Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Nov 1967

Vol. 231 No. 4

Private Members' Business. - Control of Imports (Quota No. 54) (Pneumatic Tyres) Order, 1967.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Colley)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann hereby approves of: Control of Imports (Quota No. 54) (Pneumatic Tyres) Order, 1967.

An explanatory memorandum has been circulated to the Deputies which explains the main provisions of the Quota Order. When the Free Trade Area Agreement with the United Kingdom was implemented, it was necessary, under the terms of that Agreement, to terminate quota restrictions on imports of motor tyres from the United Kingdom as from 1st July, 1966. Quota restrictions on the importation of tyres from other countries were also removed as from 1st July, 1966. Prior to the removal of the quota, imports of motor tyres had been running at about 4,500 tyres per month but following the removal of the quota, imports increased considerably. In the six months July to December, 1966, imports from the United Kingdom alone averaged 15,400 tyres per month. Because of the increase in imports a serious loss of production occurred at the Dunlop factory in Cork and a number of workers lost their employment. Unemployment at the Cork factory would have increased had the situation been allowed to continue.

Discussions with the British Board of Trade were initiated in accordance with the provisions of Article 19 of the Free Trade Area Agreement and it was agreed that quota restrictions should be imposed on the importation of tyres from the United Kingdom, for a temporary period. The size of the quota was agreed. in consultation with the Board of Trade, at an annual level of 65,000 tyres. The first quota period was fixed at six months ending on 31st December, 1967. This quota provides reasonable protection for the Irish product.

Under the terms of the Free Trade Area Agreement the period during which such restrictions may be maintained is limited to eighteen months, unless the other party agrees otherwise. The Dunlop Company are aware, therefore, that they have a limited period within which to re-organise their industry so as to make their tyres competitive with imported tyres, and I am advised that the company are making every effort to do this.

I might add for the information of Deputies that tyres were being imported from other countries as well as the United Kingdom. To restrict these imports a minimum specific duty of £3 per tyre was imposed. It would, of course, have been pointless to restrict imports from the UK if imports from other sources were permitted without restraint.

Mr. Donegan

This Quota Order indicates the position in which we find ourselves at this stage in relation to the general lessening of tariffs in order to bring the whole of Europe, and perhaps other parts of the world, into a rhythm of reduction of tariffs eventually leading to the free movement of goods from one country to another. It is interesting—sad, in one way—to see a situation having developed in which we find the Minister for Industry and Commerce stating—admitting, if you like—that the removal of the quota as a result of the Free Trade Agreement with Britain has resulted in unemployment in Cork. This has been stated by the Minister and I, in no sense of criticism of him, or anything else, merely re-state it as a fact. It is now necessary for us to invoke one of the clauses in the Free Trade Agreement to protect the employment of our workers. It is salutary to reflect that the Minister has also adverted to the clause in that Agreement under which this can be done only for a period of eighteen months unless the other party agrees to extending the period. The Minister has not said so but, presumably, if there was going to be serious unemployment in Cork it might well be that the British Government would agree to extending the period.

The Minister has referred to the task that now faces the Dunlop company, namely that of re-organisation during this 18 months in order to ensure that it will be competitive. It has been stated many times on this side of the House that a great number of our industries are supply industries for the use of our own people and never designed in the first instance to export. Only now is re-organisation taking place to ensure export. In a small country like ours the size of the productive unit was extremely limited and all the trends over the last few years have been towards larger productive units, units in a position to produce cheaper as the cost of labour and the cost of living increases — nobody grudges any man his hire—but that really means that the larger unit with the lower labour content per unit of production leaving the factory will automatically produce a cheaper product.

A respite has now been granted to the workers in Cork. I pay tribute here to the work done by Deputy Stephen Barrett by way of Parliamentary Question and otherwise to draw attention to the plight of these workers and to see to it that the Minister acted as quickly as possible. There may be criticism that he did not act soon enough. Perhaps he was not allowed to act any sooner. Be that as it may, and these are the secrets of the ministerial office, the fact remains that we have been given only a temporary respite. It is really a case of Hobson's Choice.

It was Hobson's Choice as far as the Free Trade Area Agreement was concerned and to suggest that such an agreement, once it had been proposed by the British that they would take 75 per cent of our goods, should not have been concluded is just plain lunacy. That does not mean that everybody who voted for the agreement was enthusiastic about the agreement. Neither was it because they believed there was a land flowing with milk and honey just around the corner. They voted for it soberly and after consideration because they realised that to stay outside would result in isolating us from the rest of the world. The only option left in such an eventuality would be to produce goods here solely for consumption by our own people. There was then no choice other than Hobson's Choice. If the end result is the entry of Britain and Ireland into the Common Market and the creation of one great United States of Europe, then things will be all right, but it is a sobering thought to realise that one of the strongest companies in the country, a company one would have thought well able to withstand any competition, a company with an international and not just a national name, found itself unable to withstand competition. It may be that dumping was the cause. When you produce a certain quantity of goods, covering in the process your overheads, labour and everything else, then if it is possible to produce a greater quantity of goods with the same overheads, the same executive costs, fixed costs, repayment of capital costs, it is possible to dump so long as you have supplied at a higher price a certain volume of the goods produced. Perhaps that is the reason. Perhaps the tyres being sent here were being dumped at less than the cost of production.

I do not know if the Minister has explained that tyres can be produced cheaper in the rest of the world than here. I think he implies that they can be produced cheaper outside this country. When he says Dunlops now have 18 months in which to re-organise themselves; it implies that Dunlops were not in a position to compete and that, in fact, it was not direct dumping that was the cause of under-selling Dunlops here.

The Minister has not come home with a great bargain. He will allow 65,000 tyres to come in. I realise it was no arbitrary decision by the Minister and that he was like a man bringing a bullock to a fair: sometimes you go to a fair with a good bullock and sometimes you go with a bad one.

The alleviation of the plight of workers in Cork will perhaps be rather a slow procedure. First, we must work off the quantity of tyres from abroad and then we have the fact that we shall import in the order of 11,000 tyres more than we have normally been doing.

This Quota Order should be taken as an example by every industrialist here, no matter what sphere of activity he may be engaged in. It is a red light warning that, if the reduction in tariffs has not yet hit his particular product, he should investigate matters, if he has not already done so, and take suitable steps to equip himself to meet the competition because the reduction in tariffs is going on and will continue. As the percentages drop, the stage may be reached sooner than an industrialist may think when his product will be in the same position as the well-known product of that very high-quality firm, Dunlops. It is a sobering thought.

Industrialists and workers should confer on this subject without delay, that is, if they have not already done so. For some years past, this House has been exhorting them to do so. One of the most famous companies in this country that has been established for many years is in this present predicament. Anybody would have thought that their unit of production was such as would enable them to withstand any competition. A company that was not at any time short of capital, technical know-how or anything else is one of the first to be hit badly, with resultant disemployment of workers. The Minister for Industry and Commerce had to make a bargain, under the Free Trade Area Agreement, in order to protect them against some of the competition from abroad.

I do not make these remarks in any spirit of criticism. It simply means that all that has been said from this side of the House and from the Government side of the House about getting ready for competition is true and that the time is now upon us. This is not just something that might happen or might never happen. Workers and employers alike must take whatever steps are necessary to abate the difficulty of the reduction of tariffs and the advent in certain areas of almost free trade.

Mr. James Tully

We agree that the Order is necessary. I think we can be pardoned if we wonder if this is the wonderful success of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement which the Fianna Fáil Árd-Fheis were told about yesterday by the Taoiseach. Is this the wonderful success which, according to him, the Labour Party in particular have been caterwauling about in relation to things which might happen but did not, whereas everything has gone as was intended and the Agreement has been an outstanding success by the Fianna Fáil Party and the Fianna Fáil Government? In one case alone, it has resulted in the disemployment of a substantial number of people. There has been a very belated attempt to come to terms with the British Government on the importation of so many tyres. It can last only 18 months, unless the British Government agree to a furtheir revision. Is this an example of the wonderful benefits which that Agreement will bring this country? I would remind Fine Gael that they also thought that that Agreement would bring benefits——

Mr. Donegan

They did not.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

They did not.

Mr. James Tully

Fine Gael did not oppose the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. Deputy Donegan said that anybody who did so was trying to ostracise himself completely from the British market.

Mr. Donegan

Anybody who voted against it was a political "nit".

Mr. James Tully

There was no question of ostracising oneself from the British market. The Government signed that Agreement and came back to this House and Fine Gael said they had done right. Let us not ever hear them saying they did not.

Mr. Donegan

What was the Deputy's choice?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Tully, without interruption.

Mr. James Tully

They have, with hindsight, discovered that what the Labour Party said was likely to happen has happened in this case and in a number of other cases which were not dealt with in the same way. Some were unfortunate enough not to be able to last long enough. They were not an international company. They went to the wall and there was no possibility of rescuing them. The result was considerable disemployment and such disemployment is growing. What was the alternative?

There was no need for the Irish Government to tie themselves up with the British Government with that Agreement. There were negotiations which resulted in what the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries— the present Minister for Finance— described as a wonderful achievement which, in fact, it was not. We heard about the big increases that would be got for a guaranteed 638,000 head of store cattle. That did not come off. The prices dropped. The 638,000 head of store cattle were not bought and there never was a guarantee that they would be bought. The British said that if they needed them they would take them, but they did not do so. We bought a pig in a poke and this present instance of the danger of the almost complete closing down of Dunlops of Cork is one result of it.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce has taken certain action. They are not dumped tyres and the foreign tyres, on which it was necessary to put a duty of £3 per tyre in order to keep them out, were not dumped tyres. If we are not a lot more careful about our trade agreements than we have been, we may end up with a situation in which every country that reduces tariffs can send goods here and we shall have to say to them: "Please, we cannot stand up to this competition. Will you allow us to keep your goods out for another little while until we get a breathing space?"

The Minister is well aware of all this. I do not blame him. He has done a lot to improve the position. The Irish industrialists have not awakened to the fact that, if they are to survive in whatever free trade is coming, they must modernise their plant and conditions and do their best to meet the competition. They have to do their best to try to live up to it. They sat behind tariff walls for so long and took their big profits and spent the profits as they got them. They did not attempt to plough back their profits into their industry and the result, when the crunch came, was that they were not able to live up to it. I know very little about the workings of the Dunlop Company except that when the crunch came for them they were found wanting. I do not see how in the next 18 months, unless drastic changes are made, they can improve their position so much that they will not have to say: "We do not need any further protection."

Of course, this brings up again the entire question of our ability to swim in the fast-moving waters into which the Government seem so anxious to throw us. The Department of Industry and Commerce will have to spend a great deal more time checking on our ability to survive. The Government, whether it is a Fianna Fáil Government or any other Government, will have to make sure, before we take down any more tariff barriers, that we are not going to throw hundreds more people out of employment, because enough have gone already. I was rather amused at the Taoiseach's attempts yesterday evening to try to prove that he was the Great White Chief leading his legions to prosperity. He said that we, and he even mentioned Fine Gael, despite their co-operation, were criticising him and that there was no need for criticism. This provision which is now before the House is evidence that not alone was there need for criticism but that in his own constituency in Cork there was need for criticism. I hope he has learnt his lesson from what has happened in this case.

Mr. Molloy

When I came into the House, I did not intend to speak, but having listened to Fine Gael and Labour Party speakers I am moved to say one or two things. The necessity for this Control of Imports Order in respect of tyres is in itself regrettable but the implications by the Labour Party in regard to the Free Trade Area Agreement are completely misleading. I sometimes wonder what makes the Labour Party tick. I am sure that when Deputy Tully reads what he said here, he will agree that the facts contradict it. When the Free Trade Area Agreement was being debated here, the Labour Party opposed it very strenuously. I remember Labour Party members stating repeatedly that the Agreement was going to put industries to the wall and that the Taoiseach and the responsible Ministers concerned in its negotiation had not been careful enough about the manner in which the Agreement had been drawn up. They said that goods which would flood the country would come in, that goods would be dumped here and factories would be put out of business and considerable unemployment would be caused.

This type of argument was used by them all through the debate, despite repeated interjections from the Minister in the House stating that there was provision in the Agreement that any industry which was gravely affected by the reduction in the tariffs could be safeguarded by the introduction by this type of control of imports which would allow the industry to meet the situation and allow the Government, as in this case, to come to the assistance of the firm and help them to meet the increased competition. In other words, if a cold wind began to blow on any particular industry, it would not blow it out-of-doors immediately, the industry would get protection and a period in which to re-adjust and try to meet the increasing competition. It is rather two-faced of the Labour Party to come in now and try to object to the implementation of that particular clause which was included in the Agreement to protect the odd industry which would feel the pinch. When the Free Trade Area Agreement was being drawn up they said this clause was not in it and they tried to put it across that the Agreement was incomplete and was unsatisfactory from that point of view.

Mr. James Tully

Nobody suggested any such thing. What we are complaining about is that it took 12 months to put it into operation.

Mr. Molloy

If Deputy Tully wishes to go back and look at that long and tedious debate on the Free Trade Agreement, he will see that in the speeches which he and his Party made they said repeatedly that dumping would force some industries out of business and that they said that provision should be made in the case of dumping. I am glad to see that the Minister has acted in this instance, regrettable as it may be. This being a large firm, it is difficult to understand why they should not have been able to compete equally with similar manufacturers in other countries. I only hope that with the assistance which the Government are giving them and with the breathing space of 18 months which they are getting—and which can be extended again at the end of that period by consultation and agreement between the two Governments—there will not be any need for the Government to come to the assistance of this firm for a second time and seek an extension of the period. As I said, I did not wish to intervene but I did so, having listened to the double talk on this point from the Labour benches.

Mr. Barrett

I should like to get the record straight. Deputy Tully at one stage was inclined to think that we had voted for the Government motion ratifying the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain but then he realised that that was not a fact. The fact is that when this motion came before the House, the Free Trade Area Agreement was a fact and we in the Fine Gael Party realised it was a fact and that it was something that would have to happen. Those who were in the House at the time will recall that we tabled an amendment suggesting that the Free Trade Area Agreement must be, but regretting the manner in which it was entered into and warning the country of just the sort of thing which seems to please Deputy Tully so much that he is ready to smile, that unemployment——

Mr. James Tully

I am smiling at the double talk from Fine Gael.

Mr. Barrett

——would be caused in certain sections of the community. There is no double talk about this. Deputy Tully may well remember that when the Free Trade Area Agreement was first mentioned in the press, this House was in recess and it was not the Leader of the Labour Party who called for an immediate recall of the House so that the situation could be discussed and the perils inherent in such an Agreement investigated. The Labour Party at that time were silent but now they are very loud in their condemnation. They seek to get the best of two worlds. They say that it is a very bad thing that the Free Trade Area Agreement hit Dunlops but they also say that it is a very good thing that this happened because it will make management pull up their socks.

Mr. James Tully

Nobody said that.

Mr. Barrett

I do not think the moral in this is entirely confined to management There is a moral which is applicable to every section, to management and workers alike. I believe that the message has gone abroad and has been appreciated. I hope it will be more and more appreciated as time goes on.

In reference to this Order before us, I notice under the terms of the Free Trade Area Agreement, the period during which such restriction may be maintained is limited to 18 months unless the other party agrees otherwise. I would be glad if the Minister would indicate whether he intends to approach the British Board of Trade with a view to seeing whether the period in this particular case could be extended should the circumstances so warrant.

When our amendment to the Government motion in respect of the Free Trade Area Agreement came before the House we did, as I indicated, regret the manner in which the Free Trade Area Agreement had been introduced. We felt there should have been more discussion with Irish business interests, more discussion in this House, more discussion up and down the country. That was not done. If the Government had entered into discussions with Irish industrialists, which they should have done, we would not have had the position in which, quite suddenly the importation of British and foreign tyres took such an amazing jump that in the year 1966 nearly three times the value of tyres was imported as in the year 1965. Naturally, the foreseeable result in my constituency was that there was very grave unemployment in this long-established firm. It is all very well to say that they should have "pulled up their socks" and should have done this and that. The fact was that the manner in which the agreement was entered into by the Government was so slipshod that this was the result. In 1965, £221,000 worth of tyres were imported, an all-time high at that stage. In 1966 the figure was £619,406.

Mr. Molloy

What about the increased exports?

Mr. Barrett

I allowed the Deputy to talk without interruption, although I could have interrupted him on more than one occasion. I was polite enough not to, and I would ask him to be equally courteous, no matter how difficult.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): He feels it necessary to continue to support the Minister he supported on another memorable occasion.

Mr. Colley

I do not think he regrets it.

Mr. Barrett

There is another aspect of the rise in tyre imports not related to the matter we are discussing here. The impression might go forth that the only difficulty about tyre imports is the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain. That is not so. In reply to a Parliamentary Question I elicited the information that there has been a dramatic rise, although not as big as the rise in imports from Britain, in the imports of tyres from other countries. For instance, imports from Belgium rose nearly four times. In 1965 we imported tyres valued £1,184 from Belgium and in 1966 the figure was £5,396. Similar increases, and in some cases more, are shown in the imports from other countries such as Luxembourg, Germany, France, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, Saudi Arabia and Israel. These are not covered by the Free Trade Area Agreement.

While it is true, as the Minister pointed out, that there has been a minimum specific duty of £3 per tyre imposed, I should be glad if he could tell us whether he considers that this step is sufficient, whether, in fact, it is going to halt the flow of tyres from other areas which could be quite damaging to Dunlops' interests. I would ask the Minister, although I realise it is possibly outside the scope of the motion before us, to deal with that situation. It is one of particular relevance to my constituency, but it is also one which affects the country in general.

Mr. Colley

I do not like to interrupt the Deputy, but I do not quite understand. Is he asking whether I think the £3 minimum specific duty is sufficient——

Mr. Barrett

Is sufficient to prevent the upward trend in imports from the countries I have mentioned.

Mr. Larkin

The matter before us is not one for smiling about. Rather should the Minister and the Government come to us in sackcloth and ashes. Without doubt during the discussion here on the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain it was described to Deputies and workers generally as a golden opportunity. There was not the slightest indication from the Government side that within 12 months workers employed in an old and, I presume, reasonably efficient undertaking would find themselves out of employment as a direct result of the effects of this Agreement. I presume the owners of this industry listened to the exhortations emanating from the Government benches over a number of years. Certainly, the workers in this industry, like those in many other industries, made more than their fair contribution to the progress and modernisation of the industry by co-operating in schemes for improved productivity.

One wonders whether we still have existing the situation described to us here on one occasion by a former Taoiseach and former Minister for Industry and Commerce, when he said that the owners and managers of industry and commerce here were not awake to the realities of the situation and were still living in the Twenties or Thirties; but even were this the situation, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in seeking the approval of this House for the imposition of this quota—which of course he has already imposed but for which he is seeking formal approval—has told us that prior to the Free Trade Area Agreement, the importation of tyres amounted to approximately 54,000 for a 12-month period, and for the six months immediately following, the importation increased to 92,400, almost 100,000.

One wonders what the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Finance and the other members of the Government were doing when they were discussing this Agreement. Did they not visualise that there would be this substantial change and that it would result possibly in serious unemployment of the workers employed in that industry? Not only that, but we have not got as yet from the Minister for Industry and Commerce in his report here any indication of the number of tyres imported from December, 1966, to July, 1967. The figures he gave are for the previous six months. I hope the Minister, in reply to the discussion on this matter, will give the House this figure. Is it 100,000, 120,000 or 130,000?

While I would not accuse the Minister of a deliberate attempt to mislead the House, the figures he read out could be misleading. Under the Free Trade Area Agreement, there is reference to a period of 18 months for which quotas can be imposed, and after that period, they can be imposed only provided the other party voluntarily agrees to their imposition. However, that 18 months is not 18 months from November, 1967, and the Minister, I am sure, will correct me if I am wrong. The first part of that quota period commenced in July, 1967, and terminates in December, 1967. Is that not correct?

Mr. Colley

That is correct.

Mr. Donegan

December, 1968.

Mr. Colley

No, 1967.

Mr. Larkin

The six months period terminates in December, 1967.

Mr. Colley

Yes.

Mr. Larkin

Anyone outside this House would be thinking in terms of an 18 months period from now. He is sadly mistaken.

Mr. Donegan

It is 12.

Mr. Larkin

It is 12 from now. It may well be that the owners of this undertaking are aware that it was 18 months from last July, but the impression which could readily be taken from the contributions so far is that they have 18 months from now. The Minister has clarified that. I hope the Minister will also give the House some definite information as to the total number of tyres imported in the six months December, 1966, to July, 1967, because the quantity imported during this six months, together with the 100,000 imported in the previous six months will undoubtedly have a very serious effect on the prospects of that company putting itself in a position to meet outside competition.

One of the questions that arises from the introduction of this matter into the House is this: how many more workers and industries may be facing the same situation in the next few months? The Labour Party, in being very strongly critical when this Free Trade Area Agreement was discussed in this House, were critical because there was a complete absence of adequate guarantees against this Agreement resulting in unemployment in many industries. During the discussion, there was a lack of clarity, an attitude adopted by the Government spokesmen and, to some extent, by our friends here on the Fine Gael benches, that things would be very nice indeed, that there would be this windfall as far as the agricultural community was concerned. This rosy future to which the experts in that field referred time and time again has not materialised and once this angle of the situation had been ventilated, they did not appear to be too greatly concerned about the possible situation facing workers who were in employment in industry in various parts of the country.

The situation which developed in Dunlops in Cork has been given fairly substantial publicity. A large number of workers were affected, people who have worked for many years in an industry that was apparently unshakeable, and to find that they were without employment was a matter of concern not only to themselves but to people outside their immediate circle. What of the position of workers in other industries, industries that are not as much in the public eye, industries that have not got an international flavour about them but yet in which workers are employed and on which workers depend for their livelihood? If the Minister cared to survey the situation over the past 12 months, he would find that quite a large number of workers in various employments have been faced with unemployment as a result of the failure of their industry to maintain full competitiveness in many cases with larger units across the Channel. Not being of international standard and not having the eye of publicity upon them, jobs were not there and the workers went to sign on at the employment exchange or followed many thousands of others in a search for employment across the Channel.

No doubt the House will support and endorse the proposal to impose this quota. In doing so, the House will properly indicate its view that not only did the spokesman for the Government fail to indicate in real terms the possibilities for workers from this Free Trade Agreement, but also that the Minister for Industry and Commerce who must be indicted in this regard was somewhat lacking in dealing with this particular problem because the tremendous increase in the importation of motor tyres did not just take place in 1967. The fact that there was a substantial increase in the number of tyres imported must have been available to the Minister through his Department very shortly after the Free Trade Agreement was debated in this House. The Minister did not have to wait until January or February to know what the trend was. I think it is fair to say that the Minister is capable of adding two and two together. If the monthly average for the importation of tyres increased substantially from 4,500 in the period prior to the Free Trade Agreement, in respect of the months after the Free Trade Agreement it was quite clear to the Minister what the eventual situation would be.

We are faced with having to take steps to remedy the situation in this industry or to attempt to repair the situation to some extent over a short period. Perhaps the Minister would indicate in his reply to what extent Messrs. Dunlops have been able to assure him or his Department that in the next 12 months they will be able to meet the type of competition they faced in 1966-67, that they have examined the situation fully and are satisfied that they are in a position to meet that type of competition within a period of approximately 12 months from now. Will it continue to be necessary to impose a special charge of £3 per tyre in respect of tyres from countries outside the Free Trade Agreement?

The Minister represents a Party who for many years were the apostles of protection. In recent years, the Minister's predecessors have been issuing statements from time to time exhorting the managers of industry to face up to the economic effects of coming changes. One wonders whether the steps taken by successive Governments were adequate, or alternatively, whether those who own industries have paid any real heed to those exhortations. It appears from the evidence in many cases that there are still sections of industry that consider they can operate almost in a vacuum and without regard to what is happening elsewhere. On the other hand, are those sections of industry which have endeavoured to face up to the future getting the assistance they need?

In regard to the problem before us tonight, it appears that the Minister will certainly get the support of the House in imposing this quota for the period which is permissible under the free trade arrangement. I do not think he can escape criticism for his failure to foresee the problem and endeavour to take steps in the matter at an earlier date. We in these benches are concerned with the future of Irish industry. We are concerned with it primarily because of the employment of workers in Irish industry. We are concerned because of the fact that in the many Irish industries progress has only been made possible because of the contribution by the workers employed and because of their investment. The investment of the workers in Irish industry is the highest possible investment. In this House and outside it, many references are made to the investment of finance et cetera in industry but those who invest their lives are the principal investors in any industry, as they are in agriculture, and they are deserving of every assistance and every protection that can be given to them.

When placing on the record of this House our view that in the case of Dunlops the possibility of unemployment following large-scale importation of motor tyres appears to have been to some extent overlooked, we should also place on record the need for more attention to the possibility of a similar situation developing in other industries where workers are at present employed.

I support the Minister's proposal. We hope that the Minister and the Government will learn a lesson from the development in Cork and take steps accordingly to carry out their duty to the workers of this country and not to have to come before us again in three or four months time and tell us a similar story. I will again ask the Minister if he will tell us, if he has the information, how many tyres were imported between December, 1966, and July, 1967, and if he will then give us an estimate of whether or not there is a surplus quantity of tyres in the country as a result of such importation and will Messrs. Dunlop still be faced with an economic problem between now and 12 months from now? The sum should be simple enough: 50 four thousands for 12 months, 90 four thousands for six months—in other words on that basis an equivalent of two years importation. How many thousand for the second six months and for the six months from July to December? Thirty 2,000s are permitted under the quota and if that continues we will have 65 000 so that for this period from July, 1967, to December, 1968, there will be imported in accordance with the new quota restrictions, 90 000 because I take it the tyres imported between December, 1966, and July, 1967——

Mr. Barrett

116,846. A Fine Gael question to the Minister elicited that.

Mr. Larkin

We will let the Minister answer for himself.

Mr. Colley

For what period?

Mr. Barrett

From January to August, 1967.

Mr. Larkin

We will let the Minister answer for himself. I am sure the Minister is capable of adding two and two.

Mr. Donegan

The other day he and I had an argument about that.

Mr. Larkin

Before the interruption, I was telling the Minister that I take it that the tyres imported between December, 1966, and July, 1967, will not be affected by the quota imposed as and from July, 1967. Therefore, you will have in the first six months nearly 100,000 and in the second six months, 100,000, 200,000 for a period of 12 months against a figure of 54,000 for 12 months. It looks as if without anything else changing, we imported almost four years supply of tyres. Add to that the 90,000 for the quota period and you have almost five to six years supply of tyres imported taking up to December, 1968. I would be interested and I am sure the Deputies who represent the city of Cork would be interested to get some information from the Minister, if he has it, as to how Dunlops will deal with the situation, put themselves in a position to meet competition from outside the country under the Free Trade Agreement and with other competition from countries which are not at the moment within its scope and who send tyres here. How will they perform this near-miracle within a period of a little more than 12 months? Not just the Deputies from Cork, not just the Members of this House who are concerned with the workers but I am sure the workers in Dunlops would like to get some concrete information from the Minister when he is replying to the discussion.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Although not having the honour of representing Cork city, like my colleague, Deputy Barrett, I feel I must say a word on the situation which has arisen in Cork. I presume this is just an early blast of free trade which has caused the very serious situation in what can be described as one of the best organised, best managed Irish industries, the firm of Messrs. Dunlop of Cork. I have said many times in this House that I am a believer in Irish industry. I believe in financial investment in industry and I believe in the investment of manpower in Irish industry and because of the critical situation that has resulted in the unemployment in Dunlops of quite a number of workers, I feel that this is a matter which concerns not alone Deputies representing Cork city but every Deputy representing both urban and rural areas who is interested in the employment of our workers in Irish industry. It is right on this order we are now debating that we should place on record that it is an order dealing solely with this particular situation and with one industry, Messrs. Dunlop of Cork. I venture to say that in the directory of industries, there is not any mention of a well established industry with such a good record for producing extra production as Messrs. Dunlop of Cork. There is no industry in this country which has treated the workers more favourably, and which has taken such a pride and a delight in providing employment and in providing additional employment than Messrs. Dunlop.

We now find that as a result of the importation of tyres, resulting from the Free Trade Area Agreement, a number of workers lost their employment. When this has happened to one of the best and one of the most efficiently managed industries in Ireland, what will happen to the industries which are less efficient and what will happen to the industries that have not even made the preparations Messrs. Dunlop have made to meet free trade? If the Minister thinks our Irish industries of today are geared to meet free trade, I am sorry to say he is living in cloud cuckoo-land.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy O.J. Flanagan will appreciate that we cannot discuss the effects of free trade during this debate. This quota order deals specifically with imported tyres.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I quite agree, but here is one instance in which tyres manufactured by Messrs. Dunlop of Cork of as good a standard, if not beyond the standards, as any tyres that can come into the country have come into difficulties. May I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce what is really wrong? Surely Messrs. Dunlop of Cork are able to manufacture, and are manufacturing, sufficient tyres to meet the home market in this country, or is it the situation that our Irish people here are buying imported tyres in preference to the tyres manufactured here in Ireland by Messrs. Dunlop of Cork? I find it very hard to believe that this takes us back again to what we were speaking about the other night when we were dealing with the Shannon industries and other industries, that you have motorists, farmers using tractors, the owners of lorries and other vehicles who must be using imported tyres on their vehicles.

Would it not be a step in the right direction, in order to cut down the import of tyres, and in order to ensure that there will be a continuous manufacture of tyres by Messrs. Dunlop, if efforts were made to initiate a campaign, as has been done in the case of our Irish industries, for the use on all vehicles of tyres manufactured within the country? Surely if we have an industry manufacturing an excellent article, we should buy that article. I venture to say that if it goes to a panel of experts, they will express the opinion that the tyres manufactured by Messrs. Dunlop of Cork are of a very high quality and that they are equal in quality and standard to any tyres that can be imported. Therefore, when we have an excellent product made by our own workers in Cork city, by a firm who, in my opinion, have a very efficient industry, who have put a good article on the market, I cannot understand the mentality of the Irish consumers, if we can describe them as consumers, the purchasers of tyres, who will buy imported tyres in preference to a superior and high quality tyre made available to them by Messrs. Dunlop of Cork.

Perhaps the Minister will give us, as Deputy Larkin rightly asked him, some further helpful statistics. This, in my opinion, is a very important matter. Has the Minister any information at his disposal in regard to the home market for tyres, about whether imported tyres are purchased by the Irish public in preference to tyres manufactured by Messrs. Dunlop of Cork? If it is the case that the purchasers of tyres in Ireland, whether they be for tractors, lorries, motor cars or other vehicles, are purchasing the imported article in preference to the home produced tyre, I say it is a disgrace and a shame on them that they do not realise their responsibility to Irish industry and the men employed in making tyres in this country. Those men will be placed on the unemployed list if the people in Ireland are purchasing imported tyres in preference to the Irish produced tyres.

This is a very serious matter. It is a matter which affects Messrs. Dunlop today but what other Irish industry will it affect tomorrow? When Messrs. Dunlop of Cork have felt this slight breeze—it can be described as a very slight breeze—of free trade, when this highly organised and highly efficient concern have had to suffer the serious effects of imported tyres, may the Lord help those industries which are not prepared as Messrs. Dunlop.

I feel there was a duty on the Government, not today, not last year but many years ago to do something about this. We heard the former Minister for Industry and Commerce, the former Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, saying that years ago he had been keying up industry to meet competition from outside, that he had been keying up industry for free trade, that he was convinced that all our Irish industries could meet any competition which could come from outside. Here we have one of the most efficient and one of the most highly geared industries which felt the slight breeze of free trade and this has meant the loss of jobs to workers in Cork city. I am concerned with the employment of those workers equally as much as Deputy Barrett, who has the honour to represent them.

The men employed in this industry are specialists in tyre production; they have received a considerable training and they have a special skill for the manufacture of tyres. When those men are thrown out of employment, it means there is no other suitable work available for them. This is a very serious matter. It is a very serious matter for their wives; it is a very serious matter for their children; and it is a very serious matter for the people of Cork. The very short debate which we have had in this House for the past few hours regarding this matter gives representatives representing constituencies other than Cork city food for thought. This may have a serious effect on other Irish industries. That is why I say it is a very serious matter. It is now within 13 months that Messrs. Dunlop have been asked to re-organise and to make an effort to meet and compete against imports of foreign tyres into this country. I am afraid that one of the first steps we must take is to appeal to the patriotic sense of our people to support our own industries, to support our own workers, in the knowledge that by buying Irish they are keeping their own people in employment in their own cities. I have always been a believer in that and I feel the Minister shares my views. The more Irish goods we buy the more Irish people we keep in employment. It is far better for us to buy Irish tyres manufactured in Cork than to buy tyres manufactured by Irish people in parts of Great Britain; it provides work at home and that is what we want.

The purpose of establishing industry in the first instance is to provide industries and employment for our own people. In so far as Dunlops are concerned, I know of no other industry in this country that is so efficiently managed, so highly organised, who are such good employers or who are so considerate of their workers. It must have caused the management of Dunlops very serious concern when they had to dispense with the services of many of those who were trained and skilled in the manufacture of tyres in the Irish industry. What more can Dunlops do for the next 12 months to help them meet the challenge which will be repeated? That is a question I should like the Minister to answer. Has he told Dunlops what they will do in 12 months time or are the workers employed by the industry in Cork just living on a month to month basis?

At the end of 12 months—13 months to be accurate—they will again be faced with the position of tyre imports. I should like to know what more the industry can do. What more is expected of them? As this is an unusual situation brought about by a trade agreement to which the Government was a party, what practical steps will the Government take and what financial assistance, if any, guidance or advice will the Government give in order to help Dunlops meet the situation that will have to be met in 12 to 18 months time?

This is a serious matter and I hope the Minister realises it. I am afraid he is living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks we are prepared for free trade. I do not think we are. Here is an example of one of the most highly-organised industries in the country. Is the Minister satisfied that a duty of £3 per tyre is sufficient? What results does the Minister expect to come from it? Does he feel that this duty will result in a cutting down in the import of tyres as against the purchase of Irish-manufactured tyres?

I cannot understand the mentality of Irishmen or Irishwomen in industry, or in any sphere of activity, who when they require the products of industry do not first seek to purchase the Irish product. After so many years of Irish industry we are still suffering from an inferiority complex with regard to what we can produce. Because an article is made in Ireland many people still say that it cannot be any good and that they prefer to buy the imported article. I wonder is that said about tyres. I have never in a quarter of a century used any tyre except a Dunlop tyre and I have never used a car except a Ford. The purchase of our own goods in our own country keeps our people in employment. I feel strongly on this and I assure the Minister, with regard to the difficulties he is now meeting in relation to Dunlops of Cork, that he has no guarantee that he will not be confronted with the same situation in other industries in the future.

Is the Minister satisfied and convinced that by the end of twelve months Dunlops will be sufficiently organised? I doubt that they can be organised to a higher degree than they are. What help will the Government give them to meet this new situation, created by the Government, mark you, and I emphasise that? The Minister must accept responsibility. It is his job to protect Irish industry. It is his job to see that there is no redundancy, no unemployment, and to see that every effort will be made to safeguard workers and protect the children and the wives of all those engaged in Irish industry who find themselves in uncertainty and doubt. They cannot plan for the future.

You have employers like Dunlops probing in the dark and they will not know where to start when they are deluged with a flood of imports in 12 months time. This is a matter to which the House should give the gravest consideration.

I am glad the Minister has come to the House having taken steps helpful to Dunlops of Cork, a firm which I believe is worthy of help, co-operation and support. They are one of the few Irish firms of international reputation of which we can be very proud. We are proud of the workers who have been trained in Dunlops and of those who have been engaged in the firm in Cork. They have in my opinion excelled themselves in efficiency and in the skills in which they are now trained, skills which will be of little use to them in any other branch of Irish Industry.

Can the Minister assure the House that at the end of 13 months we will not again be in the same position in Cork and that the firm of Dunlops can look forward to a future in which they will not be faced with unfair competition from outside, competition that will come from abroad under conditions of free trade? I doubt if our industrialists are geared to meet it.

We have had in the past a lot of talk. An ounce of action is worth a ton of talk and there has not been enough action to prepare Dunlops for the consequences of a flood of tyres into this country. The competition is unfair and could not properly be met by them. I hope the steps now being taken by the Minister will make re-employment possible for all the workers in Cork city who through no fault of Dunlops have been thrown out of employment, and that steps will be taken by the Government to see that this situation will not again arise.

If the Minister sees there is a danger of a recurrence of this situation within the next 13 months, when this Order expires, will he keep in touch with the British Board of Trade? His job is, as leader of Irish industry, to protect Irish industry, to protect employment and to protect families and homes depending on Irish industry. We should not allow the British, or any other outsiders, to flood our country with imports. We should take the necessary steps to see that our workers and our industries are protected. What plans has the Minister for those workers and their future? The workers want to know about the plans. They want to know what the Minister is doing to ensure that the workers of Dunlop and of other undertakings affected by the slight breeze of free trade will not find themselves out of jobs.

A word of thanks is due to the Minister for what he has done in this situation. It called for action. I have knowledge of it because while in Cork I spoke to those people and I should like to put on record my appreciation —I feel sure this applies to the Minister also—of the work undertaken by Deputy Barrett particularly, and by the other Cork Deputies. This has been of great concern to all the workers in Cork, to their wives and their families. I should like the Minister to tell the House what he has in mind if and when this arises again at the end of 13 months.

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

I wish to deal with only a few aspects of this matter. I know the situation in the Dunlop firm as a businessman. As the managing director of a cloth firm, I have supplied the company with cloth. I know the place and the people and I should like to point out that it is not today or yesterday that Dunlops became aware of the problems. They are associated with the English Dunlop company, a very big company. I know their costings are given to them in Cork from Manchester. They knew in Cork, when free trade was mooted, exactly where they stood. It was not a question of 13 months but of three or four years. They are quite aware of the situation, or they should be aware of it. There is the question of Irish-made cloth in free trade conditions and surely, if we want to get into Europe, we must be competitive.

I regard the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement as a trial and Article 19 as a kind of warning shot across the bows of the Dunlop management. In conditions of free trade, Dunlop could get their cloth from any part of the world and the Irish mills could sell their product to any part of the world. In the tyre industry, there are world standards. I am as concerned about the future of our workers as are Deputies Larkin and Flanagan. I am also concerned because I know that Irish workers will not exist without competitive industry. Messrs Dunlop know what is coming. I do not wish to tread outside this Quota Order but there are plenty of things that can be done, like readaptation, integration and marketing techniques, things the Dunlop company are capable of managing. It may be of interest to the House to know that Dunlop make Goodyear tyres under licence.

Mr. Cunningham

And they export tyres.

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

And they export them. It is not beyond their wit to throw this back at the Department of Industry and Commerce. The management of Dunlop built up a worthwhile industry under the shelter of protection and it is up to them to make arrangements whereby their workers will not be unemployed. It is up to them to diversify and to take other steps. It is not up to the Minister. The Minister has given them this handout; they have had three years, not 13 months, and the Minister would not be doing his duty if he did not bring in this order. The breath of free trade has been blowing during the past three years and we must face up to it.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

It is peculiar that shortly after the signing of the Free Trade Agreement, we should be going along, hat in hand, to the British Board of Trade begging for their permission to bring this Quota Order before Dáil Éireann tonight. We should thank the British Board of Trade for having given us that permission because I understand under Paragraph 19 of the Agreement, had they refused permission, there is little we could do about it. First of all, therefore, I should like to express thanks to the British Board of Trade for endeavouring to help us out of this difficulty.

The House will recall the long discussion we had here on the advantages that would accrue to this country from the Free Trade Agreement. We were told of the benefits it would mean to agriculturists and we know that has been proved wrong. We know that since the implementation of the Agreement, agriculturists have suffered very much.

An Ceann Comhairle

I hope the Deputy is not going into agriculture.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am only giving a little preamble.

An Ceann Comhairle

This relates to a Quota Order and debate is restricted to what is in it.

Mr. Dillon

This Quota Order arises directly out of what is in the Trade Agreement.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

We were told the Trade Agreement would be a marked advantage to our people, and first of all, to our farmers. We were told it would mean great benefits to them. So far as many of them are concerned——

An Ceann Comhairle

Surely the Deputy is not re-opening this debate? I must ask the Deputy to keep to the Quota Order which is the only business before the House at the moment.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Very well. Your ruling is rather limiting and I do not want to ask you for the particular order under which it is made——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Quota Order is rather limiting too.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I know, but it arises from the Trade Agreement about which we heard so much in the House, and I thought it was within the rights of a Deputy, addressing himself to this question, to refer to the terms of the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement, as a result of which we have this Control of Imports Order before the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

It relates to the importation of tyres.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I will not say any more as far as our farmers are concerned. We know what happened: prices dropped and farmers found themselves in gaol. There is no use saying any more. What had we to say from the Labour benches when we spoke in the discussion for lengthy periods? We brought home to the Minister, as forcibly and vehemently as possible, that this Trade Agreement would be detrimental to the interests of the workers.

An Ceann Comhairle

If Deputy Murphy imagines he will discuss the Trade Agreement on this Order, he is mistaken. I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I have no intention of resuming my seat.

An Ceann Comhairle

He will remain on his feet but remain in order.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I will come to another question and I hope it is in order. Why have we this Order before us tonight? We have it mainly because the Government now admit that this Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement was not all they made it out to be at the beginning. Secondly, and maybe this should have got pride of place, we have this before the House because on 8th November last, in the Taoiseach's constituency, the vote of the Taoiseach's Party dropped by more than 3,000 as compared with the general election of 1965 and the vote of the Labour Party increased by 3,000.

An Ceann Comhairle

Would Deputy Murphy make an effort to come to the Quota Order?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am speaking on the Quota Order.

Mr. Dillon

What made this Quota Order necessary?

Mr. Colley

The election in Cork, Deputy Murphy says.

Mr. Dillon

You are afraid to face the fact and you want to shut him up.

Mr. Colley

I will have to answer this and I have had to listen to a lot of it.

Mr. Dillon

You want to shut him up. I know you long enough.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am speaking directly on this Quota Order.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am entitled to give my opinion as to the reasons for bringing this Order before the House. I have asserted that one of the reasons and possibly the main reason is the fact that the workers of Cork indicated in no uncertain terms that they were dissatisfied with the Taoiseach, dissatisfied with the Government and that there was a wind of change blowing so rapidly that we increased our vote by almost 3,000 and you people decreased yours by more than 3,000.

Mr. Cunningham

Who won the elections?

An Ceann Comhairle

Come to the Quota Order.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

That happened in the Taoiseach's own constituency. I welcome the victor — if Deputy Cunningham will allow me — Deputy French, to the House.

Mr. Cunningham

Do not ask for my permission. I am not in the Chair.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

As a result of what happened on 8th November—I do not like using the term "election" in case the Chair may not like it—our Minister for Industry and Commerce got permission from the British Board of Trade, which I have already thanked, to bring this Order before the Dáil. The Minister is laughing.

Mr. Colley

Does the Deputy know when the Order came into force? The Deputy should know that the Order came into force in July and he should stop wasting the time of the House.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The people at the employment exchanges have little cause for laughter. I do not see how the Minister for Industry and Commerce can afford to enjoy himself so much in this discussion this evening. This Order has serious repercussions. It is tyres today. It may be something else tomorrow.

Mr. Colley

Will the Deputy be serious?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

When this Trade Agreement was approved——

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

Act 2.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy never got beyond Act 1. If he gives Deputy Murphy a chance to get to Act 2 and Act 3, he will vanish like a scalded cat.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

When the Trade Agreement was before the House some short time ago, we did not hear the present Minister for Industry and Commerce or Deputy P.J. Lenihan informing the House, and through the House the country, that it would probably result in redundancy so far as the workers engaged in the manufacture of tyres in the Dunlop industry were concerned.

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

I said no such thing.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

We did not hear any of the Government Party prophesying at that time the results so far as Dunlop employees were concerned. We have it in black and white tonight. We have this Control of Imports Order before the House for approval.

I understand that a great deal of money has been spent on the Buy Irish Campaign. We have been told in recent years that Irish manufactured goods are as good as, if not better than, imported commodities. I agree with that. We have also been told that we can stand up to outside competition not only in respect of tyres but in respect of numerous commodities.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are concerned only with tyres in this discussion.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I do not want to go outside the scope of the debate.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy does so, I will ask him to resume his seat. The Chair has been very lenient with Deputy Murphy who has mentioned elections, the Free Trade Area Agreement, the effect of free trade, and so on.

Mr. Dillon

Why should he not mention the Free Trade Area Agreement?

An Ceann Comhairle

Because the debate on this Quota Order is strictly related to what it contains.

Mr. Dillon

What brought about the Quota Order? What made it necessary?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon knows that it would reopen a debate which concluded some months ago in the House.

Mr. Dillon

This House is going to debate this Quota Order fully and generously——

An Ceann Comhairle

Within the terms of Standing Orders.

Mr. Dillon

And ventilate it to the country, which was not done up to now.

An Ceann Comhairle

Standing Orders apply to Deputy Dillon as to everybody else.

Mr. Dillon

They apply for Deputy Dillon and for Deputy Murphy as well as anybody else.

An Ceann Comhairle

And for the Chair.

Mr. Dillon

He is entitled to his rights.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon should not argue with the Chair.

Mr. Donegan

The Quota Order is made under the Free Trade Area Agreement. That is agreed.

Mr. Dillon

Of course, it is.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Murphy is in possession.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

You overlooked the point that it was not Deputy Murphy who brought in this question of the Free Trade Area Agreement. That is brought in here in the Minister's statement and this matter arises directly from it. If you will bear with me I will point out to you where it is mentioned that discussions with the British Board of Trade were initiated in accordance with the provisions of Article 19 of the Free Trade Area Agreement. So that, it is not Deputy Murphy who is bringing in this question of the Free Trade Area Agreement. It is brought in in the Minister's opening statement and, that being the case, I understood that the Rules of the House permitted me to refer to it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Murphy's rules of the House are totally different from the rules I have to apply.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

In any case, Sir, the main fact as set down in the statement is that after 1st July, 1966, a very short time after the introduction of the Trade Agreement to which you do not like me to refer, we found that when tyres were allowed to be imported without the restrictions which had obtained previously, employment dropped and Irish industry was not able to cope with competition from outside. That is a very important issue. It is saddening for Members of the House that that should be the position in the case of a firm such as Dunlops, the qualifications of which have been elaborated on by Deputy Flanagan, and which is a firm well and capably managed. If such a company, that is efficiently managed and that has, as Deputy P.J. Lenihan told us, world-wide connections, cannot compete with outside firms who sent tyres into this country when restrictions were removed, how can other firms so compete? This is evidence beyond doubt that the statements made from the Labour benches were justified. It is, indeed, unfortunate that the Government were so shortsighted as to tell us a few years ago when speaking in support of the Trade Agreement that after a short time we would be able to stand on our own feet, to enter the Common Market and to meet open competition with the countries of Western Europe and any other continental countries so far as goods and commodities were concerned.

That has been proven false. Cognisance must be taken of it in view of the many statements made by the Taoiseach and other members of the Government in relation to our entry into the Common Market. If we succeed in getting into the Common Market will we get there the same consideration as we are now getting from the British Board of Trade? Perhaps not. I understand they are not anxious to allow more than a five-year transitional period. Mark you, I am afraid that five years will not be nearly sufficient to put us into a position to compete with the other countries of the Commission. This is very important. It is saddening news to hear, after a Government of Fianna Fáil for almost 30 years constantly telling us how they developed industries and gave grants towards development, how they imported technical know-how, how capably managed our industries were under their guidance and how they were acting as a kind of fairy godmother to Irish industrialists in order to allow them to develop so that they could compete with any country in the world, after this period of guardianship by Fianna Fáil that the main industry in the country, Dunlops of Cork, could not compete with outside competition and, as a result, Dunlop's workers had to leave their employment.

This is a short-term policy. Every one of us likes to see the workers in Cork continued in their employment. As Deputy Flanagan said, we know what it means to their wives and families when they are out of work. We know that it is unlikely alternative employment will be available for them and, as they are skilled in this particular industry, it may be difficult for them, particularly those of advanced years, to acquire other skills. Naturally the Labour Party supports this Control of Import Order and we would like to hear from the Minister now has he had any discussions as to what will happen when the 18 months expires or are we leaving the future to look after itself?

In his opening statement, the Minister said:

Under the terms of the Free Trade Area Agreement the period during which such restrictions may be maintained is limited to 18 months unless the other party agrees otherwise.

The other party in this particular case is our old enemy, Britain, the country we said we could live without; if there was a wall built around Ireland we could live without Britain and "Burn everything except their coal". We find now, in 1967 that we can do very little without Britain. We cannot even make an independent application to the EEC. The Taoiseach now admits our application is hinged on the British application. There is no other way of doing the job.

The Minister, by virtue of his functions, will have to approach the British Board of Trade again in the not too distant future seeking a further exemption from the President of the Board of Trade. Let us hope that further exemption will be granted.

If I interpret the views expressed by my friend, Deputy P.J. Lenihan, I believe he indicated the Dunlop company in that they had an extended period to consider what the impact of the removal of restrictions would be and they did not make good use of the time.

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

I am sure they have made full use of it.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am sorry if I misinterpreted the Deputy. I understood from the Deputy that he had it in mind that they did not make good use of it.

Mr. Dillon

That is what he said.

Mr. Colley

He said it was their responsibility.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Deputy Dillon got the same interpretation. I am pleased I mentioned this——

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

He is on the same side of the House as the Deputy and that is the reason.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am glad I mentioned it, because it will give Deputy Lenihan an opportunity of retracting that statement.

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

There is no retraction. The statement was quite clear. They have taken steps about it, as good management would.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

What are the results of the steps?

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

I do not know.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The results of the steps are that we must now impose this Quota Order and a duty of £3 on tyres from countries other than Britain. This order speaks for itself. As a Cork Deputy, I repeat that the Government must carry the full blame. Their shortsightedness, their inefficiency and their lethargy will, I am sure, bring home to the Minister and to the Taoiseach the necessity for taking a general look at Government policy so far as imports and exports are concerned and so far as the removal of tariffs is concerned. What has happened in relation to Dunlop workers in Cork will be helpful in making the Government review their policy generally. I am thankful this order holds out hope of continued employment for workers in Cork. I conclude by asserting once more that the people who are mainly responsible for this measure are the people who voted for the Labour candidate on 8th November in the Cork by-election.

Mr. Healy

To deal with the last sentence Deputy Murphy spoke first, I do not know if he is aware that this order has been in force since July last and not since the date of the by-election.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

It is only coming before the House tonight for approval.

Mr. Healy

I think I know as much about Dunlop workers as any Deputy and I know the reaction when they found the Government had taken the action it did. I was pleased to hear Deputy Flanagan pay tribute to the skill and ability of the Cork workers. I am glad he met them on his visit to our city.

Dunlop has world-wide ramifications and is not looking for money for development, research and so on. The Ceann Comhairle has ruled discussion on the Free Trade Agreement out of order in this debate and all I want to say in connection with that is that I do not regret any part I took in that. I am sure the workers of Cork will not regret it when they know the full ramifications. I have every confidence that under good management and with the finances the Dunlop international company have to expend, there can be no doubt about the future of Dunlop's in Cork. What has happened is a temporary set-back. Many people in Cork believe that improvement has already taken place in the quality of the product produced to meet international competition. As a motorist, I can now buy tyres which I could not buy 12 months ago because they were then for export only. They are the best tyres I have ever driven on. They are made by Dunlops. I have never driven on anything but a Dunlop tyre.

I hope this measure will not have to be repeated when the time expires. When the time comes, I am confident the Dunlop factory and the Cork worker will be able to meet any competition they may get from anywhere. I have much more confidence in the ability and skill of the Irish worker than Deputy Murphy has.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I doubt it.

Mr. Healy

There is no doubt about it.

Mr. Dillon

The provisions of this Quota Order are extremely significant for the people of this country. I have had occasion to say elsewhere that the people of this country judge the Government or the institutions of State by the extent to which they can depend on the information that is provided for them by the political leaders of the country at any given time.

I want to ask Deputy Healy if he told the Dunlop workers that this Quota Order lapses at the end of 12 months from today. Now, I have no doubt whatever that he made the welkin ring with the news that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, confronted with the arrival of 15,400 tyres per month from Great Britain, rushed into the gap, armed to the teeth with the provisions of the Free Trade Area Agreement, and imposed a quota controlling the imports of tyres to 65,000 units per annum.

Mr. Healy

I never mentioned it.

Mr. Dillon

Did Deputy Healy go on to tell them that the Minister has given a solemn undertaking, and the Government of which he is a member have given a solemn undertaking, that, after this year, no further quota restrictions will be imposed, unless by leave of the British Board of Trade? I do not want to challenge a new Deputy who has just come into this House but I wonder if Deputy French even knew these facts? I wonder if he believed that, under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, the Minister for Industry and Commerce had the right, indefinitely, to restrict by quota the import of any commodities from Great Britain which he was able to persuade the British Board of Trade would constitute a menace to an existing industry in this country.

Oddly enough, I am prepared to concede that I have always lived under the belief—and it is a belief which I relinquish with reluctance if I am forced to do so—that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is an honest man.

Mr. Colley

I thank the Deputy.

Mr. Dillon

I should find it hard to believe that he went before the people of Cork to tell them that he had taken this remedial step in the dilemma in which the Irish Dunlop Company found itself without going on to add: "But my resources are exhausted 12 months from today." Deputy Healy, from Cork, says he never mentioned the fact.

Mr. Colley

Deputy Healy did not have to mention it because when the Order was made, a public announcement was made saying it was of limited duration.

Mr. Dillon

At the moment, my interest is that Deputy Healy tells us that, during the whole campaign in his city and in his constituency, he never mentioned it. Is that not a striking commentary on the standards of public life? Was this whole problem a matter of consequence to Cork city?

Mr. Healy

May I interrupt the Deputy?

Mr. Dillon

Of course. I am only too delighted.

Mr. Healy

Deputy Dillon said I made the welkin ring with the news. I told him I had not said a word about it. You cannot have it both ways. In the first case, I was to be despised and rejected or, in the second case, I was equally blameworthy.

Mr. Dillon

I am sorry to find the Deputy on the horns of a dilemma. It is not the first time Deputy Healy has found himself in the awkward situation of being on the horns of a dilemma. It is true that he was in a dreadful dilemma. I think Deputy Healy is too honest a man to tell the people a lie but if he mentioned it and told them the truth he would have been torn to pieces by his colleagues and Deputy French, instead of being the minority Deputy for Cork, might not have been a Deputy for Cork at all. Is that true or is it false?

Mr. Colley

Deputy Barrett did his best to make it an issue in the by-election. We must give him credit for that.

Mr. Barrett

I did.

Mr. Donegan

Who lost 3,000 votes in the Taoiseach's constituency?

Mr. Dillon

Why should Deputy Barrett not do so? What are elections for? Compare what Deputy Stephen Barrett did with what Deputy Healy says he did. Deputy Healy says here: "I never even mentioned it".

Mr. Healy

I know the Cork workers too well.

Mr. Colley

He knows the Cork workers too well.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Healy knew that his colleagues would knock his block off if he mentioned it and so he kept a complete silence. He did not say "yes" and he did not say "no". He talked about the weather, the crops and the blessings of a Fianna Fáil Government. He says he knows the Cork workers intimately and that his friends in the Dunlop factory are legion but he never went to them and said: "Boys, the Minister has provided you with exceptional protection for some months but he has pledged his word and the word of his Government that, this day 12 months, that protection must cease, if only by leave of the British Board of Trade. We hope you will not find yourselves in precisely the situation you were in 12 months ago, six months ago".

Deputy Lenihan, senior, from Westmeath, comes in here and tells us he knows every detail of Dunlops' costings.

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

In a general manner, I know them.

Mr. Dillon

How the hell one knows the details in a general manner, it surpasses me to understand. Certainly, when he was speaking—nobody seems to have understood him but himself— he said he knew the details of the costings because he supplied the cloth to Dunlops wherewith to make the tyres.

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

I said I knew the details of the costings from its associate company in England.

Mr. Dillon

I understood the Deputy——

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

You did not know what I was talking about.

Mr. Dillon

I think the Deputy claimed he knew the details of the costings——

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

You are wrong.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy P.J. Lenihan is now getting a warning that many a Deputy has got before and that is to "shut up and leave him alone as the more you say the worse you will be".

Mr. Colley

It was not that.

Mr. Dillon

I am sure it was not flattering. It was designed to get Deputy Lenihan to shut his trap.

Mr. Geoghegan

It certainly was not flattering, all right.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Lenihan opened his trap too wide before the Deputy from Carna came in and what opened once cannot be shut so easily. He told us he knew Dunlops costings in detail in a general way. I suppose he knows his own costings in detail in a particular way. His verdict of the situation that called for this Order was: "We in Athlone are doing our part".

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

I never mentioned Athlone.

Mr. Dillon

Did you not say that you made the cloth?

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

Years ago we made it.

Mr. Dillon

Did you not say you made the cloth for——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

——when they could get their cloth abroad that item of costing would be less. I told you all that.

Mr. Dillon

And the Deputy went on to say that he was supplying the cloth. Dunlops——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Dillon

Leave it to me. The more they open their beaks the deeper they get into trouble. It we can only get them to open their beaks then they will be in trouble because that is one craft in which they are not skilled, telling the truth. Put them to that job and they will get up to their lugs every time. I will guarantee to get the truth out of them before we finish this debate. Deputy Lenihan says he makes the cloth.

Mr. Colley

Made.

Mr. Dillon

And he says further that if tyres were to come in hereafter at the rate they came in in the past the fault would be with the management of Dunlops.

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

No.

Mr. Dillon

He said they had three years and that from his intimate knowledge of the whole position they had exerted themselves throughout the period of three years, and if they could not do better in the next 12 months it was not to the Government they should be running for help but to themselves.

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

That is what I said. Continue from there.

Mr. Dillon

Now what I want to know——

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

We are ad idem for once.

Mr. Dillon

Did Deputy Lenihan tell Deputy French or Deputy Healy, or did Deputy Healy or Deputy Lenihan or Deputy French or Deputy Colley, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, tell that to the electorate in Cork city?

Mr. Colley

We told them the whole story.

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

And they sent Deputy French in here. There he is sitting over there, in case you do not know him.

Mr. Dillon

Let us face the facts. What I want to know is were the people told? How many Deputies knew when they saw that quota order presented without the Minister's speech that its limit was 12 months from today? Would anybody care to tell me what is going to happen when the 12 months end?

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

Dunlops' management.

Mr. Dillon

What is going to happen to them?

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

I do not know.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy does not know, that is his trouble. The Deputy does not know. Half an hour ago he was telling us that everything in the garden was lovely because he knew that 12 months from now everything would be ticking over to perfection. There was another cheerful Deputy here from Donegal, Deputy Cunningham, who was promising that they will be exporting tyres——

Mr. Colley

He said they have been. Let us be accurate.

Mr. Dillon

Can anybody explain this phenomenon? This company has been exporting tyres, motor tyres?

Mr. Colley

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

Would they tell me where they were exporting them to?

Mr. Colley

To the EEC countries originally and subsequently, when the Free Trade Area Agreement was concluded, to Britain, because they had no right of entry until then.

Mr. Dillon

Here is this mystery. The Dunlop tyre factory in Cork is exporting motor tyres to Great Britain and lo and behold the people who are rushing to buy the Dunlop tyres from Cork suddenly take it into their heads to ship 15,400 tyres per month, 180,000 per year, to us. Can anyone explain to me how we sell tyres in Great Britain at a time when we are obliged to invoke Article 19 of the Trade Agreement to protect our domestic industry from British exports of tyres for a period of 18 months by leave of the British Board of Trade?

Mr. Colley

It is an interesting situation.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not fascinating? It is a situation which I do not think is any harm to debate in this House because not until we know how and why this mysterious situation came to pass can we with propriety approve of a quota order which, by the Minister's own statement, ends 12 months from today, subject to whatever rights he may retain to consult the British President of the Board of Trade. By heavens, Deputy Wyse has arrived. This is a most interesting thing. We have been debating this quota order from relatively early this evening and it is astonishing that for the greater part of the debate hair or hide of Fianna Fáil Deputies from Cork we could not see.

Mr. Colley

That is not correct.

Mr. Dillon

Then Deputy French took his courage in his hands, and I am not challenging him and I hope he does not think I am——

Mr. French

Cork Deputies are well able to look after themselves.

Mr. Dillon

I know the Deputy will give a good account of himself when the occasion offers. He was followed by that wily old operator, Deputy Healy, who then trickled in.

Mr. Healy

I blush.

Mr. Dillon

Then at 9.50 p.m. Deputy Wyse is wafted into our presence.

Mr. P.J. Lenihan

How wise he was.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy always makes the appropriate interiection. How he must be blessed by his colleagues and what a comfort to them his presence in the House must be. "How wise he was". I would be most interested to hear the Deputy's contribution and I am sorry he was not here when Deputy Lenihan was speaking because I would be glad to hear him on it. I can give him the information in advance because I do not think he was privileged to hear it. When Deputy Healy was speaking, he ignored Deputy Lenihan's intervention and pledged his word that throughout the course of the by-election campaign in Cork city he never mentioned the quota order relating to tyres, so doubtless Deputy Wyse will make his contribution in due time in the light of those interventions.

Mr. French

We do not use an industry for an election gimmick.

Mr. Dillon

I wonder do you use a quota order under Article 19 as a gimmick?

Mr. Colley

No, but Deputy Barrett fell for the temptation.

Mr. Dillon

I think Deputy Barrett discharged a very useful public duty, to reveal to the public the true meaning of what this quota order means. Mind you, it is pregnant with meaning because it provides temporary protection for a very great industry which, mark you, was not established today or yesterday in Cork. It is a long time since Dunlops opened their factory in Cork. It is one of the oldest industries in this country. It is not Fianna Fáil that put them there, in case they should be suffering under the illusion it was.

If this device is necessary to save so venerable an industry, so well-run an industry, so experienced an industry as the Irish Dunlop Company, what must we apprehend under this agreement in respect of other industries when their turn comes? I want to speak tonight only of the problems that lie ahead in respect of this Order, which relates to tyres produced by the Dunlop Company. The best hope Deputy Healy and Deputy Lenihan can give us is that in the course of the next 12 months this company will find this kind of protection no longer necessary. Deputy Healy, Deputy Wyse and Deputy French may be nursing to their bosoms the comforting thought that, as the currency of this Order runs out and as the possibility looms above the horizon that the President of the British Board of Trade will say: "No, I will not agree to any extension beyond the 18 months provided in the original agreement for quota orders of this kind," we in Ireland may have recourse to other devices to facilitate the export of the produce of this factory until such time as it can meet the blast of foreign competition, whencesoever it may come.

Have they forgotten that last week we adhered to GATT? Have they forgotten the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade? Have they forgotten we are only now at the beginning of the exercise of bringing duties down? Have they forgotten that when we devalued our pound to match the devaluation of the British our costs for rubber went up overnight by 14.3 per cent? How much of a tyre consists of rubber? How much of a tyre consists of cotton? Have the Deputies from Cork paused to ask themselves where the cotton comes from? The man who spins it, Deputy Lenihan, has disappeared. They have got him out of the House at last. It is a pity. If he had stayed much longer we would have got closer to the truth. They have sent him home to bed. They did very wisely. Few Deputies realise that in the last two or three days our capacity to compete elsewhere than in Great Britain with a commodity of this kind, all the raw materials of which come from countries who have not devalued their currency, is shrinking hour by hour and day by day.

I imagine it is to meet a situation of this kind, arising from this quota order and its inevitable termination in 12 months' time, that we passed recently the Redundancy Bill. There are going to be more made redundant in this factory. Have they been told, or have they been told on the lines of Deputy Lenihan that: "All is well. You can leave it to the management of Dunlops?" Every trade agreement must of its very nature mean that there is giving and taking on both sides. I believe Ireland is no exception to that general rule. If we want a trade agreement with Great Britain which is the agreement we refer to in this Order, we have to give if we hope to take, just as the British said to us: "We are prepared to give in consideration of what we hope to take." We got very considerable advantages in the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement. We should not close our eyes to the fact that we got free access to the British market for a variety of products, agricultural and industrial, produced in the County Cork. But one of the things we had to give was access on certain terms to British manufacturers to the Irish market.

I do not in the least regret the decision taken by this House in regard to the Trade Agreement which contains the appropriate provision for this Quota Order. But I do regret the failure to tell the people what it truly meant, the failure to tell the workers —the management already know—in the Dunlop factory that this kind of protection is for 12 months, and the utter failure of the Government to tell either this House and the electors in Cork city during the last three weeks what they propose to do thereafter in respect of the employment provided in this factory down through the decades in which Dunlops have constituted part of the industrial life of Cork. Mark you, I think it rather odd and not in character with Deputy Colley, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that knowing the quality of this undoubted problem he should have participated in the Cork campaign and, either by silence or by careful ambiguity, withheld from the electors something they were entitled to know. It lowers the whole standard of our public life.

Mr. Colley

The Deputy should not.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not true?

Mr. Colley

The Deputy is lowering the standard of public life if he is putting this forward as a serious contention.

Mr. Dillon

Do you really believe you told the workers in Cork?

Mr. Colley

Does the Deputy not know—I have already told him—that when this Order was made and published there was a public statement to the effect that this was of limited duration? I cannot say precisely but my recollection is it said "not exceeding 18 months". It certainly made it clear that it was of temporary duration. This is a fact to which I have referred before. Why does the Deputy persist in arguing it and building up a case about lowering the standard of public life? This is an important matter and I do not think the Deputy should indulge in this kind of activity lightly and without regard to the facts.

Mr. Dillon

I agree that if I did, the Minister would be a hundred times justified in reprobating what I did. It would be sheer hypocrisy on my part if I took a lofty line to make capital at the Minister's expense by expounding a falsehood. However, I do not think the Minister is being honest with himself. I do not charge him with being dishonest with us, but he and I are long enough in public life to know that Quota Orders published are understood by 99 per cent of those who read them to represent a physical limitation on the future imports of a certain commodity. They do not read the small print.

Mr. Colley

The Deputy misunderstands me, I think.

Mr. Dillon

I accept what the Minister says. When he made the Quota Order six months ago, it expressly stated——

Mr. Colley

No; That is not what I am saying. I am saying a public statement issued explaining this not in terms of a quota period order or in quota order language, but in ordinary language; the matter got a good deal of publicity and was certainly clearly understood by the workers in Dunlops. I am saying this is a fact and the Deputy should be aware of it as a fact before he goes on to build an argument based on a presumption.

Mr. Dillon

I see the force of the Minister's case. He can say: "I feel that when the fact of the strictly limited period for which I have the power to make a Quota Order had been frankly stated last July, it is going beyond the limits of what any ordinary politician should be required to do, that I should go down into the Cork by-election campaign and say: "Boys, did you read the small print?" He is entitled to say: "The thing was done in public. The record is there for anyone to read and it is not a topic on which I propose to dwell." I can understand that, but when Deputy Barrett challenged the Minister and his colleagues, as the Minister says Deputy Barrett did, and said: "As regards the statement you made six months ago, no matter how detailed it was six months ago, the people here in Cork do not know that 12 months hence they are going to meet exactly the same dilemma and you have a duty to tell them if you are in a position to do so." What will the Minister do when this order runs out? He knows I was not at the by-election campaign for reasons into which it is unnecessary to go, but the Minister tells us that Deputy Barrett put this matter in issue and he derided him for doing so.

Mr. Colley

No, I did not.

Mr. Dillon

He said it ill became him.

Mr. Colley

No. What I said was he made an issue of it in the by-election. He made the issue clear to the people and we had won the election. That is the point I made.

Mr. Dillon

Yes, but the Minister did not go on to say: "Deputy Barrett urged this view upon the people and I confirm the truth of what he said". I wonder did Deputy Healy get up anywhere in Cork and say: "Have you listened to what Deputy Barrett said?"

Mr. Colley

I do not think he said what Deputy Dillon says he said.

Mr. Dillon

I am only reporting what the Minister says he said.

Mr. Colley

No.

Mr. Dillon

I did not hear or read any report, but like many an old warhorse, I still paw the ground when the bugle sounds, but I did not hear that, as the campaign proceeded Deputy Healy or the wise Deputy Wyse, as his colleagues described him, told his constituents: "Listen to Stephen Barrett. Digest what he has told you. Consider the implication of the warning he has offered." On the contrary, I think they talked of the resolute promptitude with which the Minister for Industry and Commerce acted to protect this industry in Cork. Would that be a fair paraphrase of their speeches?

Mr. Colley

Part of them, yes.

Mr. Dillon

Did any of them go on to say: "But the Minister was very coy when we asked him the question: what will you do 12 months from today?" Are we not entitled to say to him in the context of this order: ‘You are proposing now a Quota Order the limit of which you state is 12 months more unless the President of the British Board of Trade consents after to extend it——

Mr. Colley

To be strictly accurate, the first quota period order ends at the end of next month, and this is the one we are dealing with now.

Mr. Dillon

I give the Minister 13 months. Is that the point he is making?

Mr. Colley

Yes—lest the question of my silence be construed as consent, as Deputy Dillon is inclined to construe silence or words to suit his own purpose.

Mr. Dillon

Both can be eloquent.

Mr. Colley

He may say that because I did not say this I misled the House. I would like to keep the record straight.

Mr. Dillon

A very prudent precaution, because I want to keep the record straight, too, and the record I am trying to keep straight is this: what are the facts? Does anybody know? I would have thought from what the Minister said and from the statement he was good enough to hand us—it was very short—that the sum and substance of this order is "quota protection for a period of 18 months beginning the 1st of last July, but not thereafter except subject to the consent of the President of the Board of Trade in the event of my being authorised by the Government of the Republic to approach him again." Is that not a fair representation of the Minister's statement? I think it is, in fact. The Minister has an understanding with the President of the Board of Trade that there may be three quota periods each of six months.

Mr. Colley

That is not quite accurate, but I shall deal with it when I am replying.

Mr. Dillon

I would be sorry to cross-question the Minister, but if the Minister reads his own statement, he will agree that is the impression it would create on the minds of most Deputies.

Mr. Colley

I agree that is the impression that appears to have been created.

Mr. Dillon

I would have said this Quota Order operated for the last six months, will operate for the next 12 months and that at the end of that period further consultations will be had with the President of the British Board of Trade and if he enters an absolute caveat under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement, the Minister will feel himself debarred from having recourse to quota protection after the approved 18 months. It would appear from the Minister's interjection that that is the position, that he has secured the agreement of the British Board of Trade to a six months quota and that he anticipates that the agreement with the British Board of Trade will be forthcoming for two further quota periods of six months each, each permitting the import of not more than 65,000 articles, but that thereafter he can give no warranty, or even an informed prophecy, to the House as to what the situation is likely to be I wonder did Deputy Healy know that until I managed to extract it. Certainly Deputy Lenihan said in the House that they have had three years and now they have another year to get their affairs in order. He rebuked Deputy Flanagan who, he said, appeared to pass the responsibility to the Minister. He said it is not his responsibility, that he has done his part and that it is now for the management of Dunlops. Who is speaking the truth?

Mr. Colley

I do not understand what the Deputy is talking about.

Mr. Dillon

I think Deputy Lenihan honestly believed that the Minister had made a Quota Order covering the period from 1st July last up to 31st December next.

Mr. Colley

Let us grant that assumption. What is wrong with the statement that the responsibility was that of the management?

Mr. Dillon

The Minister told me not to make that assumption.

Mr. Colley

It is not relevant to the point the Deputy appears to be making.

Mr. Dillon

Is it right or wrong?

Mr. Colley

I will explain that when I am replying.

Mr. Dillon

We are in this deplorable situation. I read—not only heard but read as every other Deputy did— the Minister's statement introducing his own Quota Order. Certainly Deputy Lenihan, his own supporter, does not understand it. It appears now that I do not understand it. Poor Deputy Healy is looking bewildered because, I suspect, he does not know either. I look across to wise Deputy Wyse and he is looking at the ceiling because, like me, he does not think he knows either.

Mr. Wyse

I do not go around ringing a bell about what I do.

Mr. Dillon

Wise Deputy Wyse does not go around ringing a bell.

Mr. Healy

It must be the night of the full moon.

Mr. Dillon

No; it is the night of revelation. This is a matter about which Deputy Wyse does not ring a bell. There are other topics on which he has been ringing a bell for the past two days. If this were a permanent quota protection for Dunlop's factory, I wonder would Deputy Wyse's bell have been so silent? On the contrary, it would not be a handbell he would be ringing. He would be swinging out of a rope. The Bells of Shandon would have nothing on him. Now he is not even able to borrow one from an altar boy because this order is not one about which Deputy Wyse desires to ring a bell. Why? Why does he not desire to ring a bell? Is it because he is afraid the people might understand what it means? Why does Deputy Wyse not ring a bell about this order? Was it not his duty as a Deputy for Cork, asking the people to vote for Deputy French, to ask them to come and listen to him while he expounded to them on this order which is so vitally important to the people whose votes he sought? Why did Deputy Wyse not ring a bell?

Mr. Colley

Is it the Cork by-election, or the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis, or what the Deputy is talking about?

Mr. Dillon

I am talking about Deputy Wyse's bell. Do I depart by a hair's breadth from relevancy? Deputy Wyse says that this order is something about which he did not ring a bell.

Mr. Wyse

I did not say that.

Mr. Dillon

What was the reference to ringing a bell about?

Mr. Wyse

If the Deputy is trying to make a speech on my name, he can go ahead. He should not invite interruptions. I am not in the habit of interrupting.

Mr. Dillon

No more courteous Deputy ever sat in the House but he was good enough to say, while I was speaking, that this Quota Order was a matter about which he did not ring a bell.

Mr. Wyse

I did not say that.

Mr. Cunningham

He did not say that.

Mr. Wyse

I said I did not go around ringing a bell about what I did.

Mr. Cunningham

Is a discussion on bells in order?

Mr. Dillon

I see. It was Deputy Wyse who persuaded the Minister to make this order.

Mr. Wyse

If the Deputy wants to think that, he can. I had no intention of interrupting.

Mr. Dillon

I assure Deputy Wyse that he has never interrupted me at any time discourteously or offensively. I am full of interest: I do not deny that. I have pressed not only him but Deputy Healy also to render an account of their stewardship.

Mr. Colley

The Deputy is so eloquent and able to put his case that it might be more satisfactory if he told us what his view is instead of asking us what our view is. We can make our contributions in due course.

Mr. Dillon

I am giving my reaction to this order. Unfortunately I have to employ certain circumlocutions to express it under the rules of order of this House. My interpretation of this order is that they are unscrupulous traversers of the truth. If they wish to substitute the common word for "sanguinary" and the common word for "traversers of the truth," they will have correctly interpreted my judgment of their conduct in connection with this order. That is my reaction.

Mr. Healy

This will have a tremendous impact on the Dunlop workers.

Mr. Dillon

Lest Deputy Healy might misunderstand me, I said they were traversers of the truth, explaining that the rules of order of the House would not permit me to employ the term "bloody liars".

Mr. Healy

That is what I gathered.

Mr. Colley

Having made that positive contribution to the debate, the Deputy will no doubt now go on to say why he thinks so, and let us get on with the business of the House.

Mr. Dillon

I do not find fault with the Minister for his reaction to the dilemma in which he finds himself, but I do find fault with him because I do not believe he took the precaution of telling the people the true significance of what he was doing, or what he was in a position to do. I do not think the Deputies who support him from Cork were honest with their supporters because I do not think they told them either. If you went to the ordinary workingman in Dunlops tonight, he would say: "What was all the talk about the Quota Order? What was all the debate in Dáil Éireann about the Quota Order? Everyone appeared to want to save our jobs. Why talk so much about it?" None would know that the reason is that the Quota Order drops dead 12 months from today——

Mr. Colley

They do know.

Mr. Dillon

——or 13 months, and that thereafter, according to Deputy Lenihan, their livelihood depends on the capacity of the management of Dunlops so to revolutionise the situation in the factory in Cork that they can trade hereafter without protection from that order any more. Does the Minister believe they know?

Mr. Colley

I know they know a great deal more about the whole situation, about what has been done by the company to prepare, about what is being done—a great deal more than the Deputy obviously.

Mr. Dillon

I do not think that is quite true but I invited the Minister to answer. Do the people whose livelihood is to be affected by this order appreciate that it comes to an end 12 months from now, and that thereafter, according to Deputy Lenihan, let nobody look to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to take further action; the responsibility of providing continued employment on a remunerative basis rests squarely on the management of Dunlops.

Mr. Colley

They know this. They have been told this in public. I do not know where Deputy Dillon was when this happened but his whole case is based on a false premise.

Mr. Dillon

I know the management of Dunlops since before the Minister was born and I am as certain as I am standing in this House that there is no more efficient management in Ireland than the management of Dunlop's factory. Let us be clear about it. If the management of Dunlop's factory is not good enough for the world in which we live, then there is no management in Europe with any prospect of survival. I do not believe that the kind of management Dunlops has sat on their hands for the past three years, trusting to God, like Mr. Micawber, that something would turn up. I do not believe that the management of Dunlops never spent a penny in order to enhance the competitiveness or the efficiency of the factory over which they preside and of the factory which provides the livelihood of hundreds of workers in the city of Cork. I am perfectly certain that the management of the Dunlop factory did all that reasonable men could possibly do to meet the requisitions made upon them by the Minister and his predecessor and those who spoke for the Government.

Is the case made here tonight that this whole problem of the arrival of tyres in this country at the rate of 15,400 a month is due to any laches or failure on the part of the management of Dunlops? Is that the Fianna Fáil case? If it is, it is time they made it. If that case is to be made, let it be made so that it can be challenged. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has recently referred to the eloquence of silence and compared it with the eloquence of words. Up to now the only positive explanation of the situation that has been provided has been provided by Deputy Lenihan, senior, and he says he supposes that Dunlops did what they could in the past three years, "for they have had three years" he said "to adapt themselves, and doubtless they will do still more in the year that lies ahead".

Let us all agree that the management of Dunlops did all that a competent, diligent, effective management could do for three years. Deputy Lenihan, who claims to know the inner workings of the Dunlop factory says that, to his knowledge, they were keenly aware of the problems that lay ahead and that, to his knowledge, they were doing all in their power to adapt themselves to that situation. Let us all agree that this is so. Deputy Wyse is here from Cork to correct me if I am wrong, and Deputy Healy is here. Do they allege that Dunlops did not do their part? All my information goes to show that the management of Dunlops did all in their power to bring the efficiency of that factory up to the highest level to which it was possible to bring it and they were dealing with a situation in which they had not an inexperienced staff. They have as well trained a staff as there is in any part of Ireland, France, Italy or Britain. I mention the three larger countries as the three great tyre producers in Europe: Goodyear, Dunlops and other British combines in Britain. The net result of the three years exercise which we all agreed had been made was that tyres were coming in at the rate of 15,400 a month. What does Deputy Healy or Deputy Wyse——

Mr. Cunningham

And Deputy French, the victor.

Mr. Molloy

He did not like to mention him.

Mr. Dillon

I told Deputy French that it is the customary courtesy of this House, while experienced swordsmen exchange what we may describe as legitimate political taunts—it is our hospitable habit not to expose a new and welcome colleague to the rigours of debate until he has grown accustomed to us——

Mr. Colley

Hear, hear.

Mr. Dillon

——until he gets to know that, though we say rough things, we do not mean them personally; they attach to a man's policy rather than to his person.

Mr. Colley

I can even remember the time when Deputy Dillon treated me in the same kind manner.

Mr. Dillon

Yes, but the Minister Colley and I have grown older since those happy salad days and I am on the way down and, I hope, he is on the way up.

Mr. Healy

That is a very nice thought.

Mr. Dillon

Which I feel sure Deputy Healy shares, or is he afraid of the fate that overtook his colleague who nearly got his block knocked off for backing both Deputy Colley and Deputy Haughey for the same job on the same night?

Mr. Healy

That is only imagination.

Mr. Dillon

However, I shall talk about tyres. We all agree that Dunlops did what they could, the management and the men, and are faced with a crisis now. Deputy Lenihan, speaking for Fianna Fáil says: "Let the management do their best for another 12 months and if they do not succeed then, do not blame the Minister. Do not ask the Minister for an explanation." What I want to know is: have the men been told? Are they going to be told, because they will want an answer to this question. It is not enough to tell us at the end of 12 months when this Quota Order reaches its conclusion. We want to know what is going to happen hereafter, and when you prepare your story, do not forget that full publicity has been given to our adhesion to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade but it is not understood in all its details by every workman in Dunlop's factory.

Whatever we propose to do when this Order comes to its end, we will have to do in the context not only of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement but of GATT as well. I have not heard anyone tell me here tonight, and I am as quick to hear as the next one, what the Government proposes to do. I think so large a body of men, so large a number of old established families in Cork are entitled to have at least 12 months notice wherein to plan their future. If we are in the position to give them the good news that there is no abridgment of the permanence of their employment and that they can plan on the assumption that no lesser volume of production or employment will be available in the Dunlop factory than has been heretofore, then we ought to give that assurance here and now, because nothing can be more cruel than to hold such people in the unendurable suspense as not knowing from month to month or from week to week what their future and the future of their families is to be.

Debate adjourned.