Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 1932

Vol. 45 No. 4

Private Deputies Business. - Wages and Conditions of Labour in Protected Industries.

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That in the opinion of the Dáil every proposal for a protective tariff should include provisions to secure that fair wages shall be paid and fair conditions of employment observed in the protected industry.— (Deputy Norton).

Mr. J.J. Byrne

When this motion was last before the House the question was asked whether it was introduced as a sham motion to deceive the workers of the country or whether it was introduced with the object of making a genuine attempt to improve the lot of the workers engaged in the newly protected industries lately established in the Free State. Deputy Norton in introducing his motion gave us some very important figures. He referred to two industries in particular—the hosiery industry and the boot industry. The figures quoted by Deputy Norton appeared on the face of them to be very alarming and the question was asked of the Minister for Industry and Commerce: were these figures true or were they false? Unfortunately the Minister for Industry and Commerce had not the necessary information available to answer the question at the moment. Looking over the figures which Deputy Norton quoted with regard to these two industries, the hosiery industry and the boot industry, which Deputy Norton particularly condemned, one is faced by the rather astounding fact that in one of the industries the salaries and wages paid amount to 52½ per cent., and in the other industry the salaries and wages paid amount to something like 60 per cent. The question at once arises, what is a fair wage payable in a protected industry?

I am glad to see that Deputy Norton has returned to the House and I should like the Deputy, in reconsidering the very important figures that he put before us on the last occasion, to ask himself: can any industry, even if it is a protected industry, afford to pay a larger proportion of the value of the product it manufactures than a sum averaging between 50 and 60 per cent? If 60 per cent. is paid in the way of salaries and wages in one of these industries to which Deputy Norton refers, the question at once arises: what proportion of the products concerned would Deputy Norton consider reasonable to be earmarked for the payment of a fair wage? When 60 per cent of the value of an article has been earmarked for wages and salaries, I fear that industry could not possibly pay a larger proportion by way of salaries and wages, than the sum represented by that figure. I want to make it perfectly clear that while quite in sympathy with the object of Deputy Norton's motion, one must take into account the actual realities of the industrial position. Even if we have protected industries in this country, if these industries are ever going to be effective, if they are ever going to be industries which will afford a reasonable subsistence to the workers engaged in them, they must produce at a reasonable economic price.

It is all very well for Deputy Norton to come here to this House and say that a fair wage shall and must be paid in a protected industry. We have now a new Government in office who have protected everything and anything. Whether goods are made in the country or not, protection is clapped on them. Whether the industry was already protected or not, the amount of the tariff levied was multiplied by 30 or 50 per cent. I have had the pleasure within the past week of paying out large sums of money for articles needed by every household in the country, not one of which has ever been made in the Irish Free State and, from what one can see, there seems to be no possibility of their ever being made in this country. All this involves a very important question for, shall I say, two-thirds of the community, namely, those engaged in the great agricultural industry. Deputy Norton, who comes from an agricultural constituency, knows what the farmers are receiving for the goods they produce, knows that already tariffs have been levied on the farmers' agricultural machinery, on the manures the farmer uses, upon the corrugated iron that the farmer uses in his buildings, upon his buckets, upon the felt that he uses in covering his cowsheds, upon the clothes and the boots he wears and upon almost every necessity that, like every other consumer in the State, the farmer has got to buy. Yet the price that the farmer is receiving for his own products is entirely out of proportion and bears no relation to the price that he has got to pay for the commodities, the conditions for the production of which Deputy Norton insists must contain a clause for the payment of a fair wage.

Mr. Norton

Do you object?

Mr. Byrne

Has the farmer any interest in this? In considering this question my own personal view-point is almost negligible, I may tell Deputy Norton, in comparison with the view-point of the agricultural community. They are the people who have to call the tune because after all they are the great wealth producers of this State. We all know that it has been stated, time and time again, that this is not a highly industrialised State. Deputy Norton, in the course of his very able speech in introducing the motion, said that he hoped that we would see in this country large scale production. I wonder what industry in the country has the greatest large scale production? Is it not the agricultural industry? How has the policy of the Government affected that industry?

The policy of the Government has been such as to have levied upon the market where these products are sold an adverse tariff of forty per cent., which means to anybody who has read the papers to-day a loss on the aggregate of something like five millions to the farming community of the country. If that is so the question I want to ask the Minister, and especially to ask the Leader of the Labour Party as he represents a Kildare constituency, is: How does he expect the farming community of that constituency to pay the fancy prices that undoubtedly they will have to pay if his so-called fair wage is fixed on every product of industry in this country?

Mr. Curran

It is the cattle ranchers who do not want to pay.

Mr. Byrne

The Deputy represents an agricultural constituency also. We will soon have a by-election there, and Deputy Curran may depend upon it he will be asked to answer that question. He will not be able to say there that it is only cattle ranchers who are affected. They produce £14,000,000 worth of goods and they are entitled to consideration in this Dáil as much as any other section of the community.

Mr. Curran

They employ a man and a dog.

Mr. Byrne

I tell Deputy Curran we will meet him in that constituency very shortly and, then, we will have something to say to Deputy Curran.

Mr. Curran

I will not run away any way.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order. Let us not run away from the motion. The Deputy must keep to the motion.

Mr. Byrne

You pulled me up, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, but you are not giving me the protection of the Chair against the unnecessary interruptions of Deputy Curran. If he has anything to say in refutation of what I am saying he will have an opportunity of doing so later on, but what the House has to answer is this: How is the agricultural community going to find the money to pay all these high prices? Is not Deputy Norton sufficient of an economist to know that when these fancy wages, in these industries, are fixed the cost of every article involved is going to increase pro rata in price? How are the farmers of Kildare to pay these high prices? That is the question Deputy Norton has to consider and that is the problem he will have to solve. Deputy Norton talks about large scale industries. What chance are they getting under the present policy of the Government? What chance is this industry in the country getting with an adverse figure against it of forty per cent.? What chance is the great firm of Jacob's getting? What chance is the great firm of Guinness' getting under the present policy of the Government? That policy is a policy of protection in which they are adversely affected by the insane economic policy followed since the present Government took up office.

We have to consider these things not from the sentimental point of view. We have to consider them from the purely business and economic point of view. Is this policy introduced by Deputy Norton intended to result in a national gain or a national loss? If Deputy Norton can convince me that this motion means a national gain, then I should consider it my duty as a representative of the people to vote for it. He gave no reason to the House why this motion should be passed. He has not reconciled the fact that the cost of living will rise enormously if this motion is passed and put into effect. What I ask Deputy Norton to consider is this: Already the House has passed a motion for the fixation of selling prices of commodities in the Irish Free State. That had to be done, we were told, because we have an awful community in this country known as profiteers. They are so rapacious that the State had to bring in a Prices Control Bill, although in the passage of the Bill through the House there was scarcely a single instance given. There was practically no instance given of profiteering by the distributing community of the country, but that Bill was passed and prices are to be fixed under the Bill. These prices are to be fixed in these protected industries; and Deputy Norton appeals for the development of large scale industries in this country. Does Deputy Norton believe that the fixation of the selling prices of goods produced by protected industries, and the fixation of the rates of wages to be paid by these industries, will induce capitalists to invest their money in the development of Irish industries? That question calls for an answer, and the smile of Deputy Little is not an answer. We want to hear how he is going to get over that difficulty which undoubtedly exists in the motion that Deputy Norton has moved. The true value of the motion has been shown by the Minister for Industry and Commerce himself. What did he say about it? He said, at the outset, that the motion is practically administratively impossible. But he is so fearful that the Labour Deputies in this House would go into the Division Lobby against him, unless he bows and cringes, that he accepts the principle of the motion to avoid a Government defeat. And he winds up by saying that he accepts the principle of the motion, and that at the first opportunity he will incorporate that principle in a Bill which he will introduce into this House. Did ever a Minister for Industry and Commerce show up to lesser advantage in dealing with a motion introduced by the right wing of his Party than the present Minister appears in the conduct of this debate? He tells us first that the principle the motion involves is administratively impossible. He tells us further, in the course of his speech, that he honestly believes it would be better to allow the fixation of wages to be undertaken by employers, on the one hand, and the workers on the other. Yet he winds up with his tail between his legs by accepting Deputy Norton's motion, and promising to introduce legislation giving effect to it at an early date. And this is the great economic creed, the great economic policy which is going to revolutionise and industrialise the Irish Free State.

Now there are some men in this House who know something about the economic history of other countries and of those men I would ask one simple question. I would ask Deputy Norton because he knows a great deal about this although he introduced this motion in a very insane way. Would any English capitalist, Belgian capitalist, German industrialist or American industrialist permit such conditions to exist with regard to their industries as would enable the Government in power to fix the selling prices of the articles they manufacture, and, practically, to fix the rate of wages to be paid in those industries regardless of whether they were economic or not? This nation, under the leadership of the new Minister for Industry and Commerce, is to be industrialised. I wonder if the Minister has studied what has been done to develop the industrialisation of other countries. Has he ever studied what has gone on in, perhaps, the greatest industrial nation in the world—Germany? If he has studied the development of industry in Germany, perhaps he would tell us whether German industrialists would, for a moment, tolerate the fixing of the price at which their articles are to be sold or would tolerate the fixing of a rate of wages for their workers. On the face of it, the thing is absurd and impossible. One thing Germany did learn after the Great War was that legislatures were incapable of dealing with the development and propagation of industry. The first thing they did was to take the management and control of German industry out of the hands of the German Parliament. The Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Irish Free State proposes to do the reverse—to introduce State absolutism in the development of Irish industry. Can this make for the betterment of the country? When dealing with industrial matters here, let us look at them from the point of view of the whole nation and not from the Party point of view. In considering this motion, I ask that no Party Whips be put on. I ask the Labour Party to reconsider the effect which this motion will have upon industrial development if, as the Minister has promised, it is passed through this House and the fixation of the rates of wages accomplished.

I believe that no man knows better than the Minister for Industry and Commerce the absolute impracticability and impossibility of the motion which Deputy Norton asks the House to sanction. Many times, when industrial matters were under discussion in this House, I found myself out of harmony with my own Party. I have always endeavoured to use what little intelligence my business training and my long connection with industry, not alone on this side of the water, but on the other side, has given me for the betterment of this nation generally. My own commonsense and my connection as a business man with industry here and across the channel tell me that this motion is utterly impractical and impossible. It will have repercussions upon 80 per cent. of the people. It will have repercussions on the agricultural community, on the workers in the cities and towns, and it will make our industries absolutely inefficient. When I hear a lot of talk about the development of Irish industry, about manufacturing for the needs of the home market and about the imposition of heavy tariffs in order to bring that about, the first question I always ask myself is: what should be the ultimate aim and object of a tariff imposed in favour of a certain industry? If our industries are only able to supply the home market, if they are never able to build up an export trade, then I say that these industries are a failure, and that they can never find a means of livelihood for the large percentage of people at present unemployed. We can, as Deputy Norton rightly pointed out, have the payment of small sums of money to girls and juvenile labour, but in this economic war, which is being fought between the two countries, the loss to one industry alone—the railway industry—amounts to £350,000 per annum. That would more than double the payment in wages made by all the protected industries set up here since the new Government took office ten months ago. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in his speech last week-end at Cork, was forced to admit that the policy of industrialisation was not everything that it might be—that serious errors had been made, that paths which had been traversed would have to be gone over again. The Minister, in the course of this debate, referred to the fact that certain industries established since the new Government took office had treated their employees in such a shameful way that, in one case, he had to close a factory down. If we cannot set up industries that, with the help of protection, will be reasonably economic and produce goods for the home market at a reasonable price, then the whole policy of the present Government, or any Government which may follow on the same lines, can only end in economic disaster.

I asked, a moment or two ago, Deputies who had acquaintance with methods adopted by other countries for industrial development to consider the steps which these countries have taken. There can be no doubt that the Germans—one of the greatest industrial nations of the world—have gone on absolutely opposite lines to the lines proposed in the motion which this House is asked to accept. I take another country where practically everything which this motion involves has been put into operation. I refer to Australia. Anybody who has studied the industrial development of Australia and who has seen the effect of the industrial policy put in force there, must, if he has the interests of this country at heart, admit that it would be suicidal for this House to introduce legislation enshrining the principle that Deputy Norton asks us to accept. Australia raised her tariffs sky-high. Australia rapidly developed her industrial production. Australia had a Labour Government and fixed the rate of wages to be paid. Australia practically fixed the selling prices of the articles produced. What was the result? The result was, before we went off the gold standard here, that £90 of Free State money could buy £100 of Australian money and Australia was paying £35,000,000 per year interest on the national debt.

I want the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Labour Party—the Government's right wing—to remember that when they came into office the national debt was not equal to one year's income of the Irish Free State. I do not wish to see the Free State reduced to the Australian level, paying interest upon borrowed money. The introduction of a policy similar to that we are asked to adopt by accepting this motion would reduce this country to economic servitude in the same way that Australia has been reduced to economic servitude. This is an industrial motion, and it should be the aim and object of every Party to develop Irish industry as far as is humanly possible. We are now in the infant stage of that development, and we certainly ought to be careful to avoid the mistakes Australia has made, to profit by the experience Germany has given us, and to be careful when passing through this House a motion that the Minister knows to be utterly impossible, lest we prevent for all time the industrial development which every Deputy who has the interests of the country at heart should certainly encourage.

Mr. MacDermot

I might ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce if it is correct that he accepted this motion, because that is not the sense in which I understood his speech on a former occasion, when this matter was discussed.

Mr. M. Hayes

Does the Minister accept the principle?

Mr. Lemass

I do not think I should be made liable to cross-examination upon this motion. My speech has been made, and Deputies are perfectly entitled to take from it whatever interpretation they like.

Mr. Byrne

The Minister has definitely and finally accepted the principle.

Mr. Lemass

Quite.

Mr. Byrne

There is no secret about that.

Mr. MacDermot

Is that the same thing as accepting the motion?

Mr. Byrne

I did not say that.

Mr. Hayes

This is a very interesting motion. It is interesting, in the first place, for what one might have expected the mover to say about it. It is more interesting still for the things which people have said about it and which the mover of the motion left completely unsaid. There were, as Deputy MacDermot pointed out, very remarkable omissions in the speech of Deputy Norton when moving the motion, just as there were some very remarkable statements in the course of his speech. If we were to keep to it strictly, the motion asks us to provide that every proposal for a protective tariff should include provisions to secure that fair wages shall be paid and fair conditions of employment shall be observed in the protected industry. I take it there is unanimity in the House that in every industry there ought to be fair wages paid and fair conditions of employment observed and that more particularly in industries for which the House, by its own legislation, has provided special protection, fair wages shall be paid and fair conditions of employment shall be observed.

The motion is very specific. It does not ask the House to accept the principle of fair wages and fair conditions; it asks the House to decide that certain machinery shall be set up to see, in connection with every proposal for a protective tariff, that fair wages shall be paid and fair conditions of employment shall be observed. The mover of the motion provided us with ample evidence that in protected industries there is, in fact, sweating going on, and the Minister said nothing, so far as I heard him, or read subsequently in his speech, to controvert the figures given by Deputy Norton. Deputy Norton, in beginning his speech, made an interesting admission. In Column 1319 of the Parliamentary Debates, Volume 44, No. 4, speaking about protection, Deputy Norton said:—

That measure of protection inevitably involves expense to the consuming population.

We have it, therefore, authoritatively from the Labour Party that the imposition of tariffs means increased expense to the consumer. The Deputy went on to point out that, in addition to the increased expense to the consumer, there would be the profits which manufacturers would presumably get in protected industries, and he said that something should be done—he did not say what it was to be—to remedy the evil conditions to which he made reference.

He gave plenty of examples of the kind of wages being paid. He spoke about an industry where what he called the scandalously low sum of 17/9 per week was paid, and then he went on to refer to the still more scandalously low sum of approximately 3/- per week in the case of some out-workers. He mentioned machine workers who were receiving from 10/- to 15/- a week. One might have imagined, by looking at the motion and by listening to Deputy Norton's speech, that the Deputy was not humbugging at all; but take the end of the speech where, having admitted that the tariffs mean an increased price to the consumer, and having made an excellent case that bad wages were, in fact, being paid, the Deputy said:—

If the Ministry say that they accept the principle of the motion they will have done a good deal to curb the rapacity of employers who want to carry on industries at the price of sweated conditions and coolie rates of wages.

In other words, Deputy Norton, before the Minister spoke, gave the whole case away. The motion, instead of being a reality is, in fact, a humbug. It is what is called in another country a "frame-up" between the Deputy and the Minister. The Minister has been responsible for imposing tariffs in an indiscriminate, reckless and helter-skelter fashion, without foresight, forethought or any examination of the industry he was tariffing, and without any consideration as to whether tariffs would be suitable, or whether the country could produce the article economically and pay decent wages and observe decent conditions of labour. The Minister, in adopting that attitude, brought about more unemployment than employment, and Deputy Norton helped him. Apart from leading to the dismissal of people who had reasonably good jobs, this particular tariff policy has increased the price to the consumer and has also led to employment of a very poor type in a great many instances.

One would imagine that Deputy Norton was anxious to get something done about that aspect, but in fact what he really wants is some kind of a smoke-screen, some kind of an excuse to offer to his constituents, the people he is supposed to represent. Reference was made to the Control of Prices Bill, but we all know the best method of controlling prices, from the point of view of the working classes, is that the woman of the house who spends the money should have a reasonable week's wages to spend and should be in a position to assume that she is going to have that pretty constantly. If the housewife has the money and can pay cash for the goods, she has the best form of control of prices that can be devised. The Minister's economic policy and his political policy have, in fact, deprived a great many persons amongst the working classes of that method of controlling prices, because he has left them with a diminished week's wages, or no wages, or diminished security of employment or expectation of employment. He is now devising a scheme which Deputy Norton will presumably boost down the country as a scheme for getting more satisfactory prices. This motion is very specific. It asks for machinery to be set up. What does the Minister promise? He promises:—

I am quite prepared to recommend to the Dáil that the resolution should be adopted, subject to it being understood that the principle of the resolution is the main part of it, and that the particular machinery by which the principle can be given effect to is a matter for consideration and determination in the light of the administrative difficulties involved.

It is extraordinary how quickly some people learn the Ministerial vocabulary and in this instance the Minister has learned it well. The more one reads that, the more one finds it difficult to make out what exactly the Minister promised Deputy Norton. But the Minister in promising Deputy Norton nothing at all was assured beforehand, perhaps privately, but certainly publicly, that any kind of assurance would do Deputy Norton and that this motion would cause no trouble to the Government. The Deputy himself previously said that if the Minister would accept the principle of the motion he would be satisfied. I want to submit, as Deputy MacDermot has already pointed out, that the Minister is accepting nothing. The motion, if Deputy Norton intended anything by it, means that machinery should be devised for assuring that in protected industries there would be fair wages and fair conditions. The Deputy did not suggest any kind of machinery, but the onus of fixing machinery is surely upon the people who with Deputy Norton's assistance imposed tariffs helter skelter, as they have been imposed, without any forethought or any regard to what would result in the way of unemployment, or in the way of types of employment.

All I can say about the motion is that it is, in essence, humbug and very ill-concealed humbug. It is a rather cynical thing that the Deputy should bring forward the motion and state that if the principle is accepted he will be satisfied and that the Minister should accept the principle of the motion knowing, as, of course, the Minister does know, that his acceptance of the motion means nothing and commits him to nothing. It is simply a piece of by-play between the Minister and his faithful allies which hardly merits that the time of the House should be wasted upon it. It means nothing at all. It does not matter really whether Deputy Norton withdraws the motion, or whether we pass the motion unanimously, if we pass it in the light of what the Minister has said, that he has accepted merely the principle and that he knows of no machinery which can be put into operation. I took the liberty of asking him myself whether he has any powers except the powers of the Trade Boards, which he thinks are satisfactory. He has in fact no power. I do not know what powers he could ask for. He himself has no ideas in the matter because he gave none. So that we have a position in which we have industries tariffed, manufacturers making profit arising out of a Vote given in this House for tariffs on a number of industries, and bad wages and bad conditions in these industries. No scheme has been suggested by Deputy Norton for remedying that evil condition of affairs. We have the Minister saying that he knows of no scheme for remedying it, that he is prepared to agree with Deputy Norton that things are pretty bad, and that some time or other he will take steps to remedy them. In other words, the motion is a humbug and was so meant to be.

Mr. Norton

I was at one time, I realise now mistakenly, inclined to give Deputy Hayes credit for a certain standard of social outlook, but after the speech he has just delivered I think that certain other elements within his Party will welcome him now with open arms as one of those punyminded people who use a motion of this kind, designed to endeavour to get decent wages for the people, as something to be described as humbug.

Mr. Hayes

It does not get decent wages. That is my case.

Mr. Norton

Deputy J.J. Byrne declared that this was a sham motion. Deputy Hayes gave us some Americanese and told us this was a "frame-up." Deputy Hayes and Deputy Byrne have been so long associated with shams and "frame-ups" that even on the Opposition Benches they cannot get these phrases out of their minds. We have had ten years of shamming and "framing-up." I suppose after that experience Deputy Hayes and Deputy Byrne can talk very chair established for shamming and "framing-up." If ever we have a chair established for shamming and "framing-up" in any university there are two very worthy occupants of these chairs on the Opposition Benches, Deputy Byrne was in particularly bad from to-night. The usual turbulent eloquence was not there. The usual Niagara of demolition that he now, in his new-found freedom, can indulge in, was absent to-night. Now and again we had little histrionics. The Deputy just walked round the economic argument and made no serious effort to get into the centre of the argument. He just played with phrases, as did Deputy Hayes—just toyed with phrases. He was concerned about the Belgian, English and American capitalists—not a word for the unfortunate working-class people in Gloucester Street. Let the Deputy look after the Belgian, English and American capitalists. Deputy Byrne believed that this motion would be passed, in contradistinction to Deputy Hayes, and said that when the motion is passed it will mean fancy wages. Any attempt by the working classes, in the face of the figures which I quoted here in moving the motion, to have these miserably low wages increased is described by Deputy Byrne as an attempt to get fancy rates of wages. The working-class people in the block of tenements at the rear of the Deputy's business premises will be very interested to know that decent wages are fancy wages in the mind of Deputy Byrne who purports to represent these people. The Deputy asked what about the farmers, as if the farmers are assisted in any way by an industrial position where the workers are sweated; as if the farmers are assisted in any way by the payment of low wages. Low wages will never make the farmers prosperous. They have never made farmers prosperous and low wages in any country in the world will never make farmers prosperous.

Mr. Hayes

This motion will not raise wages.

Mr. Norton

If low rates of wages could ever make our farmers prosperous they would have been the most prosperous farmers in the world in prewar days when the rates of wages were notoriously low. Deputy Byrne, following the shibboleths of his Party, believes that low wages are a remedy for everything. Now we have Deputy Hayes following him in that mentality.

Mr. Hayes

I made no such statement. That is a misrepresentation of what I said. I stated that this motion will be passed, and that it will mean nothing to the people who now have low wages, and that Deputy Norton knows that.

Mr. Norton

Low wages declared Deputy Byrne, supported, I still say, by the remarks made by Deputy Hayes—and if he reads his speech he will see that there is no other interpretation——

Mr. Hayes

Will the Deputy paraphrase or quote me?

Mr. Norton

I will quote it the next day.

Mr. Hayes

Quote now. The Deputy is finishing up now.

Mr. Norton

Deputy Byrne believes that low wages are a cure for everything.

Mr. Byrne

Will the Deputy quote me on that?

Mr. Norton

I was thinking that the Deputy was asleep when making his speech. He forgets what he said.

Mr. Byrne

No, he remembers it distinctly.

Mr. Norton

"Keep the wages down," was the purport of his speech.

Mr. Byrne

I challenge Deputy Norton to quote a single sentence in my speech in which I advocated low wages. If the Deputy makes that statement, I say calmly and quietly that it is a deliberate misrepresentation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy must not say that it is a deliberate misrepresentation.

Mr. Byrne

With all respect, sir, I said "if."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Norton made a certain statement and Deputy Byrne says that, if Deputy Norton insists upon it, the statement is a deliberate misrepresentation. "Deliberate" clearly connotes one thing. There may be misrepresentation, but the Deputy is charging him with deliberate misrepresentation, which is a thing that cannot be allowed. He must accept the Deputy's statement.

Mr. Norton

Does the Deputy deny that he used the phrase "fancy wages"?

Mr. Byrne

No.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy does not deny that.

Mr. Byrne

No.

Mr. Norton

If the Deputy reads the phrase "fancy wages" in its context he will see that there was no other deduction from his speech but that he was advocating a policy of doing nothing when wages were low. His whole speech was "this will ruin the farmers, this will cripple the farmers," as if the farmers were to gain anything by the payment of these notoriously low rates of wages in other industries. Again the action of the Government of which he was a supporter during the last ten years shows that they deemed it a duty to build up industries here on a low rate of wages.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

That is a misrepresentation again.

Mr. Hayes

A skilful misrepresentation.

Mr. Byrne

Yes, a very skilful misrepresentation.

Mr. Norton

I suggest that the ghost of Deputy Byrne's speech is already beginning to haunt him. There is no other meaning from Deputy Byrne's speech but that he believes that a low rate of wages was the cure for everything; cutting the purchasing price of the people was a cure. Cutting the purchasing price of the people will not create a greater demand for the goods that the farmer brings to the market. But the mentality of Deputy Byrne was that it will create a greater demand for the goods. That was the point of his speech. He talked about a 40 per cent. tariff as it affected the farmer——

Mr. Byrne

Hear, hear.

Mr. Norton

——and again we had his tender solicitude as to the future and what his Party were to do, but we do not hear from him one single word as to who was responsible for the imposition of the 40 per cent. tariff.

Mr. Byrne

We all know who is responsible for that.

Mr. Norton

Then again we had Deputy Byrne's declaration—would the Belgian and English capitalists bring in their money here if this motion were passed and decent rates of wages were paid? Yet Deputy Byrne in the face of that statement says he was not advocating low wages. He was doing it very definitely when he raised all these fears and all these doubts about these American, English and Belgian capitalist friends of his.

Mr. Byrne

May I explain to the Deputy that the highest wages paid in the world are paid in the United States to industrial workers. Surely the Deputy is not ignorant of that?

Mr. Norton

If we agree to that. Deputy Byrne's capitalistic friends must be very curious ones indeed.

Mr. Byrne

They are efficient.

Mr. Norton

They are so efficient that Deputy Byrne might as well look after the people in Gloucester Street and leave those people in Belgium, America and England alone.

Mr. Byrne

That is what I am doing. Gloucester Street is a long way from Kildare.

Mr. Hayes

We could agree on that too, if the Deputy would come now and say something about the motion.

Mr. Norton

We could agree on that if Deputy Byrne interested himself in the Gloucester Street people instead of the ranchers in Kildare. If the people of Gloucester Street saw that he was doing that they would thank him for his speech here to-day. Deputy Hayes is very efficient indeed. Deputy Hayes does not believe in wasting the time of the House in a motion of this kind. A few years ago Deputy Hayes wasted the time of this House cutting old age pensions; at that time Deputy Hayes could very well afford to waste the time of the House. There was no question that time about the time of the House being so precious. The time, however, was valuable and it could be devoted to the purpose of steam-rolling the poor into further poverty.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

That has not much relevance to the motion.

Mr. Norton

Deputy Byrne does not like to hear it. Deputy Hayes says this motion is a frame-up with the Minister——

Mr. Hayes

Hear, hear.

Mr. Norton

I want now to tell the House and I do so definitely—I defy Deputy Hayes to produce a single word of evidence to the contrary—that I had not one single word of consultation with the Minister on that motion. I am not asking the Deputy to believe it, but it is true, and nothing that the Deputy can say will alter that fact.

Mr. Hayes

I accept that fully, but the Deputy here invited the Minister to accept the principle of the motion. The Deputy put down the motion and then made the case himself for the Minister.

Mr. Byrne

There was not much help for the Gloucester Street workers there.

Mr. Norton

I got twice more votes in Kildare than Deputy Byrne got in Dublin.

Mr. Byrne

How did you get them in Kildare?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We had Mayo and Cork some time ago and now it seems we are to have Kildare.

Mr. MacDermot

I appeal to Deputy Norton who has brought in a very novel and interesting proposal, to say what is the principle of his motion. I am waiting with the greatest seriousness to hear him tell us how he is to carry it out. He is not helping in any way to enlighten the House by this back-chat.

Mr. Hayes

He will not say a word about the motion because he does not know a thing about it.

Mr. Norton

I said when moving this motion that I realised that there would be certain difficulties, not insurmountable difficulties, but certain difficulties which could be quite easily got rid of. There might be certain novelty, administratively, in having to do these things. But there is nothing in the world to prevent the State introducing legislation in such a way as to ensure that protected industries shall not be allowed to carry on unless they pay decent rates of wages.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

The Deputy speaks of administrative difficulties and the Minister sees the administrative difficulties.

Mr. Norton

I am not concerned with the Minister. I am just saying what I believe. I do not see the slightest difficulty in carrying out this motion and applying it to protected industries. I see no difficulty whatever in licensing every industry that secures the benefit of a tariff. I see no difficulty whatever in trying as well to ensure that when an industry does not pay a decent rate of wages the licence is withdrawn and that such an industry is not permitted to carry on by paying abnormally low rates of wages. I do not see any administrative difficulty in that. While I would wish that the activities of employers in these industries were guaranteed, in so far as they pay low rates of wages and enforce bad conditions of labour I said in moving the motion that I would prefer if the principle were applied not merely to protected industries, but to all industries, and if the Minister accepts the principle of this motion——

Mr. MacDermot

What exactly is the principle of the motion?

Mr. Norton

I expected that the Parnell of 1932 and the future President of the Irish Free State would be familiar with fair wages and fair conditions of labour; otherwise I am afraid a great patriot has been libelled, and that the future President of the Free State will need instruction.

Mr. MacDermot

What is the principle of the motion?

Mr. Norton

The principle is, of course, clear. If Deputy MacDermot were a worker, and had to work in some of the factories, especially if he had to work in some of the factories that have been established——

Mr. Byrne

Hear, hear.

Mr. Norton

——established here within the last ten years—Deputy Byrne was a little too ready; he should have waited until I said ten years—he would know what is the principle of the motion. The principle of my motion is to ensure that fair wages and fair conditions of employment shall operate in these industries. If the Minister accepts the principle of the motion, and introduces suitable legislation to ensure fair wages and the observance of fair conditions of employment not merely in respect of tariffed industries, but in respect of all industries, this motion will do something to aid industrial development along healthy lines.

Deputy Byrne, of course, is displeased because the Minister is accepting the principle. Deputy Hayes, of course, is likewise displeased. The reason for their displeasure is obvious. It is either because they do not like decent rates of wages, or it is because the acceptance of this principle, and the subsequent introduction of legislation represents a move along a line of social legislation which has been absent from this House during the régime of the late Cumann na nGaedheal Government. Deputy Byrne's objection to the motion, and even to the Minister's acceptance of the principle of the motion, is quite easily understandable to those who know the mentality—and especially the social mentality—of his Party. I feel convinced that the Minister's acceptance of the principle of the motion, to be followed—as we shall certainly press for—by legislation to give effect to the principle of the motion will do something to ensure the development of our industrial position along healthy lines; I think it will do something to give working-class people decent rates of wages, even though in the interests of Belgian and English capitalists. Deputy Byrne calls those rates "fancy rates."

Mr. Hayes

The Deputy has not said much about the motion. We are as much in favour of decent rates of wages as he is. The motion is all humbug.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

With the consent of the Chair I should like to ask Deputy Norton a question. He said a moment ago that he intends to press for the payment of fair rates of wages in protected industries. Would Deputy Norton say if he is also prepared to press for the payment of a fair rate of wages to the agricultural labourer? Will he also say if he is prepared to press for the introduction of legislation for the fixation of the prices to be paid to the farmer for his agricultural produce?

Mr. MacDermot

Might I put a question to Deputy Norton? Would the acceptance of the principle of this motion bind any one accepting it to resist any future tariffs unless they are accompanied by proposals to secure fair rates of wages?

Mr. Norton

I do not know the purport of Deputy Byrne's question.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

It is very plain.

Mr. Norton

They are always plain.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

Deputy Norton is concerned with the payment of a fair wage to a certain section of the community. I am asking will he press for legislation for the payment of a similar fair rate of wages for the agricultural labourer, and also for the payment of a fair price to the farmer for his agricultural produce. It is very simple.

Mr. Norton

Very simple indeed! I never expect any questions from Deputy Byrne except simple ones—but "simple" in another sense. Of course I would stand for the payment of a fair price to the farmer for his produce; and I would stand also, as the trade union movement has always stood, for a fair rate of wages for the agricultural worker. We might well have had in this country during the past ten years the agricultural wages boards, which at one time gave decent rates of wages to the agricultural workers, were it not for the fact that we were afflicted with the luxury of a Cumann na nGaedheal Government. Having said that, I will answer another question which Deputy Byrne did not ask, and say that I would stand also for dealing with the rancher friends of Deputy Byrne who are using this economic crisis for the purpose of cutting the wages of agricultural labourers.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Do the ranchers employ labour?

Mr. Norton

Deputy MacDermot wants to know whether acceptance of the principle of the motion would bind any one to resist a tariff which did not make provision for fair rates of wages. My answer is that the acceptance of the principle of the motion and the subsequent introduction of legislation will provide machinery for ensuring the payment of fair rates of wages and the observation of fair conditions of labour in protected industries, and, I hope, in all other industries. I should like to tell Deputy MacDermot that so long as the Labour Party occupies the position it does in the House it will use that position to ensure that the standard of social legislation in the country is raised, and it will not stand for a policy of building up our industrial development on the sweat and blood of the workers.

Motion put and agreed to.