I move: "That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 5." The effect of this Resolution is really to consolidate all the duties which have been in operation on boots and shoes and which were imposed either by previous Finance Acts or by Emergency Orders. There is only one outstanding modification in the existing position and that is set out in paragraph 2 of the Resolution. The effect of it is that there shall be a minimum duty at the rate of 6d. per boot and shoe chargeable in respect of second-hand boots and shoes. The necessity for that provision is the same as that which occasioned the imposition of a flat rate duty on second-hand clothing. It has been represented that there has been wholesale evasion of the existing duty by false statements of values of imported articles, and consequently the imposition of a flat rate duty is necessary in order to enable the Revenue Commissioners to do their work properly.
In Committee on Finance. - Financial Resolution No. 5—Customs.
In the case of this imposition, does not the form of the Resolution wipe out the preference rate that already exists?
It has not been operative. The preference rate in respect to British goods, which were the only goods concerned, was abolished in 1932 by Emergency Order.
Has the Minister any information to show what increase, if any, there has been in price as a result of these duties?
On boots and shoes?
Yes.
I am not aware that they have resulted in any increase in the price of boots and shoes. On the contrary, I think the general public are commenting very favourably on the fact that a very high standard of quality has been secured by the Irish boot factories without any increase in price. In fact, in some cases, there has been a reduction in price, due to various causes, since the duty was raised some few years ago.
If the price has, in fact, been reduced what is the need of a tariff?
That is a long story. I have already explained to the Deputy that this is not a new duty. There is no new tariff except on second-hand boots and shoes. The effect of this Resolution is merely to codify the existing tariffs on boots and shoes which were imposed, over a number of years, on different classes of boots and shoes either by previous Finance Acts or by Emergency Orders. They are all being simplified and brought down to six separate classes of boots and shoes subject to tariffs of varying amounts, but no change is being made. There may be a necessity at some time in the future for a change in the tariffs on boots and shoes, but it is not being effected here and now.
I hope the Minister does not take my question as being in opposition to the tariff. I am simply pointing out that it is strange he should keep the tariff so high if he has no need for it. Can the Minister give the House any indication as to what the prospects are of increased production in the boot and shoe industry? I notice the Minister stated yesterday that we are now supplying, roughly, half our requirements. Is there any field being opened up which will enable us, within a reasonable time, to supply substantially all our requirements?
The prospects are excellent.
I would like a more serious statement than that from the Minister.
It is the best statement I could make.
Surely a Deputy is not allowed to make number of speeches on this stage.
The Deputy can make his own speech.
A Deputy can only make one speech on this stage.
The Minister is aware that I gave way to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I put a question to the Minister, and I would like to have a more serious statement from him than merely to say that the prospects are excellent, particularly in view of the fact that we made some boots and shoes a few years ago. The Minister is better at promising than, perhaps, at constructive work as regards the future of the bootmaking industry. The rosiest picture he can paint of the position is that we are making 50 per cent. of our requirements. The fact that the other 50 per cent. has to be tariffed heavily results in a very large direct personal tax on people other than those engaged in the manufacture of boots and shoes.
Is this a speech or a question?
The debate on this Resolution did not start until about ten minutes past six o'clock. It is now 6.15 so that there cannot have been very many speeches. Deputy Belton has been asking some questions and not making a speech. He is making one now.
I am surprised at the obstructive tactics of my friend, Deputy Donnelly. I assure him that I will not take up the time of the House very much longer. I will certainly leave him plenty of time between now and 10.30 to address the House.
With one speech.
I do not want to speak in criticism of this. I simply want to get information from the Minister. The Minister has chosen this time to impose tariffs, and yet he tells us that these tariffs are to help industry. In what was, to a large extent, a political pronouncement in Kilkenny yesterday, the Minister said that we are now making 50 per cent. of our requirements. That means that we have to pay high tariffs on the other 50 per cent. that we import. That, I suggest, is a very big tax on the people of this State during a period of depression. It is a very easy thing to lend money at 2½ per cent., but you cannot borrow money at 2½ per cent. and throw it into factories to make boots. We are told now that these factories, after two years, have not got beyond the point of being able to supply more than 50 per cent. of our requirements. The people who have to pay a high tax on the other 50 per cent. that is imported cannot get a guaranteed market or a guaranteed price for their produce as the boot and shoe manufacturers can. They cannot get State money at 2½ per cent. to carry on their industry, nor can the State itself get money at that price.
Who was it that got a loan at 2½ per cent?
I saw it reported in the public Press; a certain manufacturer in the City of Dublin mentioned that he had got money at 2½ per cent.
What sort of manufacturer?
A manufacturer.
Of what?
I will give the information to the Minister. I will be boiling the matter down to the tariffs——
This motion deals with the tariffs on boots and shoes.
I did not catch what the Minister said. I suppose the Minister is afraid of the danger line and he wants to be very meticulous about the latitude here.
That is what Deputy Belton is not.
Deputy Belton could speak volumes in describing the Minister and then he would not have said all he knows about him.
I met the Deputy for the first time six years ago, and I am sorry that I ever met him.
The Minister will be more sorry.
The Minister was not at all sorry when he followed me into this House seven years ago.
All this has nothing to do with the tariff on boots.
The Minister for Finance thinks he is wiping his boots on Deputy Belton.
I met the Minister once before and I will meet him another day. I think it is playing fast and loose with the protective policy in this country to put on tariffs of 25 to 50 per cent. The Minister has put a tariff on a commodity that is very necessary in this country. It was bad business to put a tariff on such a necessary article used by everybody in this country unless we were nearing the point when we would be able to supply our own requirements.
The Deputy said something about a tariff of 50 per cent.
Will the Minister please keep quiet?
But this statement is ridiculous.
The Minister must now keep quiet. I am afraid he is too big for his shoes.
The Deputy will never stand in them.
Not in yours, I hope; they would not fit me. If ever I want to stand up in shoes I will stand up in a man's shoes not in yours. There was a time when people, who knew something about this policy of protection, considered that protection was never to be put on any necessary article of consumption when that article was not produced in this country either in sufficient quantities, or in very nearly sufficient quantities, for the country's requirements. To argue that it is helping industrial expansion to impose a tariff that after two years is only giving us 50 per cent. of our requirements is not using the tariff weapon to help industrial development or expansion. It is only a tariff to help the Minister for Finance to get money. It is a tax on the people during a period of depression, a tax at a time when those people are least able to bear it.
I ask Deputies to look at the returns of customs duties in the year just ended. These duties for the year ending the 31st March last were £1,500,000 more than was collected in the year ending 31st March, 1932. And that, notwithstanding the fact that more goods were imported in the year 1931-32. We have the fact that £1,500,000 more were handed to the Minister for Finance in customs duties in the last year. This money is taken from the people of the country in direct tax, and still we are only able to produce half of our requirements of this article. It is no wonder then that the economic conditions and the economic credit of this country is at the low ebb at which it is. Yet the Minister for Industry and Commerce can tell us that the position is rosy. After two years of his big push and all that was built up before, all the Minister can boast of now is that we are producing 50 per cent. of our boots and shoes.
It is more than in the previous ten years.
How much more is it?
About 50 per cent.
Is that expressed in employment.
There is no use in surveying the field in the previous ten years. The position is very different now. The co-operation that your Government got from the official Opposition is very different to the co-operation that your predecessors got from you when you were in Opposition. It is absurd to compare the ten years which included the civil war period and its aftermath with the two years of building on foundations that were already in and passed. Nobody would compare the two periods.
What has all this to do with the merits of the Resolution?
Nothing and I would not have mentioned it if it were not for the interruption of the Deputy sitting behind the Minister. The only point that would require a business explanation is that the very theory and conception of protection is to help industry. But the Minister is using that pretence to collect revenue and the only information he can give us is that the position is rosy. That is not satisfactory. There are many people in this House and particularly in the Party to which I belong who think that the Minister should not have the power to apply tariffs by order. Personally, I think he should, but I think he should use these powers very cautiously because if we are going to have a protective policy it should be efficient. The Minister who is given those powers should use them cautiously, carefully and judiciously. He should employ them for the development of industry and not for the increase of revenue.
I will be glad if the Minister will give us an indication of his industrial policy. I am not speaking in any sense in hostile criticism. I certainly cannot agree that applying prohibitive tariffs is the best method in this case. If we were near the margin, and if we were in the position that we could by a slightly increased effort produce all we want, then I would agree that the Minister would be justified in seeking the authority of this House for a prohibitive tariff but a prohibitive tariff is no good now, unless to put a prohibitive tax on the consumer.
He is on the right road anyway.
I am not questioning his being on the right road. I am questioning the pace at which he is travelling. While we are only producing 50 per cent. of our requirements of a certain article it is not right that we should impose a direct tax on the consumers at a time when the people of this country are less able to bear it than at any time in our memory.
Is he going too fast or not fast enough?
For the man with shoes on he is going all right, but for the man without shoes he is going too fast.
Give a little consideration to the men who are practically in their bare feet. The Minister's explanation as to why he pursues this policy of tariffs, when we are so far from supplying our own requirements, is not satisfactory. It has been given in a flippant manner. He should give some indication to the House when this tax of 50 per cent. on our boots and shoes will cease. It can only cease the day we are able to provide all our requirements. The Minister should have some definite plan in mind. This imposition is unjust when it is applied as a tax and not as a protective tariff. If it were a protective tariff, and if we had people here producing 50 per cent. of what we import, it would help to take a considerable number off the dole, off unemployment assistance. The people would have more spending power and there would be less of a waste on industrial production. If the Minister has no plan in mind, then he is merely riding this policy of protection to death and there will be reactions. Those of us who believe in protection do not want reactions. We want the programme to go on steadily until it reaches the goal we all visualise, the supplying of our entire requirements by Irish labour. If you go too fast on that road it is probable you will sour people against the policy of protection. People will resent paying a direct tax during the periods of stress. I hold we are at that period now. I would like the Minister to give us some indication as to when he hopes we will be able to produce all our requirements.
I would like to assure the Minister in advance that I am heartily with him and the Government in their policy of developing our native industries. If he makes any inquiries he will find that I have been a member of the Irish Industrial Development Association since its inception. It is not the Minister's fault if he was not born soon enough, but I may as well as tell him that I have done a lot more than he has ever done in the interests of the Irish industrial movement. I want to emphasise points made by Deputy Belton. Speaking some time ago at the annual dinner of the National Agricultural and Industrial Development Association held in Dublin, and responding to the toast of "The Development of Irish Industry," the Minister for Industry and Commerce said, amongst other things:—
"Every boot factory in the country is working to the maximum of its capacity, yet they have that substantial leeway to make up."
The leeway referred to there is that, notwithstanding all the development, "we imported last year 445,000 dozen pairs of leather boots and shoes valued at £970,000." I am interested in those tariffs in a double-barrelled way, so to speak. I am interested to see that Irish capitalists who have the courage to invest in Irish industry will get a fair crack of the whip and will be encouraged to put more money into Irish Industry. I am also interested in the welfare of the workers in those industries. I am anxious that they will participate in any of the advantages to be brought about by an industrial revival.
What do I find in relation to the boot factories? We have the Minister making quite a true statement; but I wonder how much the factory owners are contributing towards building up the industry. are they making the response that they should make? Are they responding adequately in view of the very great measure of protection that they get? I do not want to pass serious strictures on them in regard to their want of enterprise in not catering for the full requirements of our people. In the Irish Independent on the 12th April last a letter appeared arising out of the statement I have quoted from the Minister. The letter was written by Mr. H. Dale, General Secretary of the Irish National Union of Boot, Shoe and Leather Workers, 33 Cook Street, Dublin. He wrote:—
"Under the heading of ‘The Minister on Boot Industry' you state that the Minister, speaking at the annual dinner of the Free State boot manufacturers, said that there were 1,000 additional hands employed in the industry. Where those are is a puzzle, as we don't know——"
Who does not know?
This man is the general secretary of a trade union catering for this particular industry. He speaks on behalf of his organisation and he says he does not know where the additional hands are. His letter says:—
"Where those are is a puzzle, as we don't know, but we do know that at present there are about 30 fully skilled hands with from 12 to 30 years' knowledge of the industry signing up at the labour exchange, whilst half the factories in the Free State are full of boys at the smallest rate of wages."
Does the Deputy know the writer?
No.
Yet he quotes the letter as being necessarily accurate?
I quote it in the same way as I quoted your speech, which was reproduced in a paper called Irish Industry.
The Deputy knows who I am.
I do.
But he does not know the writer of that letter.
He is the General Secretary of the Union of Boot, Shoe and Leather Workers.
But the Deputy says he knows nothing at all about that gentleman.
I do not know him, but he writes as general Secretary of a union. I have not heard of him before.
Any stick is good enough to beat Irish industry.
If it is merely the question of accuracy that is involved——
I want to ask Deputy Anthony why he quotes a letter written by somebody whom he does not know and who, he says, is a secretary of a union he never heard of.
Any responsible newspaper usually makes inquiries beforehand as to the bona fides of people who sign their names; and newspapers, as a rule, take jolly good care not to publish a letter with a nom de plume unless they know who the writer is. At any rate, that statement appeared and it has not been contradicted. I have seen no contradication of it. I want the Minister to understand that, and not to be so flurried and not to use the kind of argument he uses against me and other people who stand up to criticise in a fair way his policy and who want to help the industry. When I stand up to criticise the Minister's policy, I think he should not say that I am only speaking in the sense that, to quote his own words, “any stick is good enough with which to beat Irish industry.” I have always stood for the development of Irish industry.
Oh, humbug.
Every stitch I have on me is of Irish manufacture and all my requirements are made of Irish material.
Lip sympathy.
It is not only lip sympathy so far as I am concerned. Here is what the Minister is up against. This industry has been heavily tariffed and every inducement is held out to our people to manufacture enough to fulfil our own requirements. If the Minister thinks that the 50 per cent. he is putting on now will be an impetus to the industry and to the industrialists engaged in it, then, by all means, let us support it; but he has given no indication to the House or to the people that this is going to be the last word in this industry or in other industries. We know that there are hundreds of people unemployed in the ready-made clothing industry. Here we have the boot industry. If the Minister says that we can supply 100 per cent of our own requirements I will support him, because I have always stood for Irish manufacture, but he gets childish and flurried, and uses childish arguments.
I have always looked with a certain amount of suspicion on the effects of the tariff policy of this Government. Of course, I cannot claim to have anything like the intimate knowledge of the development of industry and of the conditions of the new industries that are being established that the Minister has or that anybody associated with the Ministry has. I have made up my mind quite definitely, however, that this is one industry which, in my opinion, has justified the tariff policy of the present Government. I believe that the tariff policy of the Government has been more justified in this industry than in other industries. It is quite clear that the material which is available for sale in this country by the boot manufacturers is as good, and, in many cases, better than the imported article, and that the price has not been prohibitive or excessive so far as one can see. The Minister, in the course of the past few days—I think it was yesterday—speaking at Kilkenny, said that we are now supplying 50 per cent, of the requirements of our people so far as boots are concerned, and that he hoped that shortly we would be able to supply 100 per cent, of our requirements. Once you reach or pass that figure, however, it is almost certain that the firms that are sending boots into this country in competition with our own manufacturers will sell them at a price that is competitive to say the least of it.
I do not know the name of the gentleman whom Deputy Anthony quoted, but I think it is known even to him that the conditions enjoyed by the people who work in these factories in the Free State are comparatively better than the conditions of those engaged in any other new industry established by this Government or their predecessors. I could say a great deal about the rotten conditions of the workers in some of our clothing factories, and such employers require to be very carefully and closely watched by the present Government. Personally, I do not think that this country is going to gain a great deal by the establishment of industries that will provide labour for girls, if you like, under such conditions, and I am not going to congratulate this Government or any other Government on the establishment of any industries which will give additional employment to girl labour or woman labour if that labour is under un-Irish conditions. When I heard Deputy Anthony speaking I was wondering whether he was supporting this part of the Minister's policy. So far as I am concerned, I want to make it quite clear—from examination of the conditions existing in the factories already established in this country—that I am whole-heartedly and without any qualification supporting the Minister in his policy in so far as he has helped, and in so far as he will help in the future, in the establishing of more boot factories in the country. I look forward with confidence to the time when the Minister's policy will succeed in supplying the demands of our people so far as boots are concerned. I think there is something in the suggestion, or insinuation, if you like, in Deputy Anthony's speech, that in some of these factories the owners are disposed, if they are allowed, to bring in semi-skilled labour to do what, in some cases, is regarded as the job of skilled workers. Whether or not the Minister receives complaints of that kind, I hope that he will put his foot down on people who attempt to operate under those conditions. This is an industry which has given a good deal of employment to male labour and, generally, most trade unions in the country would be in favour of it.
In connection with this particular matter, there is a certain amount of information that I would like to get if it is available. Before coming to that, however, I should like to express disapproval of the particular line the Minister took in dealing with the letter which Deputy Anthony quoted. Deputy Anthony read a letter from an official of a union giving that man's position. The Minister's glib response to that was— did he know the individual personally, and did he know the Minister?
And did he know the union?
I might reply along the same lines, and say that, knowing the Minister as well as I do, that is the reason I would not rely on anything that comes from the Minister's mouth, because time and again he has proved himself the most inaccurate and incautious spokesman that ever stood up from a Government front bench in this country. Time and again the Minister has been caught out in inaccuracies and in statements that were not in accordance with the facts and figures. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is the last man that should challenge the bona fides of anyone who puts his name to paper. When the Minister is caught out here in the House, it is by word of mouth; but here is an official who signs his name, who is not afraid to put his name to paper, and because he is not personally known to Deputies, the Minister, in a left-handed way, insinuates that what he says is false. If it is false, the Minister, who has all the information and time at his disposal, can come back here at a later date and prove that the statement is inaccurate. In the meantime, let him give fair-play to a person who has the courage to sign his name to the statements he makes. We have heard the Minister's statement——
Does not everybody in the country know——
Is this a point of order or what is it?
Mr. Crowley
Does not everybody know——
If it is merely a question, you can put it when I sit down.
Mr. Crowley
You cannot deny it anyway. The factories are not full of boys, and the House knows it and you know it.
I do not know what you are gurgling about up there. You can make a speech when I sit down if you want to.
Mr. Crowley
You cannot defend the statement anyway.
We were discussing tariffs on various forms of footwear. In the first place, tariffs are not new. They are not Fianna Fáil. There were tariffs on footwear before the Fianna Fáil Government came into office.
That is the answer to Deputy Belton.
The Minister may get an answer before he is finished. There were people on this side of the House who advocated tariffs as a trial, and when tariffs were being tried by the late Government, at least we got figures and facts and finance from time to time, and not a mixture of fairy tales and Coueism. There is no good in any perky Minister standing up to tell us that the outlook is rosy, that it is as bright as could be, and refusing time after time to give any figures with regard to the numbers of people employed, the conditions of labour or the rates of wages. Tariffs are implements which every Government is more or less bound to use and equally bound to reckon up results as arising from experience, results in respect of numbers of people employed, wages paid by way of employment, financial infliction on the community and in respect of the community as a whole getting value for the imposition of the tariffs, and the increased price of the home product. We have had tariffs on footwear for a certain number of years, altered from year to year and increased in the Minister's time, and behind that tariff wall we have certain factories growing up, certain employment given in those factories and certain wages paid in those factories. There is an income on the one hand from tariffs on the foreign goods coming into the country. That is so much money, and the Minister is in a position to tell the House exactly what it is from year to year. We have a certain increase in the price of the home commodity which can be calculated in terms of money too, and adding that to the income from tariffs, I want to know from the Minister what is the tariff income for the last two years. What is the number of people employed and what are the wages paid to the people employed. I am not a person to believe every tale I hear, but I hear tales, and I hear them from the Leader of the Labour Party with regard to conditions in our factories, and I think that no Deputy and nobody interested in the people of this country could stand for conditions if the conditions are anything like they are said to be in the tales we hear. Deputy Norton, your own ally, referred to conditions in other industries as being baby-farming.
Not in the boot industry.
In industries, I am saying at the moment.
In that case, you are out of order.
I heard in the last couple of weeks of a little girl who disappeared from home, whose disappearance was reported to the police and who was absent for ten days. She was found in one of these new factories receiving a wage of 4/- a week.
A boot factory?
Not a boot factory.
I have allowed the Deputy to talk generally on tariffs and up to a certain point, on factories, but he must relate what he says to the particular tariff before us —the tariff on boots.
I shall endeavour to do so. If the conditions in the boot factories are in any way similar to the conditions in other factories in the back streets of Dublin, which have grown up in the last two years. I consider that the country and the city would be much better without them and if little girls are being brought away from home to receive a wage of 4/- a week and are expected to live in the city on a wage of 4/- a week, much harm is being done.
Can you name the factory?
I will give you particulars of it but not in public.
Will you give them to the Minister?
I will.
You did not think of doing it already. You made a public speech about it first.
I heard about it four days ago and it is 14 days ago since this girl disappeared. It was reported to your police and I expect you know all about it.
And this is the first place you make a reference to it in public.
I am not making reference by implication. I am making reference by fact and I believe it is a matter which it is perfectly legitimate to raise when we are discussing tariffs and factories.
In a manner which prevents any possible reply.
Might I remind the Minister that he is not in the Chair?
Might I remind the Deputy and the Chair that the matter cannot possibly be replied to. An allegation can be made that cannot be dealt with on this Resolution and the Deputy takes good care that he does not supply the information which would enable the lie to be nailed.
It is not a lie.
Give the information.
I will give the information. I will give it to you within three days.
Stop making speeches about it until you have done so.
The Minister instead of being in the Chair should be in the dock. What I want from the Minister, and before this particular Resolution is passed, is the income from tariffs on footwear, let us say, in the 12 months ending 31st March, the amount of extra employment given during that 12 months, the amount of wages paid during that 12 months, and the conditions of labour during that 12 months, and what his Department reckons, during the same 12 months, was the increased cost to the community of the home produced article as against the cost before that. The Minister has got to recognise that you can protect any industry and force production behind that protection—give a monopoly to the home market, if you like, behind that protected wall—but the justice of doing that has got to be gauged by the capacity of the public to pay the prices demanded. With decreased incomes throughout the Twenty-Six Counties, with wages shrinking, and with the main industry of the country toppling, the capacity of the people to pay enhanced or increased prices is not there. I believe there would have been a bright future, a rosy future, to use the Minister's own words, for something like a whole-hog tariff policy if it were not associated and linked up with the economic lunacy of the economic war.
A Leas - Chinn Comhairle, if there is one thing in which the Opposition is consistent in this House it is their opposition. As far as I can see, they are opposed to everything that emanates from these benches, whether it is for the good or otherwise of the people of this country. Deputy O'Higgins strongly objects and takes exception to the fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce questioned a statement made by Deputy Anthony, but he certainly did not make any objection to the suggestion made by Deputy Anthony that these infant industries which are starting, and which are doing well, are being manned by people who are receiving starvation wages.
Manned by women!
He did not make any objection to that statement which, in my opinion, is a slanderous and disgraceful statement coming from any member of this House, and likely to be injurious to the industries concerned.
On a point of order, does Deputy Traynor say that I suggested——
You suggested that there were starvation wages being paid in those boot factories.
I will leave that to the Minister to answer. I read a letter which appeared in the Irish Independent. It contained a statement— not my statement.
Why did you read it?
I read it for you certainly.
You did not take any steps to find out whether it was true or not.
The name of the person who wrote the letter was signed to it.
The position, as far as I can see, is simply that the Opposition stands for Irish industry, with a big "but" always inserted somewhere. If they want Irish industry to move forward in any respect whatever they ought to cease the type of speech that has been coming from the benches opposite. The American nation was built up on tariffs. The growth of the American nation was effected through the medium of tariffs. This nation will probably grow through the medium of tariffs as well. We do not want it to become a second American nation. None of us hopes for that; none of us would desire it, but we do want to see produced in this country the goods that the people require. I would say it is about time that the people on the opposite side lost a little of their inferiority complex, and got down to helping the policy of the present Government rather than impeding it.
Deputy O'Higgins began his last speech on this subject exactly as he began one here the other day—the usual abuse, the usual tirade against the Minister. No accuracy, no importance, no hope or sign of anything that is good could be attributed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He went on to say that this Government was not the first Government that discovered the virtues of and the need for tariffs. We know that; neither were our predecessors the first people in this country who discovered the need for tariffs and preached the virtues of tariffs. If the Minister for Industry and Commerce were allowed to carry on, as Deputy Traynor suggests, or if there were patriotism enough on those benches to enable him to secure the co-operation of this entire House, as Deputy Belton admitted a short time ago, he is on the right road. He is on the right road to make this country what it ought to be. Surely to goodness, co-operation should be forthcoming from intelligent Deputies instead of abuse and the type of speeches we have got to listen to. Tariffs are tariffs. Tariffs are imposed for the purpose of helping native industry. That is what I always thought tariffs were.
So did I.
Take the tariff on foreign boots and shoes coming in here. Whether or not Deputies opposite describe it as a system for obtaining revenue, is it doing any harm? Is it doing any harm to the native producer? Is it not helping him? If the Minister for Industry and Commerce could secure the employment of only six men —I will go further and say if he could secure the employment of only six individuals—would it not be better to have those six employed through methods of that type than to have them walking the streets and swelling the ranks of the unemployed?
What about the consumer?
That is very good. It may have its virtues as far as Deputy O'Higgins is concerned. The Deputy's shoe is not pinching him, and if there is any man in this House who ought to keep shy of reduced incomes he ought to keep clear of them.
I will tread on your corns every time I want to.
So long as you hit me I will take my gruel in a good sportsmanlike manner.
You always have the last word, like an old woman.
If I can compete successfully with Deputy Dr. O'Higgins in having the last word I will flatter myself going home to-night.
The rules of the House!
Tariffs have helped the boot and shoe industry. I am sure the Minister for Industry and Commerce will only be too glad to tell Deputy O'Higgins the amount of money that has been received by way of tariff on those articles. Protection is a good thing. It was the greatest principle preached by Arthur Griffith. I might quote a little extract from his pamphlet, "Economic Salvation," published in 1914. I would commend this to Deputies of this House. It is as follows:—
"It is by buying Irish manufactures and by manufacturing those goods for which there is a domestic market that the population can be retained, and this country can be prevented from degenerating into a cross between a grazing ranch and a workhouse."
That is what the Minister is trying to do. The people opposite should get down to co-operation, stop this abuse, and stand in on the effort to build up Irish industry.
Deputy Donnelly made the extraordinary statement that even if there were only six employed in this particular industry it would justify the Minister in his imposition of this tariff. That is a statement which one would not like to let go uncontradicted. Even Labour would not stand for that statement. Deputy Norton, the leader of the Labour Party, has frequently expressed in this House the maxim that—to use almost his exact words—tariffs are a doubtful remedy for unemployment.
Might I suggest that any general debate on tariffs might take place on the general Resolution?
What had we last? Let us have fair play.
Might I ask the Deputy, if he wants to refer to Deputy Norton, to quote him on this industry?
I will leave that to the Deputy.
The last speech made was in regard to tariffs generally.
We have to get back to the Resolution. Whatever the speeches which have been made were about—some of them were in regard to tariffs in general and the merits of tariffs—we have to come to the Resolution now which deals with a tariff on boots.
Speak about the fellow in bare feet!
I will try to keep a little nearer to the Resolution than the two previous speakers. Deputy Traynor's contribution to the debate on this particular boot tariff was to accuse us of being consistently in opposition. Perhaps we are. That is part of our job—to attempt to keep the Ministry right on this particular tariff and other tariffs. To get back to boots——
Hear, hear!
I have been pretty near boots all the time. The tariff on boots was one of the tariffs mentioned here the other day in reply to a question of Deputy Mulcahy's when we were trying to illustrate what particular items composed the £1,500,000 revenue which the Minister got beyond his expectations last year. One of the items was boots. There has been a tariff on boots for a considerable period before this Government came into office, as Deputy Donnelly was good enough to admit. If there is a use in tariffs, if tariffs are going to set any industry on its feet, the boot and shoe industry is one that ought by this time to be fairly well on its feet. Even before tariffs were imposed by the late Government we had boot and shoe factories in this country, in Cork, Carlow and elsewhere, manufacturing in competition with English, American and other manufacturers. The late Government came to their aid with a tariff, believing that the industry would spread. I believe that it has spread to a certain extent. The main extension has been that the existing factories expanded and certain individuals enriched themselves at the expense of the community. We have now arrived at a condition of affairs when the revenue from the tariff on boots and shoes has increased beyond the Minister's expectations. It is generally held that if the revenue from a tariff continues to increase and bring in greater sums to the Exchequer it is a proof that the tariff has failed in its original purpose. To me it seems anyhow that the increase during the last 12 months or so in the amount received from the tariffs is a matter that requires explanation. World prices for boots and shoes have fallen. If there was only the ordinary import of boots and shoes the amount received from the tariff would not expand so much. But we have an expanding revenue from the import of boots and kindred articles, even though prices have fallen. That is a proof to me that the tariff has not altogether produced what it was intended to produce.
There is another aspect of this question of the tariff on boots and shoes. At the present time, when people, prosperous and otherwise, from the exclusive section that the Minister for Finance referred to to-day to the very down-and-outs, try to provide themselves with boots or shoes, there are a number of people in the country who find it increasingly difficult to provide themselves with boots or shoes —in fact, there are some who go without either. It is in that particular class that I am chiefly interested. If this particular tariff had the effect of increasing employment to a tremendous extent, so far increasing it that it would make an inroad on the number unemployed without inflicting a terrible hardship on the remainder of the community, or even if it did inflict a certain amount of hardship on a particular section of the community, provided it produced the other result, it might be justified. But, apparently, judging form the increasing revenue from it, it has not been justified. I think the argument put forward by Deputy Donnelly could not be accepted by this House: that even if it only put six or eight men into employment it would be justified. I do not think any member of the Labour Party would back the statement made by Deputy Donnelly that the imposition of a tariff on boots and shoes, which brought six or eight additional men or women into employment, even at the expense of an increase in the price of boots and shoes for every man, woman and child, would be justified.
What was the extent of the increase?
I have not the figures, but the Minsiter in reply to a question a day or two ago stated that boots and shoes were one of the articles from which the Minister got a portion of the £1,500,000 in excess of his expectations.
That does not prove that prices have gone up at home.
The proof that prices have gone up at home is that the tariff imposed on boots and shoes by the late Government, and increased by the present Government, has not been sufficient to keep boots and shoes from being imported from other countries. It is obvious, even to a blind man, that the manufacturers put up their prices to the extent of the tariff imposed, yet they have not reached the mark when they are self-supporting.
Give us the figures.
I do not know exactly the figure of the present tariff on boots and shoes, but there is a very high tariff. If the Deputy takes off the amount of the tariff from the import price of the British goods he will see what the price of boots and shoes would be without the tariff. There are no philanthropists amongst the boot and shoe manufacturers here. They are taking advantage of every halfpenny of the tariff that the Minister imposes. This is one of the tariffs that I do not want to see extended. No case can be made for the extension of it. I should like to hear Deputy Davin justify this particular tax.
I am backing it absolutely, even more than any other.
Then make your speech in defence of it.
I have done it already.
Certainly the speeches I heard since I came into the House have not changed my opposition to any extension of this particular tariff. I cannot see that the general public are reaping any fruitful results from it. In fact, all the evidence is the other way—that it is an imposition on the very class who can least afford it. I do not think any extension whatever of this tax is desirable.
Deputy O'Higgins said that he does not believe all the tales he hears round the country concerning the conditions in Irish factories in general, or in Irish boot factories in particular. The fact that he does not believe the tales does not prevent him from repeating them. He keeps these tales in continuous circulation by his own efforts both outside and inside the House and supports them by innuendoes and suggestions about unnamed females who get very low wages in some unnamed factory. I want to make an appeal to Deputies opposite, if there is any value in making an appeal to them at any time, to stop for a little while slandering their own country and countrymen and the industries of this State. It is an ill bird that fouls its own nest.
It took ten years to find that out.
If Deputies opposite had any sincerity whatever behind their oft-professed desire to see industrial development here, they would give to Irish industry the assistance of their silence for at least a couple of years until somebody made an effort to do what they did not do during the ten years they were in control. When I heard Deputy Anthony say that all his life he had worn Irish clothes and that he had been a member of Irish industrial associations, I knew that we were going to get a speech from him slandering Irish industries and industrialists. That is the orthodox beginning to all speeches attacking the policy of industrial development here, or the activities of Irish industrialists.
We had the same orthodox beginning in Deputy Belton's speech. He had always been a supporter of the policy of industrial development but—and then after the "but" we got the usual attack upon the industrial policy of the Government because it is going too fast and the usual innuendoes, suggestions and lying tales about conditions in Irish factories. Deputy Anthony carefully cut out of a newspaper a letter written by somebody of whom he never heard, who described himself as secretary of a union that he did not know even existed. He carefully carried it around in his pocket for a month so that he could base on it an attack on those engaged in an Irish industry and during the course of that month he made no effort to see if the allegations contained in that letter had any truth whatever in them. He did not want to find out the truth. He merely wanted to have a handful of mud to throw at those engaged in industrial enterprise in this country.
The Minister is the best sample of a mud-thrower in Ireland.
We had Deputy Belton on the same lines. The speech of Deputy O'Higgins was an answer to Deputy Belton because he mentioned that the tariff upon boots and shoes was initiated by our predecessors. Deputy Bennett forgets that also. The tariff on boots and shoes was imposed by our predecessors in the year 1924.
I do not forget it.
It was imposed in 1924. Seven years after that tariff was imposed this Government came into office. During the whole of that period, that tariff was bringing in revenue and nothing but revenue to the Exchequer of the State. There was no protest during that time from Deputy Bennett. There was no question down by Deputy O'Higgins. There were no elaborate theories by Deputy Belton. At the end of seven years, seven long years during which that industry might have been developed, the industry succeeded in 1931 in supplying 12 per cent. of the requirements of this country in boots and shoes. In 1931 its production was declining. The tariff was imposed in 1924 and was imposed for revenue. Certainly, if it had any protective design behind it, it failed in that.
Deputy O'Higgins, I think it was, or Deputy Belton, said that this Government was getting more co-operation in its policy in relation to industry than our predecessors got from the Fianna Fáil Party when we were in Opposition. There was not a single Bill introduced into this Dáil, a single measure proposed here for development of the industrial possibilities of this country, that was not opposed by the Party opposite. Of course, in Opposition they made the usual speeches about how long they had been associated with the industrial revival movement and they gave the usual demonstrations of lip sympathy but at the same time they flung out the usual slanders against Irish industry and in the end voted against the proposition. Deputy O'Higgins made a suggestion about child labour. Deputy Bennett makes his attack upon the inability of the boot manufacturers to supply the requirements of the country. Deputy Anthony makes his insinuations about the low wages and the bad conditions in the boot factories.
Might I correct the Minister? The suggestion which he says I made with regard to child labour was made by the leader of the Labour Party.
That is not correct. The Deputy made a statement this evening that he knew of a case where a girl ran away from home and was found somewhere or other——
Certainly, but the suggestion that these factories were baby farms was made by the leader of the Labour Party.
Not in the boot industry.
The charge I made with regard to the lady I stand by. I said that I would give the Minister the particulars within a week.
Next time I ask the Deputy to do that before he makes the charge in public. That would be the decent thing to do, but it did not appear to strike the Deputy.
It would not strike me listening to the Minister.
He did not raise it in a form in which it could be answered.
What about the charge against Deputy Mulcahy?
He takes his cue from the nominal leader of his Party. I noticed yesterday in Kilkenny, and on every occasion on which I have been present at any official function in relation to these factories, that the Fine Gael Deputies present there do not open their mouths to attack these industries. Deputy Fitzgerald in Kilkenny yesterday did not attack these baby farms. I have been at the opening of a number of these factories, and at all of them the United Ireland Deputy present was bleating about how pleased he was to see that factory coming into existence and how much he agreed with the policy of the Government that brought it into existence. He did not tell the people working in the factory or the crowds present there that he voted against the measures which resulted in bringing these factories into existence. He did not tell them that on every occasion on which the members of his Party could, they had slandered Irish industrialists, even the particular industrialist at the opening of whose factory he was present.
A Deputy
How many did you open in public?
If I ever have occasion to open boot factories in Leix, in Limerick and in Cork, Deputy Anthony will be there, Deputy Bennett will be there and Deputy O'Higgins will be there mouthing the very same sentiments that Deputy Fitzgerald gave utterance to at Kilkenny.
I am prepared to repeat in Cork every word I said here.
Twelve per cent. of the requirements of the Free State was being supplied by home factories after seven years of the protective policy of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. I do not say that we are capable of supplying our full requirements at the present time, but I do say that we supplied 50 per cent. of them in 1933. That does not represent the uniform production during that period, but it represents a continuously increasing production during the period. 50 per cent. was the average for the year. We oppened a new factory in Kilkenny yesterday, and we hope to open other factories in the near future. There has been a rate of progress in that industry which would seem almost incredible to anybody who, in 1931, had surveyed the development of seven years of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party's régime. I would ask Deputies opposite in all decency to stop making speeches about their interest in Irish industry. I would ask Deputy Belton, in particular, to try to keep his mouth shut on that subject, because some day it will be necessary to tell the people the truth about the matter, and the truth is that every single measure introduced into this House to assist Irish industry was opposed by him.
By whom?
Deputy Anthony says that he is interested in tariffs in a double-barrelled way. He is quite right. If he cannot bring down industrial revival with one barrel he has another always in reserve to have a smack at it. If he cannot slander or criticise the manufacturers for the extent to which they have engaged in the industry, he slanders and criticises the workers for the inefficiency of their production.
The Minister knows I never suggested that. I never said a word about inefficiency of production, and the Minister knows that.
The Deputies said everything that could be said detrimental to the interests of every industry in this country.
The Minister has no evidence of that.
Deputy Anthony and Deputy O'Higgins should talk less about efficiency and should stop saying that I made statements here which they could prove to be inaccurate, and that statements made about industry were a gross exaggeration of the position. I challenge Deputy O'Higgins to produce one statement made by me that cannot be substantiated. I ask the Deputy to give a single figure which I supplied to the Dáil, the accuracy of which he is prepared to question.
Deputy McGilligan gave them time and again.
Deputy McGilligan never did anything of the kind. I put it to Deputy O'Higgins if what he says is true all he has to do is read some of the speeches Deputy McGilligan made, and to repeat them here. That requires no mental effort on his part, and it will not give him a headche. In 1931, after seven years of Cumann na nGaedheal protection policy, the boot industry was able to supply only 12 per cent. of the requirements of this country in boots and leather. I say that in 1933, after one and a half years of Fianna Fáil policy, that industry supplied 50 per cent. of the requirements of this country. I say that the number of concerns engaged and the persons employed in the industry have doubled during that period. I say that over 1,000 additional hands have been placed in employment in the industry. That is no fairy tale. That statement is based on the certified return submitted by a firm of chartered accountants that represents the Boot and Shoe Manufacturers' Association. Deputy Anthony can take that statement, no matter what an unknown secretary of an unknown trade union may say to the contrary. Development did not stop in 1933. It is still going on. The Deputies have evidence of that yesterday, and will have further evidence in the near future. We are going to get to the position where 100 per cent. of our requirements will be supplied by Irish workers from Irish workshops. We will not stop there either.
When?
We have done 50 per cent in one and a half years, in an industry which requires a very high degree of technical skill, in which in other countries it takes five years to train workers in the skilled processes. We had to erect, from the ground up, half a dozen new factories, involving the installation of machinery worth several hundred thousand pounds. One and a half years was a short time in which to get that progress, but it will not take one and a half years to complete, because we are beginning to accelerate it.
You would not have to build them from the ground up in Edenderry.
If the Deputy would stop talking about Edenderry and if he did not represent Leix-Offaly we would be able to interest more people in that factory. Anyone we mentioned the factory to said: "No, not at all, we will be slandered by Deputy O'Higgins. We will be told that we are running a baby farm; that we are paying sweated wages; that we are exploiting consumers, and we will have the speeches Deputy O'Higgins made about other factories." Do you think anyone is going to go near Edenderry as long as Deputy O'Higgins has anything to do with it? I want to put it to Deputies opposite who made speeches that it was revealed in these speeches that they knew nothing about this matter. This is not a change of duty. We are not imposing a new duty on boots and shoes. This merely codifies the existing duties and simplifies the administration of the duties. The only duty being imposed is that on second-hand boots and shoes. That would have to be imposed in any case. If Deputy Anthony and Deputy O'Higgins had read the Resolution they would have been less eager to talk about it.
Before the Minister concludes, I would like to ask one question and I think the House is entitled to an answer. I asked the income from tariffs on footwear since 1932 and the amount paid by way of increased wages since that date.
The Deputy can put down a question about that at any time.
Another mystery.
The Minister did not reply to a point I put to him. Can he give an idea approximately when these industries will be able substantially to supply our own requirements.
If the Deputy will undertake to stop talking about Irish industries for 12 months I think we will be able to do so.
I asked the question and I think the Minister might politely answer it. I have as much right as the Minister to discuss industries and I am not going to stop talking.