not exceed the figure at which the English farmer can buy the British article. That guarantee is subject only to one condition, and that is that it may be modified by the manufacturers when circumstances arise that are beyond their control, such as an increase in freights or of the price of the raw material.

These are the main facts that I think it necessary to bring to the notice of the Dáil. If any Deputy requires additional information on any point, I will be very glad to supply it. I repeat the suggestion, however, that I made earlier, that Deputies should leave these matters over until the Bill to give effect to these duties is introduced. Of course, that is a matter for Deputies themselves. It is quite clear from the facts of the case that we can supply all our requirements in agricultural machinery. We have done so before. We did it during the War period when we had a substantial export trade as well. We can supply all that machinery without any increase above the present level of prices. By doing so, we can give employment to approximately 500 additional hands. We have met the difficulties which inevitably arise when a new tariff of this kind is imposed in relation to existing foreign machines in this country. The owners of these machines can secure, under the modifications proposed here, 95 per cent. of the parts required by them free of duty. We have taken the omnibus power of permitting at any time any of these machines to be imported free of duty in this year if the necessity should arise for it. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in recommending the Resolution to the Dáil.

Mr. O'Hara

In my part of the country very few mowing machines are used. The majority of the farmers there are small farmers. They have to fall back on the use of scythe blades. From my knowledge of the Irish scythe blades during the past few years, I feel certain that people would not give a shilling for them. I sell them and I would not give a shilling for some of the scythe-blades made in Ireland during the past two years, because they are no use.

A Deputy

Who made them?

Mr. O'Hara

They were Irish made. I do not go any further.

Mr. Lemass

On a point of information, the blades to which the Deputy refers are not subject to the duty.

Mr. O'Hara

Will the Minister see that a proper blade is turned out, and that the farmers will get a proper chance of securing mowing machines? I am not going into that matter, because I know very little about it, but I have scythe-blades in my house, purchased from an Irish firm, that I will give away for a shilling and which cost me 5/6 to 6/-. Is this going to apply in the future? Is the poor farmer in the west going to drag the shoulder from himself, trying to mow with a blade that is not fit to do the work?

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

The duty does not apply to blades.

Mr. O'Hara

Well, excuse me, so.

Mr. Dillon

I accept the Minister's suggestion that we should not be making speeches at this juncture, but I would ask the Minister, when he is considering the permanent measure, to take into consideration the following facts. Would he find out approximately the quantity of agricultural machinery in use here during the war, as compared with the quantity in use now? I think he will find that there is an increase out of all belief in the amount of agricultural machinery used now, as compared with the war period. I think he will also find that agricultural machinery brought in from abroad, was selling at exactly the same price as Irish machinery, and I think he might, with profit, look into the question of what the reason was; why Irish farmers chose foreign machinery in preference to Irish machinery, when the price was exactly the same? Must there not have been some shortcoming in the Irish machinery to induce them to buy the foreign machine? Lastly, the system in the sale of agricultural machinery is that every manufacturer has one agent in each district. Will the Minister look into the question, and see will the Irish manufacturers make available to all implement dealers a supply of their products? And will they adhere strictly to their old agency contracts and knock out of business every agricultural machinery dealer who had not been dealing with an Irish firm, for one reason or another in the past, reasons which I will explain to the Minister, in private, if he wishes?

Mr. McMenamin

I would like to know if I understood the Minister correctly when he said that the exemption only applied to parts not exceeding 5/- in cost. My information is that if that is so, the exemption is practically worthless. Take, for example, all the major parts of a reaper. They cost a sum much in excess of 5/-, the only part of the plough under 5/- being the point. The dearest point I know—the point for one particular plough—costs 4/- at present, while any other part will cost more than 5/-. Surely, if there is any exemption at all, it should apply to the dearer parts. In this connection, I consulted Deputy Corry, and I understood from him that the Pierce people are making all these parts for foreign machinery. That cannot be correct if there is to be an exemption now.

Mr. Corry

They use them for cutting lawyers' costs.

Mr. McMenamin

With regard to the point raised by Deputy Dillon as to the efficiency of these machines, I have made some inquiries in my constituency. I am not going to say whether my information is correct or not, but I would like the Minister to make inquiries, and to get an undertaking from the Pierce people, for example. I have heard it stated that the fault of the Pierce reapers is, that while they are quite good for cutting grass, they are not suitable for reaping oats, in the agricultural parts of Donegal, and that some of the large farmers there would not take a Pierce reaper under any conditions. Those are the actual words of one of the largest farmers in East Donegal. I do not know whether that is true or not, but if the Pierce reaper has that defect, I suggest that the Minister should indicate to the Pierce people that they should remedy the defect, so that farmers will not have to suffer a handicap of that kind. I will ask the Minister also to examine the figures and to see what will be the effect of limiting the exemption to 5/-. If there is to be any exemption at all, it should apply, at least for a time, to all the parts, because all the substantial parts of the reaper cost sums much in excess of 5/-.

Mr. White

I sell Pierce implements, and have sold them for the past ten years, and I never saw anything wrong with a Pierce mower, in regard to cutting oats, more than any other machine. There are a large number of British and Scottish made ploughs in use all over the country, and I suggest to the Minister that, for a year or so at least, he should allow the parts for these ploughs to be imported free of duty.

Mr. Corry

Why not make them here?

Mr. Carney

I, for one, cannot understand Deputy Dillon's objection to this.

Mr. Dillon

I have no objection to anything.

Mr. Carney

Deputy Dillon has asked the Minister a question, and, of course, the Minister is quite capable of dealing with it, but I belong to the same constituency as Deputy Dillon, Deputy McMenamin and Deputy White. Deputy White answered and contradicted Deputy McMenamin most effectively. Deputy Dillon asked the Minister to find out whether there were more implements used now than during the war. The Deputy should know perfectly well that there were more used during the war, for the reason that there was more land under cultivation than there is now. He also asked why the Irish farmer used the foreign agricultural implements, rather than the Irish-made implements, in the past. I say this, and it is an answer to Deputy McMenamin, who said that a large farmer in East Donegal could not see his way to use an Irish agricultural implement, because it was not suitable for certain classes of work, and that the machine used for mowing grass could not be used for reaping corn——

Mr. McMenamin

I did not say anything of the kind.

Mr. Carney

There are farmers in East Donegal who would not take an Irish-made reaper, binder or mowing machine, unless it was wrapped round with the Union Jack, and well Deputy McMenamin knows that.

They would not have an Irish-made article at any price some of these farmers in East Donegal. Deputy Dillon knows that there are men in this country who never would take an Irish-made article. I cannot understand the attitude of Deputy Dillon if he does not know that. I admire the attitude of Deputy White when he says that he has practical experience for the last twenty years of agricultural implements, and knows, as a dealer and a practical farmer, that the Irish-made article can be sold equally well with the foreign article and do the same amount of work. As a matter of fact, I heard him say once that he had a certain article, made by Pierce of Wexfor, which he had used for twenty years and which was almost as good as the day he bought it.

Mr. O'Donovan

I should like to say that the 5/- parts are not as important as dearer ones. I am not in favour of the tariff. Now that the tariff has been imposed, the Minister should consider, before bringing in the Bill, the exemption of parts which are dearer than 5/-.

Mr. Shaw

I welcome the Minister's announcement with regard to the modifications applying to what he describes as 95 per cent. of the parts of machinery required. His announcement will be very welcome to farmers who have got machines manufactured outside the country. I also welcome the Minister's statement with regard to the obtaining of machines which cannot be supplied by firms here. My information is different from the Minister's, and it is that there will be a serious shortage of many classes of machines, particularly as the tariff was imposed so suddenly. While I have no doubt that in years to come all the machines required can be manufactured here, and as good as any brought into the country, I ask the Minister, before he introduces the Bill, to have another talk with the manufacturers, and I think they will tell him that they do not expect to be able to compete this particular year. I should also like to ask the Minister to endeavour to expedite the delivery of parts. One thing that makes tariffs so unpopular is that it is impossible to obtain delivery of parts within a reasonable time. The actual cost is only a secondary consideration to all the trouble and the red tape and delays which have almost driven shopkeepers insane. If a part is required for a machine which may cost over 5/-, it might be the autumn before that part could be got through the Customs. The question of the delay is far more important even than the actual cost.

Mr. Bennett

As far as the constituency I represent, and the neighbouring counties are concerned, there is no body of opinion in favour of the tariff, either amongst farmers whom it concerns deeply or retailers who sell the machinery. I have not heard any demand for a tariff. If it is insisted upon it will entail a great amount of extra cost to the farmers, notwithstanding what the Minister said about guarantees as to not raising prices, and create confusion owing to the difficulty of getting parts for existing machinery. It will create a state of affairs which will militate against farmers. As I said, I know of no body of people in favour of it, and I intend to oppose the motion.

Mr. Hogan (Galway)

There could be propositions brought forward by the Minister for Agriculture which I would have some doubt as to the merit of, but I have none as to this. I am absolutely against this tariff and my point of view is shortly this: That industrial tariffs, generally speaking, and with very few exceptions, will increase the cost of living or production of farmers. Any industrial tariff which you impose will have the effect either of increasing the cost of living or the cost of production of the farmers. In that state of affairs, I think the Executive Council should have drawn the line somewhere. If they were forced to impose tariffs, I think they should have said: "The agricultural consumer as a class is the biggest consumer in the country and we will decide this at least, that we will not increase his cost of production." After all, if you impose an industrial tariff it increases the cost of living, but that is shared not only by the farmer, but by everybody else. Here is a case, however, where I propose to show that you definitely increase the cost of production to the farmer who will pay the whole tax, because this is a tax. Nobody else will share it with him. Nobody but the farmer buys machinery, and so far as there is any increase in the sale price of agricultural machinery, farmers as a class will pay the whole of it. This is a direct tax on the farmer, whether the tax be big or small. There is no question that if there is any increase in the price of machinery as the result of a tariff it is a direct tax on the farmer, and from that point of view I am absolutely against it.

I would regard as cynical enough an increase in the cost of living of the farmer, but the Minister for Industry and Commerce could say that. if there is an increase in the cost of living of the farmer there is an increase in the cost of living of every other consumer. But here, where you increase the cost of production, you directly tax the farmer. Whatever the increase is, the farmers as a class pay it in its entirety. There is no question whatever but that this is going to increase the cost of production, and that agricultural machinery will cost more. I would not mind, for the sake of employment, for the sake of the extra taxation and the other indirect benefits, that machinery should cost a little more in other circumstances and if farmers were better off. But there is no doubt whatever that agricultural machinery will cost more. The guarantee which the Minister announces is not worth the paper it is written on for three reasons, two of which he gave. He said the manufacturers made this reservation, that their prices must be subject to freight being all right and being the same as competitors in other countries. That is the first. The second is the cost of raw material. I am not in a position to say, and I do not think the Minister is, whether firms in this country are in a position to buy materials as cheaply as, say, the International Harvesting Company.

Mr. Lemass

So long as they buy them as cheaply as they bought them two months ago there will be no increase in price.

Mr. Hogan

If they buy them cheaper will the price go down? Have you a guarantee of that? What is your guarantee worth? You have no machinery, and what is more, you could not set up any machinery which would control them. I know that you are talking about a Commission to inquire into prices, but that is all in the air. That is only a Commission—that will do nothing.

Mr. Lemass

I am not talking about a Commission.

Mr. Hogan

I mean a Commission about prices. I understood from the "Irish Press" that there was a Commission to be set up about prices generally, and I assume such a Commission will be set up. You have no machinery, you could not devise machinery, and no Minister could devise machinery to control the prices at which Irish firms will sell goods. It cannot be done. A guarantee from that point of view is useless. You cannot get after them if they break the guarantee. In any event, there is the simplest way in the world out of any guarantee. I wish Deputies would realise that. A guarantee of prices is worthless without a guarantee of quality. Who can guarantee quality? If I buy a mowing machine or any other machine from a certain firm, I am no judge of steel or metal or brass or anything else—I could not be—and I am in the hands of the firm selling it. Unless the quality of that machine is up to the quality of the machine turned out by other firms in other countries, then your guarantee is no good. Supposing I buy an American mowing machine for £24 and an Irish mowing machine for £34, and the Irish machine lasts five years and the American machine two years, which is the cheaper? That difficulty goes down right along so far as every other agricultural machine is concerned. As long as you have an uncertain quantity, namely quality, your guarantee of price is worthless. Everybody who buys machinery knows—the Minister for Industry and Commerce knows and the Minister for Agriculture knows it—that quality is more important than price and so long as there is difference in quality no guarantee of price is any good.

Give up talking about your guarantee. I say it cannot be made operative. You have no machinery to make it so and even if you had the machinery there is the question of quality and that question will always defeat the machinery you can set up. Your position is in the air, in the hands of the particular manufacturer, and that manufacturer unless he is a fool—I am not suggesting he is a dishonest man—will charge the full amount he gets for it as the Minister for Industry and Commerce would do in his shop or as I would do on my farm, and there is nothing immoral in that. He charges the full amount he can get, and the full amount is influenced by the fact that there is a high tariff upon his competitors. The farmers of the country can make up their minds that they will pay more for agricultural machinery. This is a direct tax upon the farmers of the country and I protest against that.

The Minister for Agriculture introduced a scheme that was received with a certain amount of support and a certain amount of criticism. That was the scheme for an import duty on butter. I think, as I said that day, that whatever people may say the Minister had no great alternative. He must do something for the dairying industry. He could not help the dairy industry by a tariff and he must impose a bounty. I put this to him. Is it likely that he will be able to help any other item of agricultural production by the same system? I doubt it. I do not see how he could help the cattle trade or the live stock trade or beef trade by such a system. He certainly could not increase the price of eggs or anything of that kind, even bacon, by this system of export bounty. The only item of production he can help is butter. He is doing that, but I believe that the system will stop dead at butter. I cannot see it work in regard to any other item of agriculture. If this is really the only thing he can do by way of a tariff or bounty on agriculture, does he really think it fair to increase the price of everything the farmer has to buy such as boots and clothes, cocoa, and any amount of other tariffs, and also to impose a direct tax on agricultural machinery? I think it is most unfair to the agricultural community, and I think it will cause the very greatest dissatisfaction in the country.

Will the Minister tell me am I right in saying that, roughly speaking, all the items in the First Schedule will be subject to the tax?

Dr. Ryan

That is right.

Mr. Hogan

And all the items in the Second Schedule are exempt and that so far as parts are concerned, parts under 5/-, they are exempt. That is a much better position, I agree, than the first when all parts were thought to be subject to the tax. It is probable that 5/- will cover most of the parts the ordinary farmer has to buy. But the general principle is, I think, fundamentally wrong. I think the farmers in the long run, when you take quality into account, are going to pay the full amount of the tariff for any agricultural machinery they are going to buy and I do not think that they can afford to pay that for it at the present moment, nor do I think it is going to give a great amount of employment. We have no definite information on that point. I do not think the amount of employment that will be given in Wexford is going to be justification for the amount the farmers, as a class, will have to pay for their agricultural machinery. In answer to one point made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce I say this. He mentioned they got enquiries made and found there was the same proportion of Irish machines used in each county. I am not surprised. But I would like to know what was the proportion. Was it 25 per cent. of the whole?

Mr. Lemass

Thirty per cent.

Mr. Hogan

The Minister has to remember that you have in each county five or six different classes of land. You cannot divide the class of land in this country between counties. You have light land with heavy land in Wexford and in Galway—different classes in each county and each barony. You have a bigger proportion of light land in Wexford than in Meath, but you have a lot of heavy and medium and sandstone and limestone land in other counties. He should take that figure very carefully. He can take it that Irish machinery as made at present is not suitable for a considerable area of land in this country and not suitable for the economic circumstances of a considerable number of farmers in this country. The small farmer who has only got one horse and a jennet cannot afford a heavy machine. Even although a heavy machine might suit his heavy land, he must buy a light one. On the other hand, a farmer with three or four horses might have light land and might want a light machine. You cannot generalise about these matters. You can take it for granted that, so far as machines made by Irish firms are concerned they are used throughout the country on their merits. There is no question of any animus against the Irish machines. Deputy Carney spoke about East Donegal and made the point that there was a prejudice there against Irish machines. East Donegal is the best farm district in Ireland.

I know the farmers in East Donegal well. I believe they have such a wonderful conception of the value of a shilling that, when they come to buy their machinery or anything else, they buy it purely and simply on the merits. In that district, which is about the best farming district in Ireland, no man who knows what good farming is would venture to criticise their operations. Farming at the moment is dependent to a large extent upon savings, small profits, cutting losses, and so on. It would be an extremely serious thing to upset that, because you are really adding another element of difficulty to the many difficulties that confront the farmer at the moment.

There is only one other point that I want to make in regard to this tariff, and I hope I shall not be misunderstood. This tariff is an example of the fact that you should not impose a tariff without reference to some judicial machinery. Take this tariff. I will go the whole way and say that Irish manufacturers as a body are thoroughly honourable men. I am not saying that with my tongue in my cheek. I believe it. I do not believe either that there is anybody in the Executive Council who could be got at. I am making no suggestion of any kind about that, but here is a tariff which is in the interests of a very limited number of manufacturers, and there are certain dangers attached to it. Ministers may say, "Oh, well, people in this country are honourable," and so on. I know they are. I know they are just as honourable as in any other country. When I was Minister in the Department I dared not think of selling a bull to the Department; and I would not think of getting a relation of mine to sell a bull to them.

We all know that people generally are honourable; but if the Executive Council can come along and can clap on a tariff which is undoubtedly going to mean big money to a limited number of manufacturers, look at the avenue it opens to all sorts of doubtful proceedings later on. I put it genuinely to the Executive Council that it is a bad precedent. If it is necessary for their policy that they should impose a large number of tariffs quickly, very well. Let them devise some machinery that will be quick and expeditious, but some machinery that will be more or less independent of themselves, independent of political influences, some machinery that will give some assurance that the tariffs are imposed on their merits. This is the beginning of these tariffs, and in this country we should not close our eyes to the fact that in any other country in the world where the Government has a free hand to impose tariffs without reference to any judicial or semi-judicial machinery, corruption does come in. I only want to put that point of view. I say, and I am perfectly certain, that this tariff was imposed genuinely and justly from the Executive Council's point of view, and from the point of view of every member of it, and from that alone. I have no reflections to make about any maker of Irish agricultural machinery, but I put this to the Executive Council, that if they think over the possibilities from the manufacturer's point of view, or the politician's point of view if you like, they ought to adopt some judicial machinery or semi-judicial machinery that will come between them and the manufacturers who want a tariff. We had our machinery in the Tariff Commission. The present Government thought that that was too slow. Their policy is different. They want tariffs quickly for their own reasons. That is a perfectly valid objection from their point of view. I do not agree with it, but it is a perfectly valid and legal objection. But surely some machinery could be suggested and devised by which there would be some sort of judicial check on the imposition of tariffs and by which tariffs would not be left to the whim of the Minister or Ministers in charge and the manufacturers in question.

Mr. Vaughan

I desire to oppose the imposition of this tariff of 25 per cent. on agricultural machinery. I can assure the Minister that there is great dissatisfaction amongst farmers in regard to the imposition of this tariff. As we are all aware, the industry is already overtaxed and farmers are waiting for some relief from the present Executive. In the first place under this tariff the farmer's choice is restricted in regard to the implements he may use. Farmers have to take a particular type of machinery whereas previously they had an opportunity of selecting from different types. As far as I can see there appears to be no guarantee from the manufacturers as regards prices, as to whether the cost of these machines will be increased or whether they will cost more than the English-made machines. There is no real guarantee given to the farmers that the tariff will not raise the price of their machinery. What the farmers want at present, of course, is the cheapest and most up-to-date machinery having regard to the present position of the agricultural industry. The Minister brought in a Bill the other day giving a bounty to butter to try to alleviate the present depression amongst farmers. Now he comes along with another Bill to impose a tariff on their machinery. I wonder what will be the next imposition.

I am sure the Minister is well aware that agriculture in this country was never in such a poor condition or that prices for produce were never so bad as now. It seems to be the policy that parts costing less than five shillings will be allowed in free. I would like to point out that there is no part of a foreign machine that could be made here to fit as well as the part that could be obtained from the manufacturers of the machine themselves. I certainly say that this imposes a tariff on the farming community and I would advise the Minister when he is introducing the Bill to see that he will not place any restrictions on the importation of parts of foreign machinery costing more than five shillings. I say he should allow at least half the price. I certainly say that this tariff injures the agricultural industry. We are trying to assist the farmers to get better prices for their produce and it is unfair for the Government to put a tax on that industry which is the main industry of the country. I hope it will be the first and the last tax on that industry.

Mr. Kiersey

I would like to look at this tariff in another light and to ask the Minister seriously to consider a very important point of view. The Minister himself knows that there is in this country a very considerable amount of foreign machinery, both English and American. The people who own these machines bought them principally in the last year or two. Are they to be taxed on every part that they may require for these machines or have they to scrap them? I would submit to the Minister that only to allow an article in costing up to five shillings would give very little relief to the owners of these machines, because it would be a very small part of the present up-to-date machinery that would cost less than five shillings. It would be infinitesimal. In all the classes you have there, take grass mowers, tumbler rakes, and everything like that, they will require an annual expenditure on some of the parts, and that will be an annual tax on the owners of these machines. I would submit to the Minister that he should give serious consideration to the question from that point of view. I do admit that, in the case of a man buying a new machine, it will not make such a lot of difference to him to get an Irish-made machine as against a foreign machine. The man whom I wish to protect is the man who has bought a new machine and probably paid £25 or £26 for it, probably six months ago —I want to protect him from paying a tariff of 35 per cent. on all the parts required for such a machine.

I must also agree with the Deputy —I think it was Deputy Hogan—who mentioned that there are parts of this country where foreign machines will do better work than home-manufactured ones. And on that I could give practical experience, because I could bring the Minister into my own farmyard and show him an Irish-made machine that did very little work and that had to be thrown aside because it was not able to cut the stuff that I required it to cut, and I had to get a foreign one. I am not certain whether Irish manufacturers make a bar plough.

A Deputy

They do.

Mr. Kiersey

There are parts of the country that have stony land where it is impossible to work any plough except one of the bar kind. There are several matters to be taken into consideration before this tariff is put on agricultural machinery.

Mr. Blythe

When the Minister is replying I should like, if he can, that he would give us a little more information about the reasons for imposing this tariff in this way. He did say that the Government had information that there were going to be excessive importations which would inflict industrial injury. He must realise that this must have sounded to the Deputies a little bit like a repetition of an empty formula, that he was rather sticking to the words of the Act to provide a formula previous to the statement that a duty had been imposed. I should like if he would give us some indication of the circumstances, if they are known to him, which caused this undue or excessive importation to be threatened, because it would seem that in the ordinary way one would think that this is the sort of tariff which might very well have been the subject of investigation by the Tariff Commission in the ordinary way. I should like also if he would indicate why it was thought necessary to put on the high duty of 33? per cent. or 25 per cent. which is I suppose an effective tariff. This particular industry is an old established industry and it has been carried on in spite of any competition that it has had to face heretofore, and it would not seem to have undergone any rapid decline in recent years. There would seem to be, on the face of it, no reason for a tariff anything like as high as the tariff imposed as the result of this order. I should like therefore if the Minister would give us something more about the reason for this tariff and the fixation of the tariff at the point at which it was fixed.

Mr. Corry

I heard here the most nonsensical argument that I have ever heard in my life. We had lawyers tellings us about agricultural machinery; and the very Deputies who came in here on Wednesday last and threatened us with a vote of censure because we were not providing employment have now come to howl because we were providing employment. It cannot be both ways.

A Deputy

At the expense of the farmers.

Mr. Corry

You cannot get it both ways. I am very glad, speaking as a farmer, that the Minister has imposed this tariff. In the first place it is taking 500 families off the backs of the farmers, because it is the farmers who will have to support them in the finish if they are idle. It is taking 500 families off our backs in the first place, and in the second place it has put an end to what I may describe as the very dirty game which has been carried on in this country for a very long period. I bought a Pierce mower in 1915 which is a pretty long time ago and it has cut 28 acres of hay each year and fairly heavy hay and on several years I had to cut the corn where it lodged.

Mr. Hogan

28 Irish acres?

Mr. Corry

No, English acres. I will admit that there were not so many thistles in it as the farm you were looking at in Limerick.

A Deputy

Or so much hay.

Mr. Hogan

I am afraid you are a grazier.

Mr. Corry

And when my neighbours have an extra heavy crop of hay to cut they come for that machine to cut it, though they have good mowers themselves. The man who has a good mower comes to get the Pierce mower when he has a heavy crop.

Mr. Hogan

There is no heavy hay in Cork.

Mr. Corry

No, it is about as heavy as the hedge that you cut in Galway. We had a statement from Deputy Dillon, who was wondering why there was a preference for English-made machines. I may tell him why. It is because the dealers get an extra commission out of the English machine. That is why the dealer will push the English machine on you when you go into the shop. He has more out of it. Then we had another learned farmer, Deputy McMenamin I think it was, telling us that though it could cut grass, it could not cut corn. I often heard a fairly good story, but that is the richest one ever I heard. I do not believe he ever saw the cutting of a field of hay or corn, because no matter how bad a mowing machine may be it will cut corn, but the bad mowing machine will not cut hay. Then we had another complaint from a Deputy about an Irish-made machine which he had to throw on the fence. That Deputy ought to learn to work it. If he learned to work it, it would be all right. This is the most nonsensical kind of arguments I ever heard. Then Deputy Hogan wound up with the suggestion that was most worthy of him. He told us about corruption. That is most worthy of him. I would suggest that the Deputy ought to know a fair lot about it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not make such a remark.

Mr. Corry

I withdraw.

Mr. Hogan

I do not mind it a bit.

Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll

Nobody pays any attention to what Deputy Corry says.

Mr. Corry

We have heard complaints about tariffs and the great trouble that would be caused to farmers who bought English-made machines a few years ago. I suggest these complaints will soon be remedied. All these parts will be made in this country. I cannot see any difficulty in the making of them. Henry Ford would not be long turning them out in his Cork factory by means of mass production. We hear all those arguments from people who last week told us that we had not got a mandate on the Oath, but we had on unemployment. We are now helping to solve the unemployment problem. By this proposal alone we will be taking half a thousand people off the unemployed list. The moment we do so we have a growl.

I have been farming since I was a child. I have been using Irish-made machines all my life. There is not a better machine on the market than the Irish machine. I cannot see what objection there could be when we are able to produce machines in this country second to none. Deputy Hogan said that our guarantee as to prices was not worth anything. Deputy Hogan's word is apparently better than the guarantee given by the manufacturers. We hear a lot of this senseless argument from time to time. It is about time that ceased. Looking at this matter from the farmers' point of view we have to consider how many families this will help to take off home assistance, to which the farmers largely contribute.

One day we have a howl over a possible increase in the price of the farmers' butter; then we have a howl over the extra cost on the farmer in view of this tax on agricultural machinery. Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies should not forget that a few years ago they were in favour of a tariff on old women's rosary beads. Surely they should not growl so much over the tariffs now proposed. I think Deputy Vaughan was at one time in favour of a tariff on ladies' handbags.

I am very glad that we are making a good start to provide employment for our own people. The primary factor that should underlie every proposal in the Dáil is how many men will that particular proposal take off the streets and put working. I believe this proposal now under consideration will give employment to at least 500 men. I hope this action will be followed up by a few tariffs that will protect the farmer.

I was rather amused when I heard Deputy Hogan's argument about profiteering. The Deputy knows very well that the last Government during its ten years of office made no attempt to prevent profiteering. They know very well that one famous firm in this city was profiteering on the farmer to the extent of 37s. 6d. a barrel on barley. There was no attempt made to stop that. They reduced the farmers' price by 37s. 6d. and never passed it on to the consumer. We hear talk about profiteers the moment an industry is prepared to start, the moment men with faith in the country are prepared to extend their manufactures. Those men do not say that if we abolish the Oath they will take their businesses to England. There are some patriotic firms in this country.

Mr. Gorey

I would like the Minister to give me some information with regard to the items in the First Schedule. Am I to understand that the parts under the price of 5s. are exempted?

Mr. Lemass

All parts under 5s., whether in the Schedule or not.

Mr. Gorey

I suggest the Minister might raise the price to 10s. at least. Any part worth having for a machine is certainly more than 5s. I agree, of course, that a tooth of a spring harrow would be less. With regard to the tariff itself I think the Minister said that complaints have been made by manufacturers that the prices here and in England were not the same; that the machines were sold at a lesser price here. Is that the strongest language the Minister can use? He said complaints have been made by manufacturers. What efforts were made to see whether the complaints were well-founded? Were the complaints of the manufacturers accepted?

Mr. Lemass

The complaints were not made to me. They were made to the manufacturers' association and accepted by the association, to which British as well as Irish manufacturers belong.

Mr. Gorey

Did the Minister ascertain whether machines were sold at a lesser price here or was it admitted by the British manufacturers?

Mr. Allen

Yes.

Mr. Gorey

I understood the Minister to say yes; it is well to have something definite. Anyhow, the Irish farmer was getting the machines at a lesser price. I would like to know how much less. The Irish farmer had the benefit but still, with that benefit, look at the position of Irish agriculture to-day. With regard to castings, the complaint up to now has not been so much about the original machines, Irish or English, but the great discrepancy between the quality of the castings supplied in renewing parts and the quality of the original article. I can bear that out. The complaint is universal and it is true. The parts supplied have not been equal to the original castings.

With regard to the tariff on parts above 5/-, Deputy Kiersey has said what I was going to say. Two or three years ago, let us say, a man bought a machine. That machine should last ten or twelve years. At the time of purchase nothing was known of a tariff. In the circumstances it is not fair to put a tariff on parts for that machine. The plea may be made that if you let in parts there will be assembling of parts here and a new machine could be made up. This is altogether wrong. Whatever may be said about a tariff on new machinery—and I have very little to say in defence of it—I am altogether opposed to the tariff on parts. The man who bought a machine in good faith when there was no talk of tariffs ought not now be penalised.

Mr. Allen

To what extent is the farmer penalised?

Mr. Gorey

The farmer is penalised on the renewal of parts of the machinery that he is using where it happens to be foreign machinery.

Mr. Allen

To what extent?

Mr. Gorey

To the extent that he has to pay a tariff on every part of a machine over 5s.

Mr. Allen

What would that cost him per year?

Mr. Gorey

Let the Deputy make it up for himself. It would not cost him very much if his existing machine were like the machine that Deputy Kiersey had, a Wexford machine. I wonder if spades and shovels come under the heading of machinery?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Kiersey

Just a point of explanation. Deputy Gorey said that I mentioned Wexford machines. What I spoke of were Irish machines and now I want to say it was not a Pierce machine.

Mr. Gorey

Well, it was an Irish machine anyway.

Mr. O'Brien

I think Deputy Corry said that one of the chief reasons why there were more foreign machines used in this country was because the merchants here got a bigger commission on foreign than on Irish-made machines. That is not true. The commission for the merchants on English, French, American or Irish manufactured machinery is the same.

Mr. Corry

On a point of order. Deputy O'Brien has just said that my statement was an absolute falsehood. I tell him that I can absolutely prove its truth even to his satisfaction.

Mr. Gorey

That is not a point of order—that is merely an assertion.

Mr. Carney

On a point of order. The Deputy said that the statement made by Deputy Corry was an absolute falsehood.

Mr. O'Brien

What I said was that the statement is not correct. I have been in the implement trade all my life, and I know that the commission allowed by the manufacturers in France, Germany, America, Scotland, or England is the same as is allowed by the manufacturers in Ireland. That, therefore, is not the reason why Irish farmers should use foreign machinery in preference to Irish manufactured machines.

Mr. Corry

What about the discount?

Mr. O'Brien

The discount in all cases is exactly the same. No matter where the machine comes from the merchant here gets the same profit on its sale. The net cost of the machines to the merchants all over Ireland is the same regardless of the country of origin, so that the commission on the machinery would be no reason why the merchants would be in a better position to give better terms to the farmers than in the case of Irish-made machines. As a matter of fact, the tendency is to give better terms to the buyers of the Irish-made machines. They are often sold by the merchants at lower prices just in order to encourage the home-made machine.

This tariff on machinery has naturally upset the farmers. They are very dubious about the capacity of the Irish firms to supply their needs. At any rate, they think the question should be taken in a different way, and steps should be taken to ascertain whether the native firms would be able to meet the requirements of the country. I had an experience quite recently. It was just a week before the tariff on machinery was put on. A farmer came to me and asked me for a cake-crusher. He was very keen on getting an English cake-crusher, but I convinced him that he should have an Irish-made one. To be candid, one of my reasons was that he would get a quicker delivery of the Irish machine. He ordered the machine. Two days after, the tariff on agricultural machinery went on. Ten days after giving the order, I had a reply from the Irish manufacturer of this article that the firm had ceased to manufacture this particular cake-crusher, so I had to send across to the other side for it and pay the duty.

The principal reason why Irish farmers are not using Irish machines is not because they are not as good as the foreign-made machines. I have no doubt in my own mind that they are as good, but English and foreign manufacturers of these articles have a far better system of salesmanship. In that side of their business they are far more efficient than the Irish manufacturers. Their delivery and the service that they give are far better. It is really sad to think that that is the case, but Irish manufacturers have not given sufficient attention to salesmanship, delivery, or service in the past. Possibly, now that they have got a monopoly, they will attend to these matters, but my own experience is that, since the tariff was imposed, they have stiffened up and adopted a more or less independent attitude.

The farmers are particularly alarmed about the tariffs on parts more so than on the machines themselves. Every Irishman would naturally be inclined to fall in with the Minister's desire to create employment and to help on industry. But when a man has his capital sunk in foreign machines he does not like to find himself in the position of having a levy put on him for any parts he may require for these machines. For a certain period at any rate after the imposition of the tariff on the machinery the parts required by farmers should be allowed in free.

Mr. Corish

I have always pleaded that it is very undesirable to impose tariffs in favour of an industry which was incapable of supplying the needs of the people of this country. But here we have the position where the Minister for Industry and Commerce, after examination, is able to assure us the Wexford firms are capable of supplying the needs of the farmers of this country or, if they are not able to do that at the moment it is because of the uncertainty that prevailed during the past few years. Firms in Wexford found themselves in an awkward position because of the fact that there was dumping going on as far as English and American machinery was concerned. It has been proved by the Wexford firms that English manufacturers have been selling machinery here at a less price than at the other side. If that is not dumping then I do not know what dumping is.

I cannot understand the opposition offered to the application of this tariff. In view of the line taken by the members on the other side of the House last week during the debate on unemployment their present attitude is surprising. We were told then that they were very anxious to see numbers of people sent back to work. But here we have concrete proof of the desire of the Government to send a large number of people to work. At the present moment, there are in Wexford town about 500 agricultural machinery operatives walking the streets unemployed. It is safe to say that within a very short period the majority of these will be at work. The ex-Minister for Agriculture is talking about the cost of production going up on the farmer. I fail to see in what way the cost is going to go up. We have an assurance from the Minister, who has received an assurance from the manufacturers to the effect that not alone are they prepared not to increase their prices, but that if there are fluctuations or any sort of a downward tendency in the case of English and American machinery in the near future the Irish manufacturers will also bring down their prices.

In view of that I do not see why anyone should have any hesitation in supporting these tariffs. I would remind Deputies on the Cumann na nGaedheal Benches that in 1923 the firm of Pierce and Co. were asked by the then Government to set up special machinery to make parts for foreign ploughs. The Party that is now in opposition should not forget that the Wexford firms went to the expense of setting up that machinery. In view of that I do not think the present opposition is fair. Having set up the machinery I submit that these firms fulfilled what they were asked to do at the time. As Deputy Corry has pointed out, the application of these tariffs will take a burden off the shoulders of the farmers who are the largest ratepayers. In Wexford between £120 and £150 is paid out weekly in home help. That burden will be removed from the farmers if these men get employment. Most of those who get that relief are men who were practically reared in the Wexford foundries where these machines are manufactured so that this form of relieving direct taxation is worthy of consideration. As to whether Irish machinery is not as good as English machinery I think it has been proved over and over again that the Irish machines are just as efficient as, if not more than, those imported. Some people in this country have an animus against Irish manufacture for reasons that I do not know. It is very desirable when tariffs of this kind are being imposed that the Minister should have some advisory body or a representative who understands machinery to pay periodical visits to the workshops of these firms and make a thorough examination so that only efficient machinery would be sent out. When the country is backing an industry the Minister should see to it that the people get value for their money.

Another question that I am deeply concerned about is that of wages. I urge the Minister to see when applying tariffs that the minimum living wage is paid to the workers and that the proportion of boy labour is limited. I am not suggesting anything in this case as I have not had time to examine the matter yet. I consider that if proprietors in an industry of this kind are sheltered by a pretty high tariff, as in this case, the benefits of the tariff should be extended to the workers. So far as this Party is concerned when a Bill of this kind comes before the House we will try to secure that the suggestions I have made are implemented in some section of it. As to the remark of Deputy Hogan that the cost of production would be increased on farmers, I do not think Deputy Hogan took the same precautions when he applied a tariff to bacon immediately before the last election. That tariff was keenly felt by unfortunate people in receipt of home help. It was felt perhaps to a greater extent than farmers, though in a bad position, will feel this tariff. I hope the Minister will pay particular attention to my suggestion that the benefits of the tariff should be extended to the workers, as they deserve all the consideration that they can get.

Mr. Brasier

There is very decided opposition on the part of farmers in the area I represent to this tariff. When you find farmers letting labourers go and trying to work their farms themselves, owing to the depression in agriculture, I think that the Minister should seriously consider what impositions he should place on the cost of production. Tillage is very vital for this country and gives a good deal of employment in rural areas. I think this tariff will amount to a large item in the economic working of a farm. When he is about buying an implement at a high price, an addition of 33 1-3rd per cent. will make the farmer think seriously before doing so. Any increase in price at a time of depression will naturally restrain him from making the investment. He will probably carry on with an old implement or borrow a machine from a neighbour. Perhaps two neighbours will join to get over the difficulty. If the tariff is put on there will be a decrease in the purchasing of agricultural machinery. We cannot overlook the fact that it adds very materially to working costs if prices are increased at a time when it is vital to increase production, and when the farmer cannot afford extra expense. We want to try to get tillage going if possible. Tillage has been so vitally hit by the depression in prices that the tendency is to get out of it. This tariff will have a serious effect on tillage. We have to consider whether the increased employment that may result from the tariff will counter-balance the decrease in employment on the land and the public assistance that is bound to result from unemployment. I think it will restrict production and will decrease employment on the land. In order to increase employment in a small number of sheltered industries, we are going to sacrifice a large number of rural workers. It would be wise to think carefully before adding to the farmers' expenses. There is a certain tax on agricultural imports from across the Channel in the form of freights. That should help and has always helped home manufacturers. A remark was made about 500 labourers being given work in the making of agricultural machinery. It is more than probable that the increased price will for a considerable time tend to prevent these men getting work simply because the farmers will not pay the increased prices for machinery. There is also the probability that the farmers will wait until some other Government comes along and takes off the tax.

Mr. Lemass

What a hope!

Mr. Brasier

I think that is not at all unlikely. Deputy Corish referred to the wages paid in England and in the Free State. Is it not more than probable that if wages in the Free State go up very much beyond the English level, without the same working conditions, that machinery cannot be produced as cheaply here and will have to be sold at a higher price? I have no hesitation in voting against this tariff. It might have been effective if introduced when farming was prosperous, but at a time when agriculture is acutely depressed, I will certainly vote against it, as it will increase the costs of farmers.

Mr. Allen

Objection has been taken to this tariff by Deputy Hogan on the grounds that it will put up the production costs of the farmer. Suppose, at the present time, the farmer tills on an average twenty acres and owns £18 worth of agricultural machinery which may be subject to a tariff, the depreciation is not more than from fifteen to twenty per cent. at the outside. That would mean that he would have to pay each year between £3 and £4. That is all the average farmer will have to pay, and I do not think that there is any farmer so unpatriotic that he did not buy, during the past ten or twenty years, some machine of Irish manufacture. At any rate, I hope that there is not. Reference has been made to the different varieties of machines, and it has been stated it may not be possible to get the varieties of machines suited to the different parts of the country. I can tell Deputies that the firms in Wexford turn out machines suited to every class of soil in the country. I do not believe that there is a single soil for which a suitable machine is not turned out in Wexford. Deputy Kiersey referred to bar-point ploughs. They are being made in Wexford and have been made there so long as I can remember. Deputy Hogan mentioned light machines. Light, one-horse machines have been made in Wexford for years. Anybody who looks at the Wexford stand at the Spring Show will see all sorts of machines.

This tariff was absolutely necessary. Deputy Corish pointed out that there are from 200 to 500 former employees of the Wexford foundries walking the streets of Wexford. If the tariff had not been imposed, the factory would have been in danger of closing down, because there was dumping of machinery from England at a price lower than that at which it was being sold in England. There is no doubt about that. I am not at all satisfied that the Minister should have exempted parts under a cost of 5/-, because the majority of the wearing parts of ploughs are under that cost. I do not think they should have been exempt from the tariff. The points and socks of a plough are under 5/- in cost, and I do not think they should have been exempted. Parts in connection with mowing machines and other machines might have been exempted up to a higher point than 5/-, but the wearing points of ploughs should not have been exempted.

The objection to this tariff by Deputy Brasier and other Deputies is ridiculous. Deputy Brasier does not know very much about tillage. He objects to this tariff because it is going to increase the cost of tillage, and he says that it will mean that farmers will disemploy labourers. I do not believe that there will be a single agricultural labourer disemployed as a result of this tariff. There may be room for tightening up in some directions in existing factories. They have taken steps recently to see that all the machinery turned out is standard. Within the past year, they have taken these steps, but there may have been room for complaint some years ago. I know there was. That state of affairs does not exist at present, and is not likely to exist in the future.

I think the Government would be well advised to set up machinery by which they could inspect factories protected by tariffs. I do not refer to factories engaged merely in the production of agricultural machinery. They should take steps to see that up-to-date measures are used in all protected industries, and that manufacturers are not allowed to use the tariff to put indifferent articles on the market. If that were done, it would ensure that the products of tariffed industries would be turned out efficiently and at a price which would compare with the price obtaining for similar products in other countries.

Mr. McGilligan

I should like to put a few questions to the Minister for reply when he is closing the debate. There are, however, a few matters arising out of the last speaker's remarks to which I should like to refer before putting the questions. The case which the last Deputy made is surely too easy. Nobody is going to suffer as a result of this tariff. Farmers are not going to suffer, in the sense that they are going to pay anything more. Nobody is going to be dismissed because of any burthen that will fall on the farmers. That was mere perversity on the part of critics.

Mr. Allen

I did not say that.

Mr. McGilligan

There must be some little block as regards price. The Deputy made this astounding statement—he put this gloss on what Deputy Corish said, that there were from 300 to 500 former employees of the factories producing agricultural machinery now walking the streets of Wexford. I understood the Minister to say that at one time the employment was as high as 350; that it was now 250, and that, under the tariff, it might increase to 500.

Mr. Lemass

The figures I gave did not relate to the War period.

Mr. McGilligan

Did the number ever rise to 850?

Mr. Lemass

I am sure it did.

Mr. McGilligan

I should like to have, not the Minister's "thought" but a definite statement, because the figures can be got. The Minister said that in Wexford the present number employed in this industry was about 250, that it had been normally— leaving out the War period—350, and that he expects another 500 to be put into employment. How did he get that figure? Is it the old business of doing sums—so much production per head——

Mr. Lemass

I said the normal figure was about 350, but that it did fall at some time in the recent past to 250.

Mr. McGilligan

That is what I understood the Minister to say, and that the number is to go up by 500 more.

Mr. Lemass

That is the estimate.

Mr. McGilligan

That is to say, 400 more than the highest it reached normally. I want to know how that 400, or even 500, is arrived at. Is it the old business—you take the average production per head as 200 and divide that into whatever the import is and immediately you have the industry enlarged by so many persons. That is how the 8,401 people came into the boot question. The Minister is very good at doing sums of that sort. You could almost see the chalk about his shoulder when he gave out these figures. Has he got any estimate from the firms themselves? Has he checked that estimate? Firms will always give you estimates, but they have to be checked and sometimes considerably reduced. Is there any further statement to be made as to when whatever number of hundreds are to be employed will be put into employment? Will it be this year, or will that increase of production be spread over a number of years? Because as long as the tariff remains and the factories are growing but have not yet reached the full point to which they may come, a very heavy tax will be paid by the agricultural community.

We are told about the European war. It shows a weakness in the case to bring in any reference to that. Anybody who had any touch with business during the war period knows that it was not a question of being in business and getting profits on it, but rather what business you were in and the size of the profits you could get.

As far as the machinery end is concerned, the Minister brought in the question of an export trade in agricultural machinery to England during the war period. He knows that amounted to something like his own system or very nearly that. There was no idea of competition in those days. The Minister told us. I suppose by way of defence as to how this tariff was brought in under the terms of the Act. that there have been trusts and combines in this particular industry, that these trusts and combines adopt particular methods, and that these methods had come down rather heavily upon the Irish manufacturers. The Minister went on to add to that—he had to add to it in the interests of accuracy—that it was quite true to say that the Wexford manufacturers were in that combine, at least to some extent. I would like to have that further explained as to how the results of the combine have affected so adversely people who, for some part of the business, are members of the combine.

We are told that there is to be an undertaking, but the undertaking has been rather whittled down to this point: provided there is no increase in freights and no increase in the price of raw materials. I think, if the manufacturers get to hear of what Deputy Corish said to-night, there will be a third item added: provided there is no increase in the wages paid in their concerns. Even with all these reasons the guarantee is limited to this: that there is going to be no increase in price. That was the first way the Minister put it. Then he corrected it by saying that at any rate the Irish farmers would get this type of agricultural machinery as cheaply as the English farmer gets it from those who supply him. I think that argues that the price that prevailed last year for agricultural machinery is going to be raised, because I understand the argument is that there was dumping going on and that by reason of the dumping the Irish manufacturers' price had been lowered. They found that they could not live on the lower price they had to sell at. Therefore, I think it is essential—I do not think this is going to be denied— that prices will rise from what they were, say, a year of six months ago.

The other point that comes out is that there is no check upon this. Despite what Deputy Corish and Deputy Allen have stated with regard to supervision, no supervision is going to be of any great assistance. It may prevent the manufacture of bad machinery, but it will have to be so bad that it is going to be revealed as bad on a rather cursory type of examination. There is to be no examination that is going to be worth anything. The only test that is going to be applied is the test that will be put upon a particular article or implement by the person who uses it in the course of farm operations. Of course, that test will only take place after the article has been purchased. There is no question of guaranteeing quality. It cannot be guaranteed and there can be no check on it.

We were told by the Minister that there was a period during which English manufacturers sold the same type of article here at a lower price than they did in England. I would like to know how long that was going on. To take Deputy Corish's thought-reading again with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, it has been going on apparently for three years. I would like to know if it has been reflected by a great amount of unemployment in the last three years. Has the tot of the employed in the agricultural implement business in Wexford, for instance, gone down in the last three years? Does it show any great variation? When I asked a question about this before I was told by the Minister that the only information he could give me was a reference to the census of production for 1926 and 1929. The Minister did say that as between those two years the number employed had gone down in 1929 compared with the number employed in 1926. Yet it emerged that the production value annually in 1929 as opposed to 1926 had only gone down by £1,000. Therefore, to take the method of doing sums again, that should only be reflected by an unemployment problem of five people. I wonder has there been an unemployment problem representing even as much as five people between the years 1926 and 1929.

If there is going to be a 500 increase in the number employed—I do not care when it occurs, even if we have to wait three or four years —I would like to have that translated by the Minister into another form: what will be the increase in the annual production of, say, the Wexford firms after they have got the benefit of this tariff for some two or three years, and after they have reached the highest point they can hope to get to? Will the Minister let us have that information, even if it is only an estimate, because that is the only way that one can get an answer to what Deputy Allen said. It will indicate the amount that manufacturers at home propose to sell surplus to what they sell now, and the tariff on that will be what the farmer will have to pay in comparison to what he might have to pay if he was getting machinery from abroad.

Deputy Corish and Deputy Allen have spoken on this matter of unemployment. Unemployment surely has to be considered, not merely in reference to the men put into work, but in reference to the men put into work and the cost to the community of doing so. If it were only a question of getting men employed, the whole country could be employed, but you have got to count the cost. It is uneconomic to put certain people into certain work under the conditions that prevail in certain industries to-day.

Mr. Allen

You could apply that to every industry in the country to-day.

Mr. McGilligan

You could not. You could certainly apply that standard to every industry in the country, but not that phrase. It is certainly the standard that has to be applied.

Mr. Allen

There is scarcely one article produced here that cannot be produced cheaper in other countries.

Mr. McGilligan

I deny that. There are things produced in this country at this moment sold in opposition to similar articles produced in England, and they are sold in England at a lower price. What the Deputy has said certainly cannot be applied to every industry in the country. The test, at any rate, of this unemployment is not that it is going to put people into employment—it is the getting of people into employment, taken in relation to the cost to the community of getting them employed. Surely, that is an essential item in the calculation. Supposing the 500 spoken of go into employment at a cost to the community —I am taking a wild figure—of £1,000,000, is it worth while to get them employed? Merely talking in terms of people getting into employment does not get us any further. If the cost of putting these 500 people into employment is to be £1,000,000, there is surely no advantage, and you are going to have a minus sign to put against the plus 500.

Deputy Corish gave us a rather interesting statement this evening, and I hope that those who are so keen on tariffs will note the two things that have been said. There is, apparently, even amongst those who stand so wholeheartedly for tariffs, being aroused a certain amount of suspicion that there may be an increase in the cost to the general community. Hence, we are getting these statements made about supervision. It will be for people to see that there is no dumping of machinery, to see that there is some check on the cost. It is proper that that should be done if it can be done. The manufacturer who applies for a tariff comes to you and can give you almost any guarantee you like. He will subject himself to close supervision, because he knows that in the end, unless it is going to be of the type of analysis that might be done in a laboratory, and even after that some sort of test such as is carried out in actual operation afterwards, that there is going to be no real check that way. Then, in addition, we get Deputy Corish adding this to the tariffed industry: that it is time we began to attend to wages. I think if these two things are sufficiently insisted on that even a very hot tariffist of a manufacturer is going to find his enthusiasm damped considerably.

I would like the Minister to tell us, when replying, if there was any reason why the question of wages should have been brought into this particular matter at all. Are the wages, on the whole, as paid, say, in Wexford, as high as those paid normally across the water? At any rate, we do get the fundamental point of view of labour expressed here by Deputy Corish to-night, and it is right that it should be expressed. They are going to demand their whack out of these tariffs. There has got to be something passed on to the employee, and we are setting our feet now on the road that Australia tramped with so much agony, and we will eventually get to the position of chaos in which she finds herself at the moment. The wheel is now starting to turn. The type of town employee for whom Deputy Corish speaks does realise now that if you are going to have bounties on butter and tariffs, on clothing and on furniture, and all these other things, his cost is going to be increased and he is going to see that he will get a bit more out of it, in wages, when a tariff is applied to his industry. By degrees, the whole situation will be much as it was before, with everybody paying a bit more, with costs a bit higher and with standards lower.

That is what we are aiming at and it was never shown so well as in this particular thing. At any rate, it is a good thing to see that second thoughts are considerably better than first thoughts on this tariff. The modifications given here do represent some concessions. They are, I should say, as much a concession to the manufacturers as they are to the consumer. I wonder had the Minister, before he made this list of modifications, any approaches from the manufacturers, to the point, that, if they were going to be tied tightly to a guarantee that the price would not go up, certain essential parts for their purposes would have to be brought in free. That was a thing that was staring out from the information collected, and how certain parts were ever brought into the original order passes my comprehension.

Orders of this type are supposed to be passed when the Executive Council is satisfied that a customs duty of a particular type is necessary to prevent an unfair dumping of goods or an expected importation of goods, in either case arising out of financial or other events in other countries, and occurring in circumstances that occasion industrial injury. I would like to have an analysis made of the clauses of that by the Minister, when replying, as to what it was that caused the imposition of this provisional customs duty, in the first instance. Was it dumping? If so, and if it has been continuous for the last three years, would he tell me precisely how that is reflected in the unemployment returns in the industry in one place for the last three years? If it was something expected more than what was actually happening, will he let us know the evidence on which this expectation is built? If it is not dumping, will he tell us if it is some financial event in some other country, and if so, where, and also, what were the considerations on which he based his recommendation to the Executive Council that this duty should be imposed? Then we will have some sort of clear picture. At the moment, there is not even a prima facie case for this order, even with the modifications, and I think it will be opposed.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

There are some minor points I would like to get cleared out of the way before dealing with those arising out of Deputy McGilligan's jeremiad. The first of these relates to parts, and it appears that there is some considerable misunderstanding in respect of them. It is proposed to exempt from duty all parts of five shillings value, that is, five shillings c.i.f. value at the ports. It is not five shillings retail price in the shops. I think that five shillings price at the port represents something about ten shillings retail price in the shops. We have had careful examination made of all the parts that are required, and we are satisfied that from 90 to 95 per cent. of them will be free of duty in consequence of that modification.

Mr. Dillon

Might I ask the Minister where he got the figures of five shillings and ten shillings?

Mr. Lemass

We fixed that figure at the point where we would permit into the country, free of duty, the greatest possible number of parts, without exempting parts entirely, as was suggested, and which would result, as Deputy Gorey appeared to contemplate, in an industry merely for the assembly of parts here. That is not the type of industry we want. We want a manufacturing industry and we can get it.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister said that a part, five shillings c.i.f. at the port, was sold in the shops here at ten shillings. I have been in the implement trade all my life, and the suggestion, I respectfully submit to the Minister, is certainly extravagant.

Mr. Lemass

My information is that five shillings c.i.f. price represents about ten shillings retail price. I am prepared to take it at 8/6 or 9/- or whatever you like. That certainly represents free imports of 95 per cent. of the parts required for foreign machines. A number of the remaining parts, as Deputy Allen pointed out, are made in Wexford. The Wexford firms, at the invitation of our predecessors, installed machinery to make them, and they can make them. Most of the parts required for foreign ploughs of all makes are, in fact, supplied from the Wexford works.

Mr. Good

Will the Minister say if these parts have to be brought in separately in order to qualify for the reduction?

Mr. Lemass

No. There is no duty upon parts of agricultural machinery under 5s. in price.

Mr. Good

But supposing that parcels of half-a-dozen parts are brought in together, they would amount, in the aggregate, to considerably more than 5/-?

Mr. Lemass

It does not make any difference; they are not subject to duty.

Mr. Good

Will that be made clear?

Mr. Lemass

It is quite clear.

Mr. O'Brien

The statement of the Minister as to the prices of machinery parts is very misleading. To say that an article costing a merchant five shillings will be retailed at ten shillings means 100 per cent. profit, which is absolutely ludicrous.

Mr. Shaw

I would like to bear out Deputy O'Brien's statement. The Minister's statement is absolutely wrong. I do not believe there is 33 per cent. profit on it.

Mr. Lemass

Perhaps the Deputy will make further inquiries. The main arguments, however, related to the question of price, and I think they were typified by the speech of Deputy Hogan, which was of this nature: There is a guarantee given in respect of price. That guarantee can be evaded. Therefore, it will be evaded. Therefore, prices will go up. Therefore, farmers will have to pay more for machinery, and, therefore, agriculture will have a very heavy imposition placed on it. That is the argument. That is the logic those on the Opposition Benches apply to these particular questions. Let us consider that. The price of machinery here has been subject to regulation. As I explained, the Irish manufacturers are members of an association to which the English manufacturers also belong. That association regulates the price of machinery here and in England. The justifications for the allegation in respect of dumping are these, that during the past year, as the records of the Department of Industry and Commerce show, the Irish manufacturers had to make complaints to that association that certain English manufacturers were selling in Ireland below the recognised price, that they were selling certain machinery at prices lower than those at which they were selling in England. I have here the minutes of a meeting of the association in which these manufacturers justified their action on the ground that they regarded Ireland as no man's land. Deputy McGilligan must address certain queries to me on this matter, but certainly he must have all the information in my possession in relation to that particular aspect of it.

The fact is, however, that prices here and in England were maintained at the same level, and that they will in future be maintained at the same level. The undertaking given by the Irish manufacturers is that the price of machinery to Irish farmers will be the same as the price of the same machinery to English farmers, when supplied from their English works, and that relates to quality as well as to make. The ingenious mind of the ex-Minister for Agriculture—I might almost say the criminal mind—applied itself to this problem: how the undertaking could be evaded, and he discovered a method which he promptly suggested to the agricultural machinery manufacturers. Obviously the undertaking relates to similar machines and a similar machine will be sold at the same price here as in England.

Mr. Hogan (Galway):

Are two mowing machines similar machines?

Mr. Lemass

If they are not similar machines, they need not be sold at the same price.

Mr. Hogan

That is exactly my point and they will not.

Mr. Lemass

I am not making that case. I am telling the Dáil that we have this undertaking from the machinery manufacturers that the price of their machines here will not be increased, that they will be maintained by them at the same level as in England. I do not want to give the Dáil the impression that if I did not get that undertaking this tariff would not be imposed. I am not setting up as a standard to be applied to all tariffs suggested here that the prices must be maintained at the same level as in England. Irish industries were killed by a process of price fixation. That is not the test we are going to apply to any application made to us. The test we will apply is: is the industry suitable to this country; can our people be employed in it; can it produce at an economic figure; can they develop the resources of the country in the development of the industry? If we get affirmative answers to these questions, we are going to assist that industry, but not necessarily by a tariff. The tariff is only one method, but we are going to their assistance to insure that such industries will develop.

Mr. MacDermot

What will be the test of an economic figure?

Mr. Lemass

We can see that in relation to each industry as we come to it. The one point I want to make quite clear in the minds of Deputies is that the English level of prices is not going to determine the number of industries or the nature of the industries that will exist here. In this case, however, we have no difficulty in that matter. Working to one quarter of capacity, the Irish firms have been selling in the past at the same price as the English, and as a result of this duty, when they are working to full capacity, we can expect from them a diminution rather than an increase in price.

Mr. Morrissey

Are they not members of the ring that fixed prices both for English and Irish?

Mr. Lemass

An import duty of this kind once imposed obviously terminates an arrangement of that kind, unless the English manufacturers choose to accept their obligations under the arrangement and continue to sell at the same price despite the duty, in which case the revenue will gain and the tariff will be ineffective. We have heard a number of speeches about a tax upon farmers and the increase in the cost of production, which were obviously nonsense; obviously designed to damn the chances of this industry, and made without any other reason. I cannot understand what other motive is behind them. Deputy Brasier talked nonsense about farmers having to pay thirty-three and a third more for their machinery. Why should they, unless they are people of a mentality determined to get English machines at any price, no matter what others are available? Irish factories are in a position to supply all our requirements at the same price as the machines sold in England. Is there any reason, under these circumstances, why a farmer should pay 33? per cent. tax, or 25 per cent. tax, as a matter of fact, in order to get machines of English make? No reason whatever.

A further statement made by Deputy Brasier, that this tariff may only last for a limited period, raises another matter. If Deputies go out deliberately to create the idea that any arrangements made by this Government to foster industry are going to be only of a temporary nature and will terminate with the termination of the Government, it is obviously going to be much more difficult for us to get industrial development pushed ahead, or to get people to risk their money in the extension of existing factories and the establishment of new ones. I hope that we can get from the Party opposite some assurance that if a duty is imposed by this Government it will not be removed by them without, at any rate, some examination into the facts, that they will operate the machinery of the Tariff Commission, for which they have such regard, before removing a duty, as they did before imposing it.

Mr. Brasier

What I did say was that farmers would probably delay buying in the hope that if there was a change of Government the tariff would be removed.

Mr. Corry

What do you know about tillage?

Mr. Brasier

More than you do.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy McGilligan talks about the cost to the community of putting these 500 men to work, that it was estimated would be put to work, as a result of the tariff. There will be no cost to the community.

Mr. Hogan (Galway):

Nonsense.

Mr. Lemass

In what way is the community going to pay the cost? It is not going to pay it in import taxes. We do not anticipate one penny to the revenue as a result of the duty. It is not going to pay it in increased cost of machinery. How is it going to pay it? It seems to me that we have discovered one particular method by which we can put 500 men into work without costing the community anything. If any Deputy can demonstrate how any member of the community is going to pay one penny in order to put these 500 men into work, I shall be glad if he will do so. No one has done it. There will be no increase in the cost of home-manufactured machinery. There will be no increase in the cost of the foreign machinery, except for those who desire to pay more because they are foolish. I do not think Deputies opposite, if they cast their minds back over the years since 1926, when the Tariff Commission was established, can remember a single case for a tariff put up to the Tariff Commission as strong as the case that can be made for this tariff. The machinery manufacturers were considering an application to the Tariff Commission and that application was in the Department of Industry and Commerce when the change of Government took place. They were, for various reasons, hesitant about pushing it. Some of these reasons are known to Deputies. Their doubts and fears in that regard were removed with the change of Government, and they have now secured that protection to which they were entitled, and that protection which will insure the development of the industry which they might have got if the Tariff Commission had brooded over the matter for four years.

Deputy Blythe asked some questions concerning the reason for imposing the tariff, the circumstances under which it was imposed, and the reason why the 25 per cent. rate was fixed. First of all, I want to make quite clear that we did not use the machinery of the Customs Duties (Provisional Imposition) Act for the purpose of giving effect to our tariff policy. We found that subsequent to the change of Government imports of certain commodities were very greatly increased. In respect of some of these commodities, boots, for example, the supply brought in is sufficient to meet all the needs of the people here for a period of at least six months. The result is that a definite industrial injury has been done, in so far as the existing home factories will be deprived of orders until these stocks are cleared. As the Deputy is aware, certain machinery was established by him which enabled the Department of Industry and Commerce to get immediate notification from any port where a customs officer noticed an abnormal consignment of particular goods arriving. One of the first, if not actually the first, such notification that came before us was in respect of agricultural machinery. This order was imposed in March and related to a considerable consignment of certain machinery obviously imported much earlier than usual, and in much larger quantities. We have used the machinery of that Act only to deal with the emergency situation which arose in the past three or four weeks when these very abnormal importations took place. We have used that to the minimum extent. There are quite a number of classes of goods in respect of which the amount coming in could be fairly described as abnormal, but emergency orders were not applied because we do not want to be rushed into taking action without being satisfied as to the consequences.

The resolution before the Dáil represents the carefully considered proposal for the protection of this industry. I admit it represents a modification of the original proposal hastily prepared and applied. None of the Deputies who have spoken opposite have been able to find any serious fault with the duty as now modified. That duty represents the maximum protection that can be given to the industry without imposing hardship upon anybody. That is the reason the 25 per cent. rate was fixed. It was considered that 25 per cent. would effectively stop the unnecessary importation of foreign agricultural machinery. I am quite prepared if we find it is not effective for that purpose to recommend the Dáil to increase it. The intention is to stop imports because the existing factories are able to supply all the requirements and machinery which is as good as cheaply as the imported machinery. I cannot understand the mentality that seems to think that machinery coming from England is better than our own manufacture. One of our factories is larger and better equipped than any of the English factories, and can supply better machinery than any in England. We should give an industry of that kind, with large capital, which has been carrying on with considerable difficulty and which is blessed with efficiency and enterprise in its management, every opportunity, and that is what we are proposing to do. I do not propose to delay the Dáil longer as there is another motion to come before the House. Deputies will realise the necessity for getting a decision in respect of this and the subsequent motion this evening. Certain instructions must go to the Customs authorities, and it is necessary that before the Dáil adjourns the decision upon these motions should be known so that either the modifications can be brought into operation at once or the duties cease to be applied. If the resolution is defeated the duty ceases to be operative and any duty which has been paid by the importers as long as the duty was operative becomes repayable. There is no reason however why this particular duty should not be made permanent, and I hope in respect of any other proposal of a similar nature I have to make that it will be possible for me to make as strong a case for it as in this particular instance.

Mr. Minch

There was one point in the speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that will, I think, cause a certain amount of anxiety, namely, that in the event of a new industry being established in the Free State and that industry being established by reason of a certain definite protection given, that industry might collapse if a new Government came in with a change of policy.

Mr. Lemass

I think the Deputy misunderstands me. In relation to the establishment of a new industry in consequence of a certain contract with the Government, I think that contract would be regarded as binding upon our successors, just as the contract our predecessors made in the case of the Carlow Beet Factory is binding upon us. But the rate of import duties that applies in the case of particular commodities is obviously one that could be varied from time to time. What I am suggesting is that Deputies opposite should assent, say, to this extent, in connection with industrial development, namely, that they would undertake that any duties which this Dáil applies would not be modified without examination by some body before which the industralists concerned could make their case; that if we are going to get people to invest capital and risk their resources in consequence of any protective measures adopted, it is necessary that they should have some degree of security as to the future.

Mr. Hogan (Galway):

Have you any doubt about that?

Mr. Lemass

None whatever.

Mr. Keating

I listened to the Minister explaining that the farmers will not have to pay more for home-manufactured machinery than for imported machinery. I, for one, would be in favour of supporting our own industries. I know that in Wexford there are hundreds of men walking about idle. If the farmer is not going to pay more for his machinery it is only right that the Irish people should buy Irish goods.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy asking a question? He is not entitled to make a speech now, but, if he asks a question, it may be answered.

Mr. Keating

I have no question to ask, but I want to say that I am satisfied with what I heard the Minister say, that the farmer will not have to pay more for this machinery by reason of its being home-manufactured. Has the farmer protection that the price of his machinery is not going to be any more than he had to give for it before? The price will not go up?

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. Vaughan

It has gone up already.

Mr. Lemass

If Deputy Vaughan has any information to substantiate that statement I will be very glad if he will supply it.

Mr. Keating

I think we cannot relieve unemployment without giving home employment, but any man who bought foreign machinery last year should have some protection that he will be able to buy parts for it, even at more than 5/-.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot make a speech at this stage.

Mr. Keating

I very seldom make a speech.

Mr. Dillon

If duties have been paid since the tariff was imposed, would you have to refund them if the motion is rejected?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Have any been paid?

Mr. Lemass

I could not say that. It is possible some may have, but not to any considerable extent.

Mr. Anthony

The question put by Deputy Keating is, I think, a pertinent one. I have evidence in the case of another tariff, namely, oatmeal, to show that the price had gone up to a large amount. That was on 20th October, some time before the tariff.

An Ceann Comhairle

Has the Deputy a question to put to the Minister?

Mr. Anthony

The question put by Deputy Keating, which I consider pertinent, was: will this duty increase the price to farmers?

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy had been here for the last half-hour he would know all about it.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 77; Níl, 58.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Bryan.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, William Frazer.
• Carney, Frank.
• Carty, Frank.
• Clery, Micheál.
• Colbert, James.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Curran, Patrick Joseph.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Everett, James.
• Flinn, Hugo V.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Geoghegan, James.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Gormley, Francis.
• Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Lynch, James B.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moane, Edward.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• Norton, William.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Reilly, Thomas J.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Powell, Thomas P.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Brasier, Brooke.
• Broderick, William Jos.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Coburn, James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Davis, Michael.
• Desmond, William.
• Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Finlay, Thomas A.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Gorey, Denis John.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Keogh, Mvles.
• Kiersey, John.
• Lynch, Finian.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• McDonogh, Fred.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Minch, Sydney B.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James Edward.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Connor, Batt.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Hara, Patrick.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Neill, Eamonn.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reidy, James.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Vaughan, Daniel.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Tellers: Tá: Deputies Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and Doyle.

Motion declared carried.