Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 May 1932

Vol. 41 No. 17

In Committee on Finance. - Bedsteads and Furniture Provisional Variation Order.

Mr. Lemass

I move:

That the Customs Duties (Bedsteads and Furniture) (Provisional Variation) Order, 1932, which was made on the 2nd day of May, 1932, 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 4th day of April, 1932, be approved.

In April, 1925, there was imposed upon furniture imported into this State a customs duty of 33? per cent. The first result of the imposition of the duty was that the furniture-making industry made very rapid progress here. The numbers of firms engaged in it increased from 16 to over 100, and the number of workers employed, on the basis of full-time employment, rose from 310 to 1,545 in September of last year. The progress made by the industry was all the more remarkable in view of a certain prejudice which existed on the part of certain large retailers in the State against home-produced furniture. The Department of Industry and Commerce, under the late administration, on several occasions, made representation to those large retail houses with a view to inducing them to place more of their orders with Saorstát firms. As a result of continuous representation of that kind the position eased somewhat. But considerable importation of furniture, despite the duty, prevailed, the value of such imports last year being £109,000. The existing industry is of course quite competent to supply all the reasonable requirements of the country. But prices had been falling continuously. The general position is that the factories are almost, if not entirely, in a position to produce furniture at the same price as the much larger factories in England which have the advantage of a much larger market available for them. That is a very creditable achievement in view of the short period in which the industry has been given an opportunity of development.

There is one firm which has reached the point of building up a substantial export trade in certain classes of furniture. The industry is one which it is very desirable to assist and develop because of the nature of the employment given. The average wages for a skilled worker in the trade is over £4 a week and there is the opportunity provided in the industry by which young people can become apprenticed to a skilled trade that will give them an opportunity to secure their livelihood in after life.

Unfortunately, however, there are a number of foreign firms which have recently begun operating in the industry, and which are not observing the prevailing standard in respect of hours of labour and wages of workers. While that is a matter of course primarily to be dealt with by the trade union and the employers' organisations concerned, it is giving the Department of Industry and Commerce some concern, and it may be necessary to take action in the matter if the position is not remedied. The design in increasing the duty was to secure for the factories here the remaining part of the market for this State. The duty will be effective to that end and a fair amount of additional employment will be given in consequence. And the ability of the factories to improve their methods, and to reduce their prices and possibly to build up an export trade in a certain specialised class of furniture will be increased.

As far as the need for acting by Provisional Order is concerned, the situation developed that some abnormal importations of furniture were reported, and there was reason to believe that if the duty was not imposed by Provisional Order on the date it was imposed large stocks of furniture would be brought in which would have held up the development of the industry, and, in fact, cause unemployment in some of the existing factories for some months to come. The Executive Council, therefore, on my recommendation, decided to act by Provisional Order, and this Resolution asks the Dáil to approve of the duties imposed by that Provisional Order.

Mr. Anthony

There is a lot to be said for this Resolution, but I am wondering how does the Minister envisage an export trade in furniture. I would like to get some further information with regard to that aspect of the position. How can he envisage an export trade of Irish made furniture if he puts a tariff against imported furniture? I think this is one of the good things in the Budget. It is a tariff with which I agree very largely. But I want to ask the Minister one or two questions. I want him to satisfy me that furniture will be available to the ordinary working class people of this country at a fairly reasonable price. We do know that a certain trade in furniture has grown up and has been done mainly by auctioneers and others. These people could not at any point indicate the place of origin, because these articles of furniture may have passed through two or three hands. That kind of furniture was available for middle-class people, farmers and others, who availed of the opportunity of getting well-made furniture at reasonable prices. There is a demand in this country for cheap furniture—I mean cheap and good furniture—I know also there is a traffic in this country in cheap and what I may call shoddy furniture. If this duty puts a stop to the cheap and shoddy furniture I shall be satisfied, but I want to ensure that furniture will be available at reasonable prices to people of moderate incomes, and in those I refer to the fairly comfortable artisan and the skilled labourer.

I am intrigued by the Minister's suggestion that we are going to develop an export trade, but I should like him to develop his argument. His statement did not satisfy me on that point. How does he propose to build up this export trade? Does he think that by antagonising other people —and tariffs do antagonise other people—he will be able to do so? Is he so childish as to think that people are going to take our goods if we have tariffs against them?

Mr. Moore

Surely tariff countries trade with one another?

Mr. Anthony

They do, but not with such high tariffs as we have. Can you buy a motor car more cheaply than you could before?

Mr. Norton

I think a very substantial case can be made for conserving the home market in the production of furniture for manufacture by the Irish people who are engaged in the industry. I believe that any steps the Government may take in that connection are steps that deserve the support of this House. The skill and craftsmanship of Irish woodworkers are world-famous. It is a test of inherent ability for a woodworker to be able to say that he acquired his skill under conditions obtaining in the Irish woodworking trade. I am glad the Minister has indicated that it is the purpose of the Government to endeavour to conserve the whole Irish market for Irish producing firms. While I like the sympathy of the Minister towards maintaining wage standards and decent standards of living for the workers engaged in the industry, I would like to have something more definite than mere sympathy. The Minister indicated that certain foreign firms that came here are not observing the wage standards associated with the industry, and not observing decent conditions. It is a notorious fact that woodworking and joinery work are carried on in Dublin and elsewhere under conditions which are a reflection upon the industry. In his reply I hope the Minister will indicate that if we are going to protect Irish manufacturers against foreign competition the Government will not allow the wage standards to be pulled down by foreign firms who come here and impose low rates of wages through economic pressure—to set up conditions which would be a reflection on the whole industry. The sooner the Minister states definitely that the Government is standing for a fair wage standard and decent conditions of living for workers engaged in protected industries, the sooner will the workers of the country give wholehearted support to the policy of conserving industry for Irish manufacturers. At a later date on the relative motion I hope he will indicate that the Government is prepared to do something beyond the extension of sympathy to the workers in the industry. If the Minister can give that assurance I think the workers will be glad of it, and we can look forward to a still more rapid development of the furniture industry.

Mr. A. Byrne

I approve of this motion and my comments will be in the nature of a question to the Minister. I would like to know if he would consider the advisability of taking power on behalf of the Department so that his officials could enter workshops where these articles are being made to see that the quality is up to a decent standard. I got a complaint some time ago from a representative of this industry that people had started small workshops in back lanes and did not recognise trade union conditions, in fact, that the surroundings generally were not suitable to employment. Complaint was also made that the material—the stuffing and padding generally—was not of a type that should be used. The material was second-hand cloth or sacking which was covered up with a nice outer cover to deceive purchasers. I think the Minister should take power to see that the public generally are not imposed upon by the class of goods to which I have referred.

Major Myles

We have had a tariff of 33 1-3 per cent. on furniture for the past five or six years. The Minister now proposes to raise it to 75 per cent. It seems to me that if an industry in this country, especially one which Deputy Norton says is famous for its craftsmen, could not compete with the outside world with a tariff of 33 1-3 per cent. it is not worth bolstering up.

Mr. Norton

The employers' fault.

Major Myles

With regard to the statement made by the Minister and by other Deputies as to conditions in the factories and workshops, I always understood that the factory inspectors here were very efficient at their work. I know from my experience they are hard to get over. A notice is served on the first occasion and on the next occasion, a summons. I think that if there are complaints about conditions someone is not doing his duty. I say that an industry in this country which had 33? per cent. protection, and in respect of which there were last year goods imported to the value of some hundreds of thousands of pounds——

Mr. Lemass

£100,000.

Major Myles

In these circumstances I would not be in favour of more than doubling the tariff.

Mr. McGilligan

I think there is a lack of information from the Minister for increasing the tariff of 33? per cent. to 75 per cent., with one-third remission in the case of Great Britain and Northern Ireland imports. The Minister based his case on the increased manufacture already done under the 33? per cent. tariff, but I was rather amused to find him putting forward as one of the arms of that contention the fact that the number of firms increased from 16 to over 100. To say that firms had increased from 16 to 100 would give a picture of industries springing up on a grand scale. Although I hold this tariff has been successful, to an extent, it has not been so successful as this grand scale of increase from 16 firms to 100 would lead one to think. I remember that a couple of years after the imposition of the tariff there was a complaint made that 50 per cent. of the home manufacture was made in what were called back kitchens and stables, a contention that I hold was wholly absurd, but the complaint was made. The contention ran further that good factories were being despoiled of their most competent workers because after getting a certain amount of training in goodish firms, workers were snapped up by certain people who came from outside and settled in kitchens and back lanes. They took away, it was said, some of the best skilled tradesmen. Any time you want to damage people who are making an industry, if you cannot use the word dumping with regard to them, you will certainly say that they are foreigners, who have come from outside and are living in a back lane or a stable. That is part of the ordinary contention that has to be expected in any of these businesses.

However, there were great complaints about these people. There was considerable investigation of complaints which, if true, would have brought firms very definitely within the scope of the Factory Act inspectors. So far as I remember, no cases were discovered which could have got firms within the control of the factory inspectors. In so far as the limited detail into which factory inspectors were allowed to go was concerned, these factories, in the main, if they did not get first-class certificates, were passed by the inspectors.

We are told that it is necessary to increase this tariff from what it was— 33? per cent.—to 75 per cent., with the remission I have spoken of, and that, although the Minister told us the number of firms had increased from 16 to over 100, and the number of workers from 300 to over 1,000. When he spoke about the £109,000 worth of imports last year, he could have said that that showed a decrease on the previous year's figures and on the figures of the year before. The figure was somewhere in the region of £150,000. That decrease has been fairly continuous so far as I remember, and it seemed to indicate that the tariff had been quite scientifically adjusted and was doing quite well, notwithstanding all the complaints about these kitchens and stables and the dearth of competent workers. It was definitely asserted in 1927 that the dearth of competent workers was such that it imposed upon one manufacturer the necessity of importing cross-Channel workers. There has been an increase in the home manufactures, but one point was not adverted to by the Minister in his opening speech. There was a pretty well grounded contention that certain grades of furniture of the very highest class were only being made here by one firm. That one firm—it was an individual more than a firm—was renowned outside the country and was not in a position to cope with orders given him outside the group that he had around him. A submission was made that if the duty on the highest-grade furniture was reduced and the duty on the lower-grade furniture increased, there would be better employment for the manufacturing end and for the trading end. That point seems to have been neglected. We have now an impost of 75 per cent. intended to crush out any possible importation.

Notwithstanding what has been said about those people who work in kitchens and stables, Deputy Norton raises a question, from the Labour point of view, as to taking care of the workers. I never could understand why the workers and the trade unions, who are very well organised in this particular line, were not able to look after their own interests. The excuse mainly given to me was that these small firms employed no trade union labour whatsoever and were, consequently, able to evade trade union pressure in some way I could not understand. Apart from those people, I understood that one of the disadvantages the home manufacturer suffered was that the worker here worked shorter hours and got higher wages than the worker for the competing firms across Channel. Deputy Norton wants the workers more definitely protected than they have been, and I think that cry is going to be raised whenever you have a tariff raised suddenly, without excuse given, from 33? per cent. to 75 per cent. You are going to have, more or less, Australian conditions piling up here. If the manufacturers have been doing pretty well up to the present, in the sense that they have got more trade, why should not the worker, with the increased tariff, get a little more?

Mr. Norton

Will the Deputy quote the working hours here and in Great Britain?

Mr. McGilligan

I cannot quote them at the moment, but that was the contention made to me frequently.

Mr. Norton

Will the Deputy look it up and see if there is any difference?

Mr. McGilligan

I shall, but I think the best record I can get, whether the contention was frequently advanced by the manufacturers that the workers here worked shorter hours and got higher rates of wages than the workers in corresponding firms across the water——

Mr. Good

That contention is not limited to the furniture industry.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not want to drag in too much. Why should not the workers look for a bit more under the circumstances developing at the moment? There is to be a tariff of 75 per cent. instead of 33? per cent. There is going to be no question of competition henceforward.

Mr. Moore

What about internal competition?

Mr. McGilligan

Internal competition in an industry which has not even managed to stop an import of £109,000 worth, which was £150,000 worth the year before. So far as I understood, the contention of the manufacturers up to the end of the year 1930 was that the stress of competition at home had not enabled them to bring down their costs to anything like the figures on the other side. There is a distinction to be made there. The retailers would require something more on the tariffed articles here than the retailers would expect on the other side, because they do a bigger trade on the other side. As late as 1930 there was an admission by the manufacturers here that, although they had cut prices considerably, their production costs and wholesale prices had not been brought down, to anything nearer than 15 per cent. on the average to their competitors' figure. Some things like kitchen chairs had been brought down to the lowest price on the other side. Costs had been brought down also in respect of four or five other articles but, in the main, there was a 15 per cent. differential admitted in the general rates for furniture. The keen competition that Deputy Moore thinks there is in every industry did not bring them to that point.

As to the contention that the tariff is not sufficient, I do not remember any tariff which was ever put on in relation to which you could not find some manufacturer to contend that the benefit of the tariff had not been wiped out by something else. As late as three years after the imposition of this tariff there was at least one manufacturer in a biggish way who held that the whole 33? per cent. tariff had been wiped out by the difference between wages and conditions here and on the other side. If this 75 per cent. tariff lasts long enough, I am sure that there will be somebody going to the Minister to urge that it is not sufficient and to suggest that there should be prohibition of imports. This is the first occasion any explanation has been given as to the use of this anti-dumping legislation. I should like to have some further particulars regarding the Minister's statement that "some abnormal importations had been reported, and he believed that large stocks would have been built up." I wonder if we could have, at a later stage, information as to the amount of these abnormal importations. Was there one boat load, what was the value of it and how was it divided between high grade furniture and the type of furniture made here? Perhaps the Minister would also explain what was the likelihood of large stocks being built up against the then 33? per cent. tariff.

Mr. Brasier

We have a tradition in this country in regard to the inherited skill of our workers in the manufacture of furniture. I do not think more beautiful furniture could be found than was turned out in the Marsh, in the City of Cork, many years ago. It is in existence still, and is quite as good as when it was turned out of the workshops in that city. It is the most magnificent stuff that any man could desire to have in his house. It is beautifully strong, and probably would have to be broken up before it could be got rid of. There is no question about it, that this is an industry that should command our sympathy. It is one that I think can be very easily developed, but I very much question the necessity for such a high tariff as 75 per cent.

There is another factor that has to be taken into consideration with regard to the industry and that is the change in fashion that has taken place in regard to certain articles. Take, for instance, bedsteads. There is a certain firm in this country manufacturing iron bedsteads and the tariff of 33? per cent., which was put on some time ago, did not improve their trade in the slightest degree. The change of fashion more or less made iron bedsteads a back number. We may possibly have other changes in fashion taking place in regard to certain articles manufactured here. The tastes of people differ very much with the passage of time.

One of the factors that I think we should take into consideration is, are there the necessary skilled workers in the country to carry out the large increase in output that is hoped for? When any change is made in an industry that is a fact that should be taken into consideration—that the people in that industry would be able to supply the demand. I feel that the tariff imposed is far too high, that it will have the effect simply of increasing the prices very materially to the purchaser and that there will be a consequent decrease in the demand for furniture.

Mr. Corry

I think the figures given in regard to this tariff are in the first place a sure indication that the Minister is on the right road. The finding of employment in this country for 1,200 extra persons is not a matter to be despised. As regards the danger suggested by Deputy Brasier of there not being sufficient skilled workers, we know that the technical schools are now turning out highly trained young men capable of manufacturing these articles. We had a suggestion from Deputy McGilligan that we reduced the tariff on high-grade furniture and increased it on the low-grade furniture. It is admitted that there is one firm in this country that is producing furniture of a sufficiently high-grade for the highest-graders. I cannot see any reason whatever why we should favour a particular class in this country because that is what it means. If anybody is entitled to be considered it is the poor. I think anybody who went through the Dublin Show here or the Cork Industrial Fair will have to admit that you can get first-rate furniture to-day at a very reasonable price, but there is a class in this country—and that is why I like to see the tariff going up to 75 per cent.—who would not buy Irish furniture no matter what tariff is put on imported furniture. I am sorry the Minister could not make the tariff 100 per cent. and let the class who will not buy Irish furniture, no matter what tariff is put on, pay for it, and it is about time they did.

I realise the significance of Deputy Anthony's point as regards furniture brought in here by auctioneers. We all know that at auctions generally the price of articles is put up in many cases beyond their original cost. I know very well from my experience both in Cork and Dublin that many people go into these auctions who know absolutely nothing about the furniture, but they say when buying an article: "We are only a couple of shillings over the last man who bid and we are safe." I for one welcome this tariff in the belief that it will undoubtedly give more employment to a big number who are now on the unemployment list. Anything that is done in that way should be welcomed. I sympathise with Deputy Good's interjection in regard to the longer hours we heard about and the bigger wages of people in other trades besides the furniture trade. He does not look like one of these distressed, broken-down men who have suffered so much from high wages.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will deal with the resolution that is before the House.

Mr. Corry

I welcome the tariff as an incentive to production in this country and as a tariff that will undoubtedly increase employment.

Mr. Good

Would the Minister inform the House from what source this demand for the higher tariff came? As already pointed out, we had a tariff of 33? per cent. Why was it necessary to make it 75 per cent.? What object did the Minister hope to achieve by that particular addition? Another point that was referred to, and which was something new to me, was the fact that trained tradesmen are being turned out for this particular industry by our technical schools. I do not know whether the Deputy who has just spoken was quite well-informed on that point. I certainly would not accept him as an authority. To me, as having some knowledge of the work of our technical schools it is news to know that trained tradesmen are being turned out by the technical schools. In that connection I would like to know, seeing the increased demand there is for furniture made in the home factories, whether any restrictions are imposed by the furniture trades on the number of apprentices because, if that were so, it might create a very serious difficulty. You might, on the one hand, have orders which the local factories are unable to meet, and, on the other hand, you would have a duty which prevented the importation of furniture. Between these two millstones certain people might suffer. I would like to know from the Minister whether there are any restrictions of this particular type imposed by these trades on apprentices.

Mr. Dillon

I would like to impress on the Minister the desirability of investigating the point raised by Deputy Anthony. I am not altogether satisfied that second-hand furniture is deserving of very extended consideration, but I think there are snags and difficulties involved here. I imagine that if this tariff is applied in its present form to the second-hand furniture trade, particularly in the City of Dublin, it will work great hardship to a deserving section of the people, and it will practically break up a large number of auctioneering firms who give a considerable amount of employment. I am informed that there is great danger of grave hardship eventuating in that direction. I would like the Minister to look into the furniture tariff with special reference to auctioneering firms and people who deal in furniture in that way.

Mr. Moore

I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. Does the Minister expect that this tariff will wipe out the revenue from the importation of furniture altogether? Secondly, I would like to ask is there any real check on the invoiced price of furniture coming into this country? I am informed that there is wholesale swindling with regard to the invoiced price of certain furniture. To attempt to check this would be a very difficult and costly process, and the average officer has no means of judging whether the value declared on the invoice is correct or not. Very often consignments of furniture of exactly the same quality, to two different houses, are given altogether different values, and the duty paid on these consignments is quite different. I know it is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners, but in so far as it relates to the effectiveness of the tariff it is of interest to this House.

General Mulcahy

In connection with this particular industry one hears complaints from time to time of manufacturers wishing to introduce certain modern processes in connection with the work and of definite and successful objection being taken by the workers to the introduction of these new processes. One hears of that from time to time. In the discussion of this matter with the manufacturers, I wonder if that aspect of the case—the reduction of the cost of production—has been discussed with the Minister. A very big increase in the tariff would, I submit, make it necessary, particularly in connection with the cheaper classes of furniture, that nothing should be left undone to reduce the cost of production.

Mr. Lemass

In this matter Deputy Mulcahy is misinformed. In fact quite the reverse, according to the information supplied to me, of what he has stated is the truth. A number of factories engaged in this industry in the Saorstát are very up-to-date and have recently installed the newest machinery available.

General Mulcahy

So that I can invite those who made complaints to me to make these complaints to the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

Yes. As regards the other points that have been raised, Deputy Moore referred to the matter of checking the invoiced prices. Complaints have reached me relating to second-hand furniture, and they have been numerous, particularly from Cork, and very strong representations have been made that second-hand furniture is coming in valued at prices which are ridiculously low and consequently to some extent evading the duties payable upon it. The matter is being looked into. But it is obviously difficult to fix a standard by which the value of second-hand furniture can be checked. Deputy Anthony referred to another matter relating to second-hand furniture and that is the difficulty of procuring a certificate of origin from the manufacturers such as is usually required by the Revenue Commissioners in order that they might get the benefit of the preferential rate of duty. I have received representations from the Auctioneers' Association and others who deal in second-hand furniture on that point, and an arrangement has been made by which, if the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that the furniture is of British or Dominion origin, it will be admitted at the preferential rate. I am informed that anyone who is familiar with the furniture business has no difficulty in knowing at sight furniture of British make and furniture of Continental make. So that the particular point, upon which representations were made to me by those who deal in second-hand furniture, has been met.

We have heard some discussion about the conditions of labour, and comparisons were asked for between the conditions existing here and the conditions existing in Great Britain. That is not such an easy thing as may appear at first sight. One of the reasons why this heavy duty became necessary was the fact that there was developing in Great Britain an industry for the manufacture of furniture on somewhat similar lines to that which has been complained of here, namely, what Deputy McGilligan called back kitchen industries, and furniture was being produced not in factories but in yards and places where no overhead charges operated, and under conditions of labour which would not be tolerated if known; and that it was furniture of a type which to a large extent was being imported here, and imported at such very cheap rates that it could be sold in competition with the products of our own factories despite the 33? per cent. duty.

Mr. MacDermot

As a matter of interest, could the Minister say from what part of England that is coming?

Mr. Lemass

I think mainly from London, if my recollection is correct. As far as the position here is concerned, I have discussed the matter which has been mentioned with representatives of the Labour unions and with the representatives of the employers' organisation, and, although, like Deputy McGilligan, I am not quite clear why these organisations between them could not have remedied the position of which they complained before this, I understand they are making a special effort now. If they fail in that, or whether they fail or not, it may be necessary to secure for the Department of Industry and Commerce more extensive powers. In the majority of cases the actual terms of the Factory Acts are complied with, but at the same time, the conditions of labour are in many cases unsatisfactory. Where a saw is left unprotected, or something of that kind occurs, a prosecution can follow. But there are many ways of avoiding and evading the legal obligations of the Factory Acts, and these have been resorted to in some cases. And the extent to which it may be necessary to extend the scope of these Acts to deal with these cases is at present under examination. Deputy Anthony asked how we propose to build up an export trade. I do not propose to do it. I mentioned the fact that at least one factory was succeeding in doing it to some extent. I hope it will succeed in that effort. It is a matter for the manufacturers. But on the general point I should like to say this: That the surest way in which you can make it possible for a manufacturer to build up an export trade is by securing him a sure footing in the home market.

There is, I am certain, in no country in the world any industry with a substantial export trade that did not, as a preliminary to building up that trade, secure itself in its own market first. And if we are going to get an export trade for goods of any kind in this country—and I believe that in certain classes of cases it is possible, and we are starting in on it at the moment—I believe that we can do that only by securing for the manufacturers in the home market a return which will ensure a reasonable profit on the capital invested in any particular case, so that the export market can be attacked under the most favourable circumstances.

The matter raised by Deputy Alfred Byrne concerning the quality of the material which is used in some of the small furniture factories in certain parts of Dublin, is one that will arise for examination under certain legislation which it is proposed to introduce relating to prices, because, as I said before, price has no significance unless related to quality, and whereas no objection may be raised to the material used if the price reflects the type of material, yet if an attempt was made to pass off as of good material, furniture which was of that description, it would be desirable that we should have power to take action, and it is intended that we should get that power.

These are the main points raised by those who have participated in the discussion. It is not anticipated that there will be any increase in price. On the contrary, we anticipate that the increased output from the various factories will permit them to reduce prices in certain cases. If certain people, as Deputy Corry said, insist upon importing furniture, they will have to pay the increased duty, and I think it is only reasonable to expect that those people should contribute to the revenues of the State in that connection. The industry here is quite capable of supplying all the reasonable requirements of our people in furniture of every grade. In circumstances of this sort we propose that the home market should be preserved to them. Deputy McGilligan said the next thing is that there will be prohibition. We intend it to be something of that nature.

Mr. Good

Doubtless the Minister has overlooked the question I put to him. Will he inform the House from what particular section of the community this demand for an increased duty came? Also, in view of the increased demand for labour, we find, in regard to the training of labour, there is amongst juveniles an increasing difficulty in getting employment, particularly in the furniture trade. I am anxious to know in regard to this trade which, as the Minister states, has a bright outlook, whether it is capable of employing a considerable number of juveniles— training them.

Mr. Lemass

I am not in a position to give the Deputy any precise information regarding the number of apprentices engaged in the industry. There are, however, some, and there are certain technical schools in which pupils are trained for this particular trade. I deliberately avoided the question regarding the source from which the demand for a tariff came. I do not think it necessary there should be a demand from any source before the Government should take action, if the Government is satisfied that action is desirable. Generally speaking, the case for an increased tariff was discussed with the representatives of the employers engaged in this business and with representatives of the workers.

Mr. McGilligan

At their request?

Mr. Lemass

No. I want to make the Deputy quite clear as to what happened. When the change of Government took place the trade associations connected with all these industries were invited to come together at Government Buildings, where I had an opportunity of discussing with them the conditions prevailing in relation to their industries, the prospects of assisting them in various ways, and the measures that might be taken in order to secure development. A discussion took place with the representatives of the furniture manufacturers. Various matters were touched upon, such as second-hand furniture and certain types of factories. Reference was made to an increase in the measure of the protection afforded.

Mr. Good

Does the Minister not consider, before any additional duty, particularly a duty of such a heavy nature as this, is put on any trade, that it is desirable to consult those interested in the trade and get their support?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Good

If we get impositions of this kind put on they may have serious reactions. The reason I stress this particular point on the Minister is that I have seen a resolution, adopted by a body of furniture manufacturers, protesting against the duty. I suppose that resolution has reached the Minister?

Mr. Lemass

I rather thought that was what the Deputy had in mind. If the Deputy studied the papers more carefully he would also have seen other resolutions published from the Irish Wholesale Manufacturers' Association indignantly repudiating the claim of the first organisation to speak on their behalf. They alleged that it was an organisation of retailers who protested and not of manufacturers.

Mr. Good

Did the demand for additional protection come from any section of the trade?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Moore

Is it not the case that this is not an increased duty in the ordinary sense? Is not this an anti-dumping duty and is it not quite possible the reasons which have actuated this motion would not be known to the people of the trade, but only to the Government—such things as the financial position in certain countries exporting furniture to this country? That information could not be known to individual manufacturers as accurately as to the Government here.

Mr. Good

Is that the case the Minister makes for this particular imposition?

Mr. Moore

This act is not one that could be governed by the ordinary procedure that would govern the imposition of a tariff at all.

Mr. McGilligan

Hear, hear!

Professor Thrift

Does the Minister's reply to Deputy Good mean that the retailers object to the tariff because they anticipate less purchasing as a result and the manufacturers are in favour of it because they will be able to get higher prices?

Mr. Lemass

I mentioned in proposing the Resolution that my predecessor in the Department had to make representations to several retailers to place their orders with the Irish factories. They had a very distinct prejudice against doing so.

Mr. Dockrell

I would like to ask the Minister if the furniture merchants were consulted? Were they called into consultation?

Mr. Lemass

I am not aware who the furniture merchants are.

Mr. Dockrell

I mean the people who sell furniture—the furniture retailers and the merchants.

Mr. Lemass

I cannot say. I have had discussions with them, whether before or after the duty was imposed I am not sure. I am not standing upon the principle that I must have a demand for a tariff before imposing it. I say that where it is reasonable and practicable, I intend to discuss it with all the interests concerned. I obviously am not going to call furniture retailers back and give them due notice about the duty, when the necessity for imposing a duty arises, from the very fact that people are bringing in abnormal quantities in anticipation of such imposition.

Mr. Dockrell

It occurred to me that if the merchants and manufacturers were brought into consultation the Minister might be able to discover what the difficulty was. Apparently the Minister listened to representatives from one side only, and then put on a duty. I am merely making the point that he might have discovered what were the difficulties if he consulted the other side.

Professor Thrift

I do not think the Minister quite got my point. It has been indicated quite definitely that the difference of opinion was between the retailers and the manufacturers. The retailers are objecting presumably because they anticipate less business. The manufacturers apparently were agreed to have an increased tariff. If the Minister consulted both retailers and manufacturers he might have got his information beforehand.

Mr. Norton

I would like to ask the Minister whether where he is satisfied that existing factory legislation is not adequate to compel manufacturers to conform to reasonable standards of work and conditions of labour, he will take power to amend the Factory Acts so as to prevent people carrying on industry in the unsatisfactory manner that he referred to on the occasion of another reply.

Mr. Lemass

The Department is at present examining the scope of the Factory Acts in relation to the actual experience of factory inspectors. If it is considered that more extended power is necessary, we will come to the Dáil and ask for it.

Mr. Norton

I would like to know from the Minister if, before coming to the Dáil, he will consult the national trade unions?

Mr. McGilligan

No more than the manufacturers, I hope.

Mr. Good

Will the Minister extend his inquiry into the number of apprentices that he considers necessary in view of the development of this particular trade and will he see that no limitations are imposed by trade unions to prevent numbers of young people getting an opportunity of learning that trade?

Mr. Moore

I wondered why Deputy Good did not ask that the furniture trade should be a "designated" trade under the new Vocational Act. Would not that answer the difficulty?

Mr. Good

No.

Mr. McGilligan

With regard to the aid Deputy Moore wanted to give to the Minister, would the Minister now state what was the abnormal importation actual and threatened which caused this Provisional Order to be passed, it being, as Deputy Moore stated, quite out of the ordinary, therefore to be imposed in circumstances quite out of the ordinary and necessitating an extreme tariff? We have not yet heard what it is.

Mr. Lemass

On the point raised by Deputy Good I may inform him that the present agreement operates to allow one apprentice for each three journeymen.

Mr. Good

And does the Minister consider that is sufficient?

Mr. Lemass

I have not examined the matter.

Mr. Good

Will the Minister inquire into it, and will he, if he is not satisfied that that one to three is sufficient, take steps to have it increased and so see that the young people will get an opportunity of learning those trades from which they are shut out at the moment?

Mr. Lemass

I will have that examined. I am not in a position at the moment to give Deputy McGilligan the details of actual importations such as are reported by the customs officers to my Department. A certain increase in imports had taken place, and there was reason for believing that further increases in imports were likely to follow. Under these circumstances the Executive Council imposed a duty by a Provisional Order instead of waiting to do so by a Budget Resolution.

Mr. McGilligan

We would like to have some indication as to what are considered abnormal importations without detailing the names of the firms. There is the sort of statement that in each of the six months previous to the imposition of this Order there was a monthly importation of so much furniture, and that in a particular month prior to the Order there was imported a particular amount. I think we could also ask, with reason, what was it that led the Minister to believe this very indefinite statement—that even further abnormal imports were to be expected?

Mr. O'Neill

One very important allegation was made here in the course of this discussion. The allegation made was that the skilled persons employed in the furniture making trade, particularly, have a higher rate of pay and work a shorter number of hours than prevails in similar trades across the Channel. If that is the case, the cost of production here must necessarily be very much higher and furniture must be dearer to the buyers in this country. If this 75 per cent tariff is put on, this industry becomes a completely sheltered one. In those circumstances, will the Minister tell us if he will be able to take sufficient steps to see that these alleged facts will not be an incentive to the employees to look for a still higher rate of pay and still shorter hours and so still further increase the cost of furniture made here?

Mr. Lemass

I do not think we could expect the standard prevailing in England as being necessarily the standard that should prevail here.

Mr. McGilligan

What is the implication?

Mr. Lemass

Any implication that the Deputy wishes to make out of it.

Mr. McGilligan

Did the Minister have representations made to him or has he discovered that they were made previously to the effect that there were shorter hours and higher wages prevailing in this country in the furniture trade than in England? If these representations were made to him has he made any examination of them and with what results?

Mr. Lemass

I cannot answer that question now.

Mr. Cosgrave

Would the Minister not give the information in reference to this abnormal importation, say, in this way:—Last year, £9,000 worth of furniture per month was imported and the year before £12,500 worth of furniture a month. Is there any information as to what percentage of increase was taking place or if there was a possibility of two months' supplies within the short space of two or three weeks? Taking the proposed imposition at 75 per cent. as against 33? per cent. formerly there is a very grave danger that we may lose the export trade that the Minister mentioned. The Minister shakes his head, but that does not really answer the question. There are several industries here which do not get anything like a big sale for their goods here in the country and which export extensively. Any industrialist can see that a certain amount of export trade with an internal trade is very good business. But to go at once from 33? per cent. to 75 per cent. on the mere assumption or assertion that a certain amount of dumping has taken place or that a certain amount of dumping is anticipated is scarcely a sound enough argument to put to the House for such a change in our fiscal policy.

Mr. Blythe

I did not have the advantage of being present in the House when the Minister was introducing the motion, but I gather from the discussion of the last half-hour that no case was made for this increase.

Mr. Lemass

From whom did the Deputy gather that?

Mr. Blythe

From the replies of the Minister himself. I gathered it from his replies to the various questions put to him, from his failure to say anything definite about the abnormal importations, from his attitude in regard to the wage question, and in fact from all the other matters that were put before him. That is what I gathered. I should imagine that a case might have been made or that it might be possible to make a case for increasing the already high tariff of 33? per cent. to 40 per cent., but it would require an extraordinary set of circumstances to justify increasing it up to 75 per cent. The Minister has said that a 75 per cent. tariff is meant to be a prohibitive tariff. It is meant to be the same as 100 per cent. tariff or a 200 per cent. tariff, something that will completely shut out the imports of furniture. On general principles I think it is undesirable to impose any tariff whatsoever of that particular sort.

There might be some key industry where some very high tariffs would be justified, but even in a key industry it is doubtful that there should be no external competition at all. We have heard and it seems not to be denied that wages are higher and the hours shorter here in some branches of this trade than at the other side of the Channel. Well, that means that the consumers here whose own conditions are not too good in many cases are already paying something beyond the ordinary level. If we are to have no outside competition it is probable that that will be carried further. We are providing the temptation to the furniture manufacturers to join together and fleece the consumers. It is not always easy to form rings even when it is possible to form them. But we should not put a special temptation in the way of any particular trade to have manufacturers forming themselves into a ring because there is absolutely no foreign competition against them. Then they could charge prices altogether excessive.

I think that this is a prohibitive tariff and the Dáil ought to consider it very carefully. I think it is one of the tariffs that the Dáil ought to reject. I do not know what extra employment it will give, but considering the amount of the imports and the extra employment given it cannot be very large, not as large even as would be found by estimating the average proportionate labour costs in the prices of the article of furniture, because though prices are put up, the consumption is going to go down. Furniture is one of the things in which consumption can be substantially reduced. People can manage to go along and patch up without buying new furniture, as they possibly will if prices are put up very substantially on the consumer. I would say that if a prohibitive tariff is put on, and that prices are going to go up, these special conditions- that we find in industry may, to some extent, become more general in it.

Certainly, if we have very special conditions of labour in the industry here, shorter hours and higher wages than in England, there is going to be a very strong incentive to the manufacturers to group themselves together and to take full advantage of this 75 per cent. tariff. If it was a 33? per cent. tariff, the extent to which the public could be exploited would be limited, because some effort would be made from outside, even if it was not successful, to get over the 33? per cent. tariff. There does not seem any possibility of outside producers coming in to any extent, and getting over the 75 per cent. tariff, and because of that the people inside are going to have it all their own way. Therefore, we are going to have here a process which will have tremendously evil effects on those producers who cannot put up their own products, the producers who must export. I think resistance should be given to this.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy said that no case was made for this tariff. Having started on a fundamentally wrong premise, it is natural that the Deputy should arrive at a wrong conclusion. I do not think it is fair that I should be asked to repeat the case made for the tariff because the Deputy was not here. If he had been here, he would have heard another member of his own Party, Deputy Alfred Byrne, complaining in relation to this industry, not that wages were too high and hours too short, but that wages were too low and hours too long.

Mr. McGilligan

In the kitchen establishments.

Mr. Lemass

In certain furniture factories, yes.

Mr. McGilligan

Not in the main factories. That contention was not made.

Mr. Lemass

The position is that, apparently, in some factories, the wages are too low and the hours too long, and in other factories, the wages are too high and hours too short.

Mr. McGilligan

In the industry, as a whole, what is the situation?

Mr. Lemass

In the industry as a whole, the situation is that they are able to produce, despite the different circumstances prevailing here, a certain class of furniture as low as it can be produced in England. In respect of a number of ranges, the costs of production here are 2½ per cent. higher than in England, and in respect of some items, the costs of production here are higher by 10 per cent. than in England. I think that is a very creditable achievement for an industry which, a few years ago, was only supplying 20 per cent. of our market, which has grown rapidly during that period and which has to contend with all the disadvantages which an industry of that kind has, in the limited market, such as is available in this country, vis-a-vis similar firms engaged in the same industry in the much larger market available in England. I think they have done very well, and I think they deserve from this Dáil protection against the products of sweated labour now coming into this country, to the extent of £100,000 a year.

Mr. Good

Would the Minister allow me to point out that all that he has mentioned has been achieved under the 33? per cent. tariff? Will he say now why, on top of that, it is necessary to put an additional 75 per cent. in view of the facts he has stated?

Mr. Lemass

Because of these facts: (1) That there are certain people in this country so prejudiced against Irish industry, that they will not buy Irish products, no matter how much dearer the foreign product may be; (2) because there are certain retail houses in this country which have definitely set themselves out against a wider dispersal of home produced goods; and (3) because there is coming into this country furniture produced under very bad conditions, not factory produced furniture, but furniture produced under sweated conditions in private houses and the like in certain districts in England, and sold here, despite the 33? per cent. duty, at prices which enable those selling it to compete with the products of Irish factories. We propose to secure for the Irish manufacturers that £100,000 market which they have not yet got, and to give the labour involved in supplying that part of the market to the Irish people here, who are paid decent wages and who are working under decent conditions, instead of to people in London, who are working under sweated conditions.

Mr. Kiersey

I would like to know from the Minister if any provision will be made under the tariff to meet the case of the collector who buys a piece of furniture, not for its usefulness or utility, but because it has been made 100 or 150 years ago, furniture of the class which we cannot make in Ireland to-day. We may have wealthy men in the country who desire to add to their collections, and I am anxious to know if any provision will be made to meet the case of those who purchase articles of that description.

Mr. Dockrell

The Minister has stated that the retail trade are apparently so prejudiced——

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister said some of them, certainly.

Mr. Lemass

I said certain retailers.

Mr. Dockrell

The Minister said certain retailers are so prejudiced that they will not sell furniture produced in this country. Apparently, in answer to my question, the Minister is so prejudiced that he will not call them into consultation to find out their reasons. Now, I suggest that, in the furniture retail trade, as in every other retail trade, prejudices are unknown, with regard to manufacture. The retail trade have to hand out the goods that the public demand, and I suggest that if the public were to demand furniture from below, the retailer would produce it.

Mr. McGilligan

This is a completely new case that the Minister is now making, in comparison to that with which he started. This is an anti-dumping order, a provisional imposition order, and the Minister told me that it was because there had been abnormal importations—the phrase was "some abnormal importations had been reported" and it was believed that large stocks would have been built up. On that, I asked would he tell us, say, month by month, or for six months before the order was made, what was the amount of these abnormal importations that were reported. I asked for these figures, because, if we had them, we could, then, have some view as to the credibility of the beliefs that the Minister said the Executive Council had with regard to the stocks that were going to be built up, and built up, as I said before, against the 33? per cent. tariff.

Now we get a new case. We have got no answer to the question put as to what the Executive Council had before them on the report of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Minister goes off on another point. He talked of three types of people who have to be considered in this connection: first, the individual who is so prejudiced that he will not buy anything except what comes from outside. I do not believe that you will force that man into buying stuff made at home. There is still a certain amount of furniture to be picked up at auctions in the country, and if that individual is still so prejudiced against taking home-made stuff, he can get articles from time to time, as they change hands. Then, there is the retailer. The Minister ought not to talk with such vehemence about the retailer until he has had some better contact with him than he showed today that he has had. It has been very limited. The prejudice in the Minister's mind is that the retailer will not stock home-made stuff. The retailer was appealed to by the Department in 1927, and month by month, or quarter by quarter, as meetings were held, there was a growing appreciation, on the part of manufacturers, of what the retailers were doing. The Minister should not be talking of stuff as out of date at the end of 1926, or early in 1927, when he begins vehemently to criticise the retailer. Thirdly, there is the sweated product. Part of the allegations made by the trade is against what they would describe themselves as sweated furniture, furniture produced under sweated conditions in this country. If that is going to come in, then it is going to come in against sweated furniture here.

The situation, so far as this trade is concerned, used to be—I do not know whether there has been any change— that so far as low-grade furniture was concerned, the tariff has almost completely wiped it out. So far as the medium stuff is concerned, at least 50 per cent. of the requirements were made at home. It was in the higher grade furniture that very little was being made, and I do not know what the reactions of the 75 per cent. tariff are going to be on that. There is no question about low-grade furniture at all. I think the people here have got hold of that. Further, the Minister says with regard to the conditions under which stuff is manufactured here, that it is very creditable indeed to the trade that they have got into the position they have, that in certain lines they are able to manufacture certain classes of goods as low as 2½ to 5 per cent. above the English wholesale price. Do not get the retailer into this. He is completely out of it, when, on the firms' own admissions, as late as some part of 1930, they were still lagging 15 per cent. behind the cost of production, or the wholesale price on the other side. I would say that in certain parts of the trade that is very creditable, undoubtedly, but where is the case for the 75 per cent.? Remember, as Deputy Good has stated, this position has been reached after seven years' experience of the working of the 33? per cent. tariff.

I come back again to the first question, the question of dumping. Where is the case for it? We have got no figures of it. We were told that the Executive Council "have reason to believe"—we do not know what it is, good, bad or indifferent, because we have not got the figures which led, in the first instance, to the imposition of the order. "Some abnormal importations," the Minister said, "were reported." We should hear about these. This 75 per cent. is said to be intended as a prohibitive tariff, and Deputy Blythe talked about the danger of rings forming. Does the Minister not know, from his investigation of the files, that this was one of the trades in which a definite appeal was put up for a licensing system for what amounted to a statutory ring?

In other words, these people were so concerned about the cheaper end of the furniture and the attack made on what was manufactured in what were called the tenements and back gardens, that they came forward with a proposal which amounted to certain people being put into the position of determining who should get licences to manufacture furniture in this country, and that system was not going to include every national even, of this country, who was manufacturing at that time. So near were we to a ring, and zoning and all that type of thing, that would spring up under the artificial conditions of a very heavy impost, that these people—some of them, I think, the best of them, disclaimed the suggestion—put forward the suggestion of a ring, to be formed under statutory conditions in this country, and some of the manufacturers were to be given control of admission to that ring. The Minister is now laying the way open very definitely for it.

Mr. P. Hogan (Galway):

The Minister talks about sweated trades in other countries. Is he not well aware that in other countries you have tradesmen working in their own workshops for long hours and sweating, and does the Minister not really know that a little more sweating of that sort would be good for this country? Has he any objection to a man working in his own workshop and turning out goods cheaply——

Mr. Lemass

No, but I object to the sweating of young girls of fourteen and fifteen years of age in producing this stuff. Is that the type of thing the Deputy wants in this country?

Mr. Hogan

I suggest to the Minister that that is all bunkum. That is all bunkum, and the Minister knows it. If the Minister wants to say any more than that political speech, I will give way to him.

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy had been here when the discussion started, he would have heard it all, but I am not going to make the same case four times over to meet Deputies who will not turn up in time.

Mr. McGilligan

He would have heard nothing about sweated importations, but about the so-called sweated furniture manufactured at home.

Mr. Hogan

There is no necessity for any Deputy to come into this Dáil except at any time he wishes, and there is nothing to prevent him from leaving at any time, and I make no apology to the Minister for doing so. Come on to another point the Minister made, in my absence. He made a specific net point in the discussion here on the question of sweated labour, and he has made the statement now that furniture is made by young girls working under impossible conditions. The Minister knows perfectly well that that is not so. There is cheap furniture coming into this country, and good value coming into the country. There are tradesmen, skilled men, artists at their own job, making furniture in other countries, in their own workshops, as they do in Paris and elsewhere, who are willing to work hard, and for long hours, in order to make a decent living, and I want to put it to the Minister that a little sweating of that sort in this country would do more for the country generally, and for this particular trade, than all the protection he is giving under this order. What have we here? The Minister is not in a position to deny that there are longer hours with lower wages earned in other countries under the conditions I mention, under conditions by which a man works in his own workshop and turns out a good article.

Mr. Curran

Does the Deputy want to introduce it in this country?

Mr. Hogan

Certainly.

Mr. Curran

You will not solve much, then.

Mr. Gorey

Feed the parasites.

Mr. Davin

He wants another Houndsditch.

Mr. Hogan

I suggest that all this excitement is so much cant and humbug. A man is free to go into his own workshop and work as hard as he likes, and as long as he likes. What does the small farmer, who is paying most of the taxes, do? Has he any hours? He is there on his own farm, working from dawn to dark, with the one consolation that he is his own master and has no boss. Why should not the furniture maker, in the same conditions, be allowed to work as long and as hard as he likes? What does the French furniture maker work? He turns out some of the best inlaid furniture in the world, and some of the best value. Anybody in France, or anybody with any experience of French furniture making, knows that. Do you call him a slave? He is far less a slave than the trade unionist working shorter hours and for higher wages. He has his own workshop, and he is working hard, and he makes more money at the end of the year, because he is working harder, and for longer hours, and yet, the Minister gets up and decries that, and says: "We cannot have these standards; we must have higher standards." Look at what that amounts to. What is the problem of the world at the present moment, and I put it to Deputies Davin and Curran, two Deputies who are much concerned with unemployment, that it is to find employment, and not so much to find better conditions for men who are in employment. The conditions are generally good, as you have trade unionism operating legitimately, for a long time, but the problem is not so much to improve conditions of work, as to find work for the unemployed.

Yet, what do we find from the Minister here? He says we must be concerned, not only with the unemployment and getting every man into work, but we must improve the conditions of the people at work, and we must improve them to such an extent, that the hard-working man, the skilled workman, the tradesman, is not allowed to go into his own workshop and work hard for long hours and for small wages.

Mr. Traynor

He is entitled to do that himself, because he is doing it for profit, but he is not entitled to sweat others.

Mr. Hogan

I do not know where there is any sweating going on.

Mr. Lemass

On a point of order I submit that, for the past hour, the speeches made on this debate, are made for obstruction purposes.

Mr. Hogan

I think that is a most impudent statement, and I propose to pay no attention whatever to it. I am answering the net point of the Minister, and I suggest that Deputies who are talking about sweated labour should get up and say where there is any sweating going on.

Mr. Traynor

I suppose you do not.

Mr. Hogan

If you want to make a speech you can make it after I am finished. I suggest that Deputies, if really interested in the unemployed, should get after the question of getting work for the unemployed.

Mr. Traynor

That is what we are doing, and that is why you do not like it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, order.

Mr. Hogan

If Deputies are quite finished, I suggest that the real problem is to get work for the unemployed. You cannot get work for the unemployed unless the people who are working give value.

Mr. Davin

It would help those in employment too.

Mr. Hogan

The Deputy can speak when I am finished. Every time you do anything here in the way of high protection and sheltered trades which makes it possible for people to turn out bad value, what are you doing? You are making more unemployed, and you know it. Deputy Traynor, who has just spoken, and who, I assume, has some knowledge of the actual conditions of work in Dublin, knows well that to allow goods to be produced under conditions where the purchaser has to pay more than the goods are worth, in the long run so far from lessening unemployment, brings about more unemployment. He must know that.

Mr. Traynor

I am not contesting that.

Mr. Hogan

What is the condition in this and other countries at present? The real problem is the unemployed. What are we trying to do here on the Minister's admission? So far from dealing with the position of the unemployed, we are trying to better the conditions of the people actually employed. Quite legitimate. But in what direction? We are to make it impossible for people who are working hard in their own workshops, turning out a special type of goods, to compete with goods sent into this country. That is what the Minister is after. Does the Minister really think he can do that? Does he not know well that there is no Government in Europe at present but would be delighted to get the unemployed into employment on the conditions which exist in these workshops where these goods are produced, which he is now preventing by this 75 per cent. tariff? He knows it well; Deputy Davin knows it well; Deputy Curran knows it well, and so does Deputy Traynor. They know that in England, if they could get work for people under these conditions they would get it. They know that France has solved her unemployment problem by getting people to work hard for themselves, or for their employers; to work long hours, and to accept short wages in bad times. They know that that is the way they solved the unemployment problem. They know that in Germany, England, America, in every country in the world, they would be glad to solve unemployment by this means. Yet what do we find here? We have this cant of the Minister for Industry and Commerce who comes along and says that, not only is he going to get work for the unemployed, but that he shall improve the conditions of the employed here, so as to make them better than in any other country in the world. It will end in one way only—bankruptcy and more unemployment.

Mr. Lemass

About ten years ago, perhaps twenty years ago, it was the fashion in certain circles to be continually lecturing the Irish people about the honest and hardworking Englishman, the industrious and thrifty Frenchman, and the lazy and dirty Irishman. I thought we had killed that type of rotten slave during the last ten years. It is obvious that we have not. There is a representative here. He has been speaking in a way that some English planter aristocrat might have spoken to the Irish people thirty years ago. Some day Deputy Hogan will say a good word about some fellow Irishman, and then he will choke, and we shall hear no more about him.

General MacEoin

I want to protest against the statement from the Labour Benches that a man who works in his own shop or at his own trade for eighteen hours a day is a slave. As a person who worked eighteen hours per day for a considerable time, and who has brothers working still for that time, I protest against that. They were never slaves and never will be.

Mr. Davin

Who made such a statement from the Labour Benches?

General MacEoin

Deputy Curran.

Mr. Curran

Far from it. I ask the Deputy to withdraw the statement. It is wrong.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Curran says he has not made any such statement.

Mr. Curran

I answered Deputy Hogan, saying that he wanted to introduce slavery into the workshops in this country. Any man is entitled to do what he likes himself. I ask Deputy MacEoin to withdraw the statement.

General MacEoin

If Deputy Curran says he did not make the statement I withdraw it, but I was listening to the Deputy making the statement.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy withdrawing the statement or not? I take it he is.

General MacEoin

I withdraw it.

Mr. Hogan

My remarks were not directed towards the Irish people, whom I know better than Deputy Lemass, but to Deputy Lemass and his colleagues, who are endeavouring to corrupt them.

Mr. B. O'Connor

The remarks made by the Minister I think are somewhat wrong. If the Minister said that members on this side of the House would like to make labour work long hours and work harder I should like to tell the Minister my experience of trying to work. I was not allowed to work hard, or give an honest day's work. I was in America laying bricks, and I thought it was only right that I should come home and try to do in Ireland what I was doing in America.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the Deputy want to make a speech on long hours?

Mr. O'Connor

No. I want to say that trade union rules here are preventing people from working hard.

An Ceann Comhairle

This motion has nothing to do with trade unions.

Mr. O'Connor

The point has been raised from the Labour Benches.

Mr. Davin

Not at all.

Mr. O'Connor

Deputy Hogan is partly right. If we worked a little harder and worked longer hours, and worked at wages to enable an article to be marketed, we would do a lot better. There is too much talk about shorter hours and higher wages. There would be more employment in the country if we worked a little harder and at a reasonable rate of wages, at least if we worked at such a rate of wages that an article could be put on the market to compete with imported articles.

Mr. Davin

The Second Reading Budget speech which I have just listened to from Deputy Hogan could have been tolerated better from a Deputy who was really a free trader —a whole-hog free trader. But Deputy Hogan has, conveniently for his own sake I am sure, forgotten that in this particular case he was a member of the Ministry when the tariff of 33? was imposed upon imported furniture. If the Deputy speaks again, will he give us reasons to justify his support for the tariff when originally imposed? Will he tell us also why in spite of the imposition of a 33? per cent. tariff, the industry, so far as there was an industry in this country, went down and down, and with it the men who were engaged in the industry?

Mr. McGilligan

What industry?

Mr. Davin

I am sure Deputy McGilligan could certainly educate Deputy Hogan on this matter. Deputy Hogan made a fine political speech which, if published in the newspapers in Galway, would certainly appeal to the down-and-out farmers. That is the mentality he was appealing to.

Mr. Hogan

Do you think it was good politics? Because, if it was, you would surely make it.

Mr. Davin

If the Deputy intervenes again, he can give us the reasons for supporting the original tariff imposed by the Government of which he was a Minister. The position is this, as far as I know, and I do not profess to know more than the ordinary Deputy about it. The industry has been killed, even with the guaranteed loans given to certain people engaged in the industry.

Mr. McGilligan

The furniture trade has been killed!

Mr. Davin

Partly killed.

Mr. Blythe

One firm.

Mr. McGilligan

Why?

Mr. Davin

Because furniture was allowed to come into the country, over the tariff wall, which was made, not by skilled tradesmen in their own homes, but by people whom I could not describe in Parliamentary language— made under intolerable conditions. Should we allow into this country, if we can keep it out, furniture made under the most intolerable conditions in places like Houndsditch, in back streets in London, not by skilled men, but by semi-skilled men, and by that means allow workers engaged in Irish industries to be thrown out of employment, as they were here? I am not competent to argue as between the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the ex-Minister as to whether the tariff wall is being built high enough in this case. But I believe the intention is to revive industries that existed here and to provide employment for the people hitherto employed under decent and reasonable conditions, and not under the conditions which exist on the other side of the channel where this imported furniture is manufactured.

Mr. McGilligan

I am waiting for an answer to a question I asked an hour and a half ago: what were the abnormal importations which led to the making of this Order on foot of which the Executive Council were led to believe that there were going to be stocks built up here from imported furniture? That is the question I asked. If the Minister complains about obstruction he has been obstructing himself in refusing to give that information, if it is in his possession. The other matter that has been mentioned is this question of the sweated workers. Deputy Davin unfortunately had not the advantage of listening to what was said here to-day and he comes in at the end of the debate with a complete misunderstanding of the whole position. I have not heard in the debate the point I made negatived, that as far as the cheaper end of the furniture trade was concerned the tariff had been effective; that as far as the medium end was concerned it had been effective to 50 per cent, at least; that the home manufacturer is getting at least 50 per cent. of the business. But, it was in the higher-grade furniture that is not made under the sweated conditions we have heard described, that our manufacturers had failed. In proof of that I gave a statement that I am pretty certain was made at one of these committees to the effect that if the retailers and manufacturers had been brought together there was a belief that in the end there would be a heavier tariff on the lower grade and medium furniture, and a lesser tariff on the higher grade, and it was indicated that the probable result would have been more employment in the home furniture manufacturing side and a great deal more employment in the furniture trading side.

If this point about sweated wages is going to be talked about we shall have to take it up. There were criticisms here with regard to the furniture trade founded upon two points: (1) that certain establishments were such as would never be sanctioned if there was proper factory inspection carried out; (2) whether the establishments were right or not, the wages paid could be described as sweated. On the first point, a detailed examination was made, and in the end the Committee who made that complaint had to admit that the factory inspection was being carried out properly and that the premises could not be caught under factory inspection. There was even an offer made to these people who made that complaint that if they thought the Factory Acts were not sufficiently rigid, and if they put up suggestions for their amendment, these suggestions would be favourably considered. I heard nothing more about that.

On the wages end, the point was put up to some trade union representatives who were present at the meetings: why could not trade union activity, which could show itself very vehement on certain occasions, start about remedying these sweated conditions? There was no answer returned to that. There was an indifferent answer at one time, that the difficulty was that these establishments being small did not employ any trade union labour, and that the trade unions had no control, as if the trade unions had no control over the goods produced by people who were not in their organisation. I have seen it operating many a time. The Minister himself said he was not satisfied that the trade unions——

Mr. Davin

Is the Deputy advocating the policy of the sympathetic strike?

Mr. McGilligan

I am not advocating it, but just pointing out what often happened. I cannot understand why it was not even threatened in this case, and the fact that it was not even mentioned shows the hollowness of the whole contention about sweated conditions. The Minister himself stated openly that he was not satisfied with the trade union's attitude in this. He could not see why, if conditions were so bad as that, trade union activity had not taken place long since. The debate has gone on on the basis that the whole furniture trade was ruined by the small shops. I never heard the figure for the amount of furniture that is produced by what is called non-union labour, in the wildest extravagance, put higher than one-third of the entire furniture manufactured in the country. I never heard any contention made about the sweated stuff coming in from Houndsditch, which is a delightful description to use. I never heard any contention about Houndsditch furniture. It may be made under healthier conditions than is some of the stuff manufactured in certain back streets in Dublin. I should like to have information about that. What are the prospects that even the 75 per cent. tariff is going to save that portion of the industry which Deputy Davin seems to think is the whole industry, namely, the bit of it located in his constituency?

Mr. J.J. Byrne

There is one aspect of the question which is very important. I wonder if the Minister knows that the people engaged in the furniture trade have very grave objection to the way furniture is coming in and has been coming in, even under the 33? per cent. tariff. Certain very respectable firms engaged in the furniture trade have informed me, on more than one occasion, that if they were prepared to stoop to a certain low procedure with regard to the declaration of the value of imports they would be in a position to sell furniture much cheaper than competitors who are now underselling them. Is it not well known to those who have a technical knowledge of the furniture business that under the old tariff furniture was coming in at declarations much below its real value. I know that to be a fact. There is not a single thing in this Bill that would prevent such furniture coming in in the future as it has come in in the past. In my opinion this tariff of 75 per cent. will considerably accentuate the malpractice that has existed and exists at present. I have seen furniture imported and declared at £10 value that I know could not be purchased under £20. I know that the better class of people engaged in the furniture trade have complained bitterly of that malpractice. Now we have this tariff of 75 per cent. Is that going to cure the malpractice that existed in the past? Is it going to improve the position of the workers in any way? I, for one, do not stand for sweated labour. When the Minister stated that there is a certain section of retailers in this country who will not buy Irish furniture the first thought that flashed into my mind was about the dishonest section of people who are bringing in the foreign furniture and having it declared at a price far below its real value. I do not want to say a word against the officers engaged at the port in connection with Customs duties, but it is a most difficult service and requires men who understand the value of the goods they are handling. I know that men handling these goods have not the technical knowledge necessary. If you are going to enforce tariffs effectively you must have men who understand the business. Do you think you have such men?

Mr. Davin

I would ask Deputy Byrne why as a conscientious man he did not report the cases he mentioned to the Revenue Commissioners?

Mr. Gorey

Did you report anything?

Mr. Byrne

When a person gets confidential information, the Deputy knows as well as I know that he has no right to approach any Minister or Revenue Commissioner upon it.

Mr. Davin

You should have reported it to the Minister who was in office when the case came under your notice.

Mr. Byrne

Deputy Davin may be a good Labour man but I do not take my ethics or logic from the Deputy. I have some experience of the trade I am speaking of, although I am not in it. I am drawing the attention of the House to the matter and I suggest to the Minister that these high tariffs will not stop that traffic. I think the Minister should consider the matter carefully. No matter on what side of the House Deputies are sitting, whether the Government side, the Cumann na nGaedheal side or the Labour side, there is one motive we are all actuated by, and that is to do our best for the workers. I suggest that the men who are dealing with these imports have very difficult duties and are not getting a fair crack of the whip. Some of the new tariffs deal with certain items in my own trade. Take the tariff imposed on paints.

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the Deputy come to the motion dealing with furniture, which is the motion before the House?

Mr. Byrne

I am discussing it and I am dealing with the point raised by the Minister, that a certain section of the retail trade will not handle the furniture. I suggest that the step the Minister proposes to take will not make these people do it and I suggest that the officers will have difficulty in carrying the order out. I am not wandering from the point, I am pointing out the difficulties existing now. Surely nothing could be more germane? If tariffs are imposed, they must be effectively carried out. I suggest that this tariff is not going to be effectively carried out. Surely I have had some training in the subject I am dealing with. I say that it is almost impossible for the officers concerned to function effectively. Within the last few days, I saw that a new tariff was imposed on paint and on distemper in liquid form. Does the Minister know that there is no such thing as "distemper in liquid form?" If that is so, why impose a tariff?

Mr. Lemass

In the second last line of the Resolution the word "April" should read "May." Deputy Byrne will want to be very careful. He has not learned the Deputy-Hogan brand of Cumann na nGaedheal doctrine. If he dares to suggest that he knows hard-working, thrifty English manufacturers who send furniture to this country on a faked invoice, he will be getting himself expelled from the Cumann na nGaedheal Party.

Mr. Byrne

On a point of explanation does not the Minister know that furniture comes from all parts of the world? I suppose the Minister is aware of that fact.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy McGilligan, having wrong information, naturally arrived at the wrong conclusion. The bulk of the furniture imported into this country is a low grade type of furniture and not a high grade type, and it is to secure a market for that low grade type from Irish factories that the increased duty is imposed. The position concerning the making of the Provisional Order is that, having reason to believe that abnormal importations of furniture had taken place, and were about to take place, for various causes, I reported the matter to the Executive Council. It was the intention of the Executive Council to impose this duty in the Customs Resolution, and if the Budget statement had been taken on the date on which it was originally intended to take it, this duty would have been contained in it. Because of the postponement of the Budget and the necessity for protecting our market and to secure that damage would not be done to those engaged in the furniture industry the Executive agreed to the imposition of the emergency duty. The Resolution before the Dáil will make the emergency duty permanent. If it is rejected, the emergency duty ceases to operate. I suggest to the Dáil that, apart altogether from any special consideration existing this year, it is a good thing to afford this additional protection to the furniture industry, to secure that there will be made in Irish factories by Irish workers who are paid decent wages, the £100,000 worth of furniture now imported. If Deputies think otherwise, let them oppose the Resolution. That is the policy of this Party and it is to give effect to the policy enshrined in that view that this Party was elected.

Mr. McGilligan

Will the Minister say what were the abnormal importations he reported to the Executive Council?

Mr. Lemass

I am not in a position to say that.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister has not indicated what abnormal importations could take place from the 4th May, the date of the Order, until the 11th May, the date of the Budget. The statement is that there were abnormal importations but we have no information about what they were.

Mr. Lemass

No.

Question put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 70; Níl, 54.

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, Mícheál.
• Colbert, James.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Curran, Patrick Joseph.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moane, Edward.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• Norton, William.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Dowdall, Thomas P.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• 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.
• Powell, Thomas P.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brasier, Brooke.
• Broderick, William Jos.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Coburn, James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Davis, Michael.
• Desmond, William.
• Dillon, James M.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Finlay, Thomas A.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Good, John.
• Gorey, Denis John.
• Hassett, John J.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hennigan, John.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Keogh, Myles.
• Kiersey, John.
• Lynch, Finian.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• McDonogh, Fred.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Minch, Sydney B.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Connor, Batt.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Neill, Eamonn.
• O'Reilly, John Joseph.
• O'Shaughnessy, John Joseph.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mrs. Mary.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.