There is another thing as well as establishing an industry here. There is the Parliamentary institution; there is what is called in this country government by deliberative assembly—an assembly which meets to decide on matters after arguing the thing back and forward and getting at the best which the clash of various minds can bring out of the subject. The whole object of government by Parliamentary representation is to have the thing discussed before the measure is passed. If we are to take the Minister's easy way with industry, then if a firm, not named to the House, says that it will guarantee a particular price, that it will employ 100 people, but apparently does not state what capital it is going to run on and, therefore, does not allow the House to decide whether it will have that capital or would get a return on that capital from the business to be done, we are supposed to accept it. That may be running an industry, although I think it will not be successful even in doing that, but it is not treating the Parliamentary institution properly.
I am assuming that before any Minister, who knows his business, would come into the House to propose a tariff of the type talked of here he would know something more merely than that this business used to supply a big part of the Irish material. He would have made inquiries about the firm. Firms may have been big at one time and may be coming to the end of their day. It is a simple thing to make a banking inquiry and to make commercial inquiries. There is no firm big enough to despise people doing business with it if these people proceed to make proper inquiries, because then they will know that they are dealing with people who know the business, and that they will be treated in a businesslike way. The House which is to vote the tariff is simply told that the firm used to supply a considerable portion of the Irish material. There is many a firm in England supplying a portion of Irish material and, if it was cut off, if it had to try to run its Irish business as a separate concern, put a limited amount of capital into it, and charge full overheads on its Irish business against its Irish capital, it could not carry on. We want to know these things; they are the essence of business considerations.
The Minister thinks it is a proper and fair way to treat the House to say: "I do not know anything about the capital." Does he know what capital they have as a group? Does he know whether they are segregating the capital for use in Ireland or does he know if the overheads on the Irish business are still going to be charged against whatever is the full capital of the firm? Does he know what are their other ramifications? Have they a big trade elsewhere, and has it been going down? Is the firm as strong as it ever was? Of course, this guarantee is not worth the paper it is written on, and nobody would take it as worth anything more than simply a statement which any firm looking for a concession would give, unless there are further points elucidated. Is the guarantee capable of being carried out? The Minister knows very well from the records of the Departments of Finance and Industry and Commerce that there were 15 or 20 guarantees given about prices to the one which was ever carried out. Everybody looking for a concession will give a guarantee. Most of them will give it with the best possible intentions. Most of them are optimistic enough when starting to think that the business will go well.
The only way you will get people to put their heads down to business and give facts and figures upon which you can get a reliable judgment is to put up the difficulties, to make them face up to their overheads here; that there may be a long period in which they will have to suffer heavy promotion expenses before getting any return; get them to look into the condition of the country as they can see it in a detached way and form their own judgment, and then come to you with their tale. The easier the guarantee is given the easier it is thrown before the House, the more objectionable it is, the more delusive it is likely to be, and the more definitely this House should reject anything of the sort.
The Minister believes that the guarantee can be carried out. If it is not a belief founded merely on the fact that certain people have told it to him, if it is properly based, it must be founded on a consideration of the trade to be done, the capital to be put into the trade, the return likely to be got, and the lasting nature of the business. Have we been told any of these things? Even if the Minister has the view that the House is not anything more than merely an association to carry out certain formalities we have to comply with certain conditions. There is a certain regulation which says that these emergency imposition duties must be passed. Anybody who understands Parliamentary procedure, who has any idea of government by representatives, knows that "passed" does not mean merely walking through the Lobbies and getting a majority. It means debating, getting people's minds quiet on the matter, getting argument brought to bear to convince people. If the whole thing was plain as a pikestaff it should be so demonstrated.
We were told at the start that employment will be considerable, and as the Minister had not time to go into his brief on that occasion when pressed for numbers, he said "considerable" meant "considerable." Now we are told it will be more than 100? Was How much more than 100? Was his 100 an easy-going estimate by people who, in an easy-going fashion, will guarantee anything at this moment and say: "Let us get the factory up; when we have our capital invested and when we have 50 or 100 men tramping about the factory, then will be the time to meet us and talk business; then we can say: `If you stop anything on us we will close the factory and you will have 100 people extra on your hands.' " It is the easiest thing in the world to speak in that sort of facile way, but it carries no conviction. The Minister must have a conviction when he comes here with a proposal like this. Why cannot he demonstrate the reasons for his conviction to the House? A statement as to what the people are going to do is no good. Their statements to him as to what they are going to do is worse than no good. It should engender suspicion if given easily.
If we are going to get industry started and people to go into it in the belief that they are really going to do business and that we are not flinging tariffs around in a topsy-turvy way; not industry springing up like a mushroom and people being deluded by the thought of employment and finding that they are only getting it for a little bit and then thrown out, there should be facts and figures given. If the Parliamentary assembly is going to be carried on as an assembly for deliberation then the facts and figures ought to be put before us. If it is not, then say that it is not say you believe that there should be no questioning of this matter. The Minister almost suggested, in the usual fashion of the political speech that a person was a traitor who said anything hostile to the present Government, that you are against Irish industry because you want to know what this entry into Irish industry is based upon. We have a right to know. If a Labour Deputy was worth his salt before he would let a single man walk into a factory under these conditions he would badger and press in the interests of the people who are going to get employment to find out whether this is solidly based or whether it is another of those mushroom growths. It may be a very good thing, but we have no evidence it is.
